Laserfiche WebLink
The record was left open to allow additional submittals by the Applicant, Opponents, or <br />interested parties. The following submittals were received, and are included in the record: <br />Open Record Submittal 1: Steve Adelman Statement with Exhibits <br />(Received February 5, 2025) <br />Open Record Submittal 2: Applicant's Open Record Response 1 <br />(Received February 7, 2025) <br />Open Record Submittal 3: Applicant's Open Record Response 2 <br />(Received February 6, 2025) <br />Open Record Submittal 4: Additional Argument in Opposition to CUP 24-028 <br />(Received February 14, 2025) <br />Open Record Submittal 5: Additional Argument in Opposition to CUP 24-028 <br />(Received February 19, 2025) <br />Open Record Submittal 6: Final Submission by Applicant (Rebuttal) <br />(Received February 27, 2025) <br />IV. Executive Summary <br />Applicant seeks a conditional use permit to operate a mulching service as a commercial <br />activity in conjunction with farm use on a 9.72-acre parcel in an EFU (Exclusive Farm Use) zone <br />located at 5711 Brooklake Rd. NE, Salem, Oregon. Applicant proposes to designate his mulch <br />production operation as a commercial activity in the EFU zone. Applicant primarily operates an <br />off -site tree service company, and stores logs and tree debris on the Subject Property. Applicant <br />seeks a conditional use permit to produce mulch chips as a commercial activity and to provide the <br />mulch to nearby agricultural operations. <br />Marion County Planning Director approved the Application with conditions of approval, <br />and the approval was appealed by multiple interested parties. Based on new information, Marion <br />County Planning acknowledged after the appeal that additional information was necessary and <br />proposed additional conditions of approval. <br />Appellants and Opponent Adelman Peony Gardens, LLC and Steve Adelman challenged <br />whether the Application established that the proposed commercial activity had a sufficient <br />connection with farm use and was essential to the practice of farming. Opponents argue that the <br />proposed commercial activity fails the Farm Impacts Test. Opponents also argue that the proposed <br />commercial activity is secondary to a commercial non -farm use of the property in conjunction with <br />Applicant's tree service company. Opponents further dispute whether an approval could be <br />granted with a claim of ongoing violations that would not be cured by approval. <br />Applicant argues that the storage of logs, vehicles, and equipment is incidental to the <br />mulching operation, and that the Applicant meets criteria to support a sufficient connection with <br />CU 24-028 - ORDER <br />Klopfenstein <br />Page 2 <br />Page 7 of 26 <br />