Laserfiche WebLink
fireworks, and a transportation element of the towing business that was not addressed in <br />the application. <br /> <br />Neighbors suggested that if the applicant has not complied with county ordinance and <br />state law in the past, then the applicant may not comply with conditions of approval <br />placed upon this proposed home occupation. <br /> <br />1,000 Friends of Oregon commented in opposition of the application, specifically <br />pointing out that the application materials do not satisfy the farm impacts test criteria, and <br />that the staff recommendation does not adequately address the farm impacts test criteria. <br />The Friends also pointed out that there is no way for a commercial tow truck business to <br />comply with MCC 17.136.060(C)(1)(b) that requires a home occupation to be <br />substantially operated within either the dwelling or other buildings normally associated <br />with uses permitted in the zone (excluding buildings built with agricultural exemption <br />permits in which home occupations are not permitted). The Friends referred to some <br />sections of MCC 17.120.075, but this section does not apply to home occupations on <br />EFU. <br /> <br />Fobert Farms Inc. commented via a letter delivered to the public hearing by a registered <br />agent of Manton Carl LLC. The letter explained concern about potential confusion <br />resulting from the recently registered (5/27/2025) “Fobert Farm and Ranch LLC” which <br />sounds very similar to their company name. Fobert Farms Inc. stated they have no <br />connection with the applicant beyond being a distant family relation, that the applicant <br />has never been involved in their farms, and that to their knowledge the subject parcel has <br />been leased to a commercial farmer for the last 40+ years. <br /> <br />Manton A. Carl LLC commented in opposition of the application, specifically stating that <br />commercial use proposed by the applicant is inappropriate in the exclusive farm use zone. <br />Also, that the additional traffic would negatively affect their farming operation which <br />includes hundreds of acres south of the applicant. Also, that the conversion of the <br />farmland on the subject parcel negatively affects future generations of farmers by <br />permanently removing the land from agricultural production. <br /> <br />Prior to the public hearing the applicant submitted supplementary materials including <br />pictures showing vehicles with logos that say, “Fobert Farms LLC”, pictures of gravel <br />under the vehicles, vehicle bills of sale, maps of the area around the subject parcel, and <br />comments and pictures alleging active code violations and/or criminal activity taking <br />place on approximately 22 neighboring properties. <br /> <br />Written comments submitted prior to, and during, the public hearing before the Planning <br /> Commissioners are available in full in the case file. <br /> <br />ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS: <br /> <br />6. Since the property is located in an EFU zone, the proposal must satisfy the conditional <br />use criteria in MCC 17.136.060(A). Those requirements are: <br /> <br /> 1. The use will not force a significant change in, or significantly increase the cost of, <br /> accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest <br />use. Land devoted to farm or forest use does not include farm or forest use on lots <br />or parcels upon which a non-farm or non-forest dwelling has been approved and