CU25-014 PC Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4. Any noise associated with the use will not have a significant adverse impact on nearby land uses. The applicant states that no noise will be associated with the home occupation, as the services take place off the property. This lack of noise indicates no significant adverse impact on nearby land uses. Neighbors provided written comments and testimony at the hearing that there are many noises created by the vehicles on the property, and other unrelated activities on the property. Specifically, the neighbors state that the applicant frequently accelerates his vehicle’s engines in a loud manner. This applicant’s alleged habit may be at odds with the Marion County Noise ordinance (MCC 8.45) between the hours of 10pm to 7am but is not specifically related to the proposed tow truck business. The Planning Commission finds that this criterion is met. 5. The use will not have a significant adverse impact on potential water impoundments identified in the Comprehensive Plan, and not create significant conflicts with operations included in the Comprehensive Plan inventory of significant mineral and aggregate sites. There are no water impoundments, mineral or aggregate sites identified in the comprehensive plan near this property. The criterion is met. 7. Notwithstanding MCC 17.110.270 and 17.120.075, home occupations, including the parking of vehicles in-conjunction with the home occupation and bed and breakfast inns, are subject to the following criteria in MCC 17.136.060 (C): (a) A home occupation or bed and breakfast inn shall be operated by a resident of the dwelling on the property on which the business is located. Including residents, no more than five full-time or part-time persons shall work in the home occupation (“person” includes volunteer, nonresident employee, partner or any other person). The applicant attests in the application statement that the home occupation is carried out by the residents of the subject parcel, Brett Fobert and his business partner who lives on the property. At the public hearing before the planning commission, the applicant mentioned a third employee who is offsite and always “on the road”. In conversations with staff, the applicant stated that he employs farm workers. The applicant has not shown any evidence that they farm the subject parcel or any other parcel. There are five tow trucks on the property and the applicant explains that he and his business partner each need a wrecker and a flat bed depending on the job, and that the fifth vehicle is a spare. At the public hearing before the planning commission, testimony in opposition stated that there was a sixth vehicle.