BOC ORDER - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

13. Mary Judith Upright testified that she resides at 3197 Little Haven Lane, which is Tax lot 2000. Ms. Upright states that four houses are already served by Little Haven Lane and that she had been advised by Marion County that she could not partition her property for another dwelling because of the limitation of MCC 17.1 10.800. 14. Isabel Joslen testified that her daughter will be marrying Ms. Upr►ght's grandson, and in considering a home for them, they went to Marion County Planning and were told that no house could be built near Ms. Upright's home because there are already four houses served by Little Haven Lane. 15. Daniel Gorrell testified that he lives at 3298 Little Haven Lane. Mr. Gorrell testified that Little Haven Lane is a single lane, gravel road that enters Viewerest on a blind corner. Mr. Gorrell testified that there have been multiple accidents and crashes into the mailboxes. Mr. Gorrell testified that Little Haven Lane is not well-equipped to serve the houses that are presently served by Little Haven Lane, and the introduction of a fifth dwelling to be served by Little Haven Lane would increase the inherent danger. Exhibit 6 also includes a written statement by Mr. Gorrell in opposition to the Application. 16. Michael Paluska indicated the Applicant appreciates the concerns of the neighbors and wants a safe roadway for all the properties. However, because the road has not been built, it is not known if doing so is prohibitive. Mr. Paluska states that "difficulty" in improving the access does not indicate "impossibility" to improve the access. Mr. Paluska also notes that the criteria does not require the exact location of road construction for a conditional use permit and that permitting will address the issues associated with extension of the easement. V1. Additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 1. Applicant has the burden of proving all applicable standards and criteria apply as explained in Riley Hill General Conliwctor, 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). 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 is even slightly in Applicants' favor, the burden of proof is met and the application is approved. 2. Under MCC. 17.119.100, the Planning Director has the power to decide applications for conditional uses. The Planning Director decided this matter on March 15, 2024. Under MCC 17.119.140, after the Planning Director's action on the application, interested persons may appeal the decision no later than 15 days after the decision is mailed. The Planning Director's approval was dated March 15, 2024. Appellant Mary Judy Upright is an interested person and appealed the Planning Director's decision on March 27, 2024. Appellants Ted and Michelle Raszka are interested persons and appealed the Planning Director's decision on March 29, 2024. The appeals are timely. CU 24-006 — ORDER Joy M. Blackman Revocable Living "Trust Page 6