My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Ord 1434
Images9
>
Public Works - Planning
>
FOR PUBLIC VIEW ON INTERNET
>
Old Cases
>
Ord 1434
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/1/2022 11:02:16 AM
Creation date
10/30/2024 4:10:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Land Use
Case_Number
21-001
Document_Date
5/13/2021
Land Use Type
Zone Change
Tax_Lot_Number
041W34D000600
Document_Type
Decision
Site_Address
17874 SHANK RD NE
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
southern 3 acres become part of Wing's Industrial parcel Tax Lot 800 to the south, while <br /> having the northern 2 acres of Tax Lot 600 become part of the Meyerhofers' EFU parcel <br /> Tax Lot 400 to the north. If the entire application is approved, the result would be two <br /> parcels where there were once three — the Meyerhofers' 4.71-acre EFU parcel Tax Lot <br /> 400 to the north and Wing's 8.71-acre Industrial parcel Tax Lot 800 to the south. <br /> An applicant has the burden of proving all applicable standards and criteria are <br /> met. As explained in Riley Hill General Contractor, Inc. v. Tandy Corporation, 303 Or <br /> 390 at 394-95 (1987): <br /> "`Preponderance of the evidence' means the greater weight of evidence. It is such <br /> evidence that, when weighed with that opposed to it, has more convincing force <br /> and is more probably true and accurate. If, upon any question in the case, the <br /> evidence appears to be equally balanced, or if you cannot say upon which side it <br /> weighs heavier, you must resolve that question against the party upon whom the <br /> burden of proof rests." (Citation omitted.) <br /> An applicant must prove, by substantial evidence in the whole record, that it is <br /> more likely than not that each criterion is met. If the evidence for any criterion is equally <br /> likely or less likely, an applicant has not met its burden and the application must be <br /> denied. If the evidence for every criterion is in an applicant's favor, then the burden of <br /> proof is met and the application must be approved. <br /> This is a recommendation to the Marion County Board of Commissioners (the <br /> Board). The Board is the final decision-making authority. <br /> VI. DISCUSSION <br /> This application seeks an irrevocably committed exception to Goal 3, a <br /> comprehensive plan amendment, a zone change, and a property line adjustment. The staff <br /> report finds that all of the applicable approval criteria are satisfied. There is no opposition <br /> to the application or disputed issues. I agree with the staff report that all of the applicable <br /> approval criteria are satisfied. This type of application requires extensive findings. The <br /> CP/ZC/PLA 21-001 -RECOMMENDATION-4 <br /> WING PROPERTIES,LLC <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.