Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> 2 <br /> <br /> 4 <br /> $ <br /> 6 <br /> 7 <br /> 8 <br /> 9 <br /> 10 <br /> 11 <br /> 12 <br /> 13 <br /> 14 <br /> 15 <br /> 16 <br /> 17 <br /> <br /> 19 <br /> 2O <br /> 21 <br /> <br />g 23 <br />~ 24 <br />2~ <br />20 <br /> <br /> Page <br /> <br />BEFORE THE MARION COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER <br /> <br />In the Matter of the <br /> <br />Application of: <br /> <br />ERNEST AND HELEN WATSON <br /> <br />Case NO. CU/FP 88-8 <br />Clerk's Pile No. <br /> <br />CONDITIONAL USE/ <br />FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT <br /> <br />ORDER <br /> <br />Nature of the Application <br /> <br /> This matter comes before the Marion County Hearings Officer <br />on the appeal of the Planning Division decision approving the <br />application of Ernest and Helen Watson to place as a conditional <br />use a second farm dwelling on a three acre parcel in an EFU <br />(Exclusive Farm Use) zone, and to construct 32 fish rearing ponds <br />within the floodplain of Mill Creek on property located at 9914 <br />Mill Creek SE, Aumsville, Oregon (SS1, T8S, R1W; Tax Lot Nos. <br />56397-669 and 56408-000). <br /> <br />II. Relevant Criteria <br /> <br /> The standards and criteria relevant <br />found in the Marion County Comprehensive <br />Zoning Ordinance, Chapters 136 and 178. <br /> <br />to this application are <br />Plan, and Marion County <br /> <br />III. Public Hearing <br /> <br /> A public hearing was duly held on this application on March <br />$0, ],988. At the hearing, the Planning Division file was made <br />part of the record. The following persons appeared at the <br />hearing and provided testimony on the application: <br /> <br />1, Sterling Anderson <br />2. Richard Adair <br />3. Larry Klein <br /> Paulette Klein <br /> <br />Planning Division <br />Appellant <br />Appellant <br />Appellant <br /> <br /> No objection was raised as to notice, jurisdiction, <br />conflicts of interest, or to evidence or testimony presented at <br />the hearing. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sterling Anderson presented a written statement from the <br />applicants asking that CU 88-8 be withdrawn. The Hearings <br />Officer asked Mr. Anderson whether the entire application or just <br />the conditional use be withdrawn. There was no answer to this <br />question. AppeIlants were present and ready to present their <br />issues on appeal. Therefore, the Conditional Use 88-8 appeal is <br />dismissed as withdrawn by applicant and the hearing shall proceed <br />on Floodplain Development Permit 88-8. The record was Ieft open <br /> <br /> <br />