CU24-043 HO Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7. Alex Seifer, Marion County Planning, presented the Staff Report with approved the Application. Mr. Seifer stated that the Applicant presented evidence in support of the criteria and adjustment, addressed all criteria for a conditional use permit, and met such criteria, with conditions of approval. 8. Margaret Gander-Vo, attorney for Applicant, stated that Applicant has demonstrated through substantial evidence in the record that the Application satisfies the applicable approval criteria and that reasonable conditions of approval allow Applicant to comply with the criteria. Applicant also noted that the opposition does not address the applicable approval criteria or provide evidence into the record that rebuts the evidence provided by Applicant that it has satisfied applicable approval criteria. 9. Nancy J. Bowman Holt testified in opposition to the application. Ms. Bowman Holt testified that she supports maintaining the agricultural lands and soil of Willamette Valley. Ms. Bowman Holt testified that she also has a specific objection to the proposal, specifically, the reclassification of soils. 10. Don Holt testified at the hearing. Mr. Holt testified regarding his concerns about the soil study and revised classification. Mr. Holt also raised concerns about the size of the culvert and that there are other areas on the subject property that would be more suitable for improvements to maintain the historic use of the property. 11. Patricia Hitz testified at the hearing. Ms. Hitz testified that a non -farm dwelling should not dictate what is farmed on the subject property. Ms. Hitz testified that the EFU zone is dedicated to save farmable land, and that the former owner's hazelnut orchards were in production. Ms. Hitz stated that she disagrees with the propriety of a soil reclassification which she believes was completed solely for the purpose of attempting to get authority for a home to be placed on the property. Ms. Hitz testified that she disagrees with a variance to setbacks. 12. Bernhard Hitz testified at the hearing. Mr. Hitz stated that he challenges that the Applicant's soil that is just across the fence is of a different quality than the soil on his property. Mr. Hitz stated that the former owner produced hazelnuts and urged that the property be continued as an exclusive farm use zone. 13. In rebuttal on behalf of Applicant, Margaret Gander-Vo stated that the code allows for flexibility and that the Applicant does not seek to change the zoning from the EFU zone. Ms. Gander-Vo stated that the soil study was done by a professional and was DLCD approved. Ms. Gander-Vo stated that the non -farm dwelling would be placed where the weakest soils exist on the property. Ms. Gander-Vo confirmed that the study area was properly submitted into the record and establishes compliance with the applicable criteria. Ms. Gander-Vo also stated that the Applicant is willing to provide vegetative screening. 14. On March 10, 2025, a submission was received from Opponent Donald Holt. Mr. Holt indicates that he supports a setback of at least 100 feet, and challenges Applicant's position that the property could not be viable for agricultural use. Mr. Holt disagrees that the property is not usable for commercial agriculture based upon the soil classification because the property has historically been in agricultural production. CU 24-043 — ORDER MKI CONSTRUCTION, LLC Page 4