HO Decision (532) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1110 • VI. Additional Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law 1. Applicants have the burden of proving by a ponderance of the evidence that all applicable standards and criteria are met as explained in Riley Hill General Contractor, Inc. v. Tandy Corporation, 303 Or 390, 394-395(1987). "Preponderance of the evidence" means the greater weight of evidence. It is such evidence that when weighed with that opposed to it, has more convincing force and is more probably true and accurate. If, upon any question in the case, the evidence appears to be equally balanced, or if you cannot say upon which side it weighs heavier, you must resolve that question against the party upon whom the burden of proof rests. (Citation omitted). 2. Applicants must prove, by substantial evidence in the record, it is more likely than not that each criterion is met. If the evidence for any criterion is equal or less, applicants have not met their burden and the application must be denied. If the evidence for every criterion there's a hair or breath in applicant's favor the burden of proof is met and the application is approved. 3. Under MCC 16.42.110, where a determination about a proposed use, structure or the legality of a parcel cannot be made without interpretation or the exercise of factual, policy or legal judgment, the proposed use, structure or the legality of a lot or parcel may be reviewed as an administrative review subject to submitted of an application as provided in Chapter 16.36 of the Marion County Code. 4. Under MCC 16.42.110(A), the zoning administrator or designee may forward any land use permit or application to the hearings officer for a public hearing and initial decision. The hearings officer may hear and decide this matter. 5. Friends of Marion County submitted comments supporting denial based on an alleged violation of the agricultural building permit. The Application before the hearings officer is an administrative review to determine the Applicant's rights to construct a dwelling on the subject property based on a Measure 49 final order. There is no enforcement matter regarding the subject property and the hearings officer has subject matter jurisdiction of the application. 6. The State of Oregon granted a waiver' under Measure 49 from state land use regulations, subject to the terms contained the Final Order and Home Site Authorization. The subject property was the subject of Measure 49 Election Number E133582. As part of the final Order, the State found that the Claimant qualified for one home site, subject to the terms stated in the final order, specifically, the terms stated in Section IV (Home Site Authorization). 6 Case No. AR 21-038 — ORDER Fogarty