CU24-043 HO Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

15. On March 12, 2025, Opponent Mikel B. Hitz submitted a statement in opposition to the Application during the first open record period. Mr. Hitz challenged the amount of usable farmland that would be destroyed by a gravel or paved driveway from Union School Road to the proposed dwelling site, and urged locating the dwelling at the southwest corner. Mr. Hitz also questioned the accuracy of the soil reclassification and questioned the ability to generate an accurate soil reclassification based upon the property condition. 16. On March 27, 2025, Applicant provided its final submittal into the record. Applicant's final submittal addressed the approval criteria and addressed opposition testimony regarding (1) questions regarding the soil assessment; (2) EFU zoning; (3) prior commercial farming; and (4) development of the proposed dwelling. VI. 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 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). 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 January 13, 2025. 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 January 13, 2025. Bernhard and Patricia Hitz are interested persons and appealed the Planning Director's decision on January 27, 2025. The appeal objects to adjustment of the EFU setback guidelines and soil reclassification. 3. Applicant objected to the Appeal on a jurisdictional basis. Applicant argues that Appellant failed to raise any inaccuracies in the Application or Decision. The Hearings Officer determines that the appeal may proceed as the Appellants, who are self -represented parties, arguably challenge the soil reclassification as an inaccuracy in the Application addresses the setback determination in the Decision. 4. Under MCC 17.119.150, on appeal of the Planning Director's decision, the hearings officer shall conduct a de novo public hearing on the decision. The hearings officer may hear and decide the matter. CU 24-043 — ORDER MKI CONSTRUCTION, LLC Page 5