CU25-014 PC Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The applicant received code enforcement letters regarding solid waste, operating an automotive repair business out of an agricultural structure, and operating a tow truck business on EFU. This applicant sought to resolve the latter two issues by permitting the parking of tow trucks and clarifying that the tow truck business was not related to the use of the agricultural building. The applicant stated that the agricultural building and surrounding parking lot was for the storage of farm vehicles, and that the automotive repair equipment was solely used for farm vehicles and equipment utilized by his family farm. The applicant has not been able to provide any evidence to support his statements about the use of the agricultural building. The applicant has not been able to provide evidence sufficient to meet the criteria required for approval of the conditional use home occupation permit. Testimony provided by neighbors at the public hearing directly contradict the statements made by the applicant regarding the proposed tow truck business, and the use of the agricultural structure. The approval of this land use permit would not correct the violations on the subject parcel, and therefore even if the criteria for the home occupation were met, the proposal cannot be approved. DELIBERATION: On June 3rd, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing about the proposed conditional use home occupation tow truck business. The staff summary was heard. The applicant and his business partner provided testimony. Testimony from neighbors in opposition was heard. Written testimony from neighbors in opposition was received. 1,000 Friends of Oregon phoned in and delivered testimony in opposition. The applicant and his business partner provided rebuttal to comments from opposition. Deliberations were held regarding MCC 17.110.680, and whether approval of this application could resolve existing code enforcement. Testimony indicated that the application would not resolve existing code enforcement. Testimony also demonstrated that the application did not meet the required criteria. DECISION: At the June 3rd, 2025, meeting, after reviewing testimony in the record and presented at the hearing, a motion was made and seconded to DENY the proposal. The motion passed unanimously. SIGNED AND FINALIZED THIS 16th day of June, 2025 By Brandon Reich Planning Commission Secretary Notice to Mortgagee, Lienholder, Vendor or Seller: ORS Chapter 215 requires that if you receive this Notice, it must promptly be forwarded to the purchaser.