CU24-028 BOC Order - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

about the use of an easement being used as a parking lot by Applicant's employees. Mr. Beilke states that the use of the property seems to be industrial in nature and notes the possible expansion of use on EFU property. 9. Marion County Planning Department, Alex Seifer, presented the Staff Report. Mr. Seifer noted that this Application was in response to ongoing code violations. Mr. Seifer stated the specific criteria in the Marion County Code for approval of the application, and stated that the Applicant met the conditions for approval with the proposed conditions of approval. New information received by Planning after the appeal was filed indicates that there are potential impacts to nearby farming operations, which require additional support from Applicant. The new information was related to the impact of noise on surrounding uses. Mr. Seifer indicated that the noise that should be considered is the noise of the entire operation as a whole, not just the noise related to periods of active mulching. Mr. Seifer addressed the "75-25" rule which has historically been recognized, specifically with respect to farm stand code, and examines whether at least 75% of use or revenue is dedicated to the commercial operations. In this case, Mr. Seifer indicated that 9% of the total area is used for storing logs, and 91 % of the total area is used for mulching operations. In reply to the hearings officer's inquiry, Mr. Seifer stated that the area used for the storage of vehicles should be considered as part of the percentage dedicated to commercial activity, to the extent that the vehicles and equipment are used for the mulching operation, including equipment and vehicles used to move material. 10. Mark Shipman, attorney for the Applicant, requested approval of the Staff Decision, and stated that issues raised in the appeal and opposition have been addressed, and would be further addressed during an open record period. 11. Marvin Klopfenstein, Applicant, testified at the hearing. Mr. Klopfenstein testified about the operations at the Subject Property. Mr. Klopfenstein testified that his primary operation is Mountain View Tree Service, and that he does not consider the Subject Property as part of his primary operations. Mr. Klopfenstein testified that he grew up on a farm and is understanding of the Appellants and Opponents' positions. Mr. Klopfenstein testified that material from the tree service is deposited at the Subject Property and divided out to some non -farm uses (wood), and then the mulch production operations supply farm uses in the surrounding area. Mr. Klopfenstein testified that, unlike his competitors who burn or place debris in landfills, he is committed to using the product to benefit multiple farmers. Mr. Klopfenstein testified that he benefits local farming operations by providing mulch without cost. Mr. Klopfenstein testified that the issues that have arisen with use of the Subject Property have been alleviated with the installation of a berm, dust mitigation practices, and the fact that there will not be burning on the property. Mr. Klopfenstein also addressed loading and unloading on the roadway, and concerns with the access. Mr. Klopfenstein testified that the grinding is about 40-60 hours annually, and acknowledged that there is also chainsaw noise. Mr. Klopfenstein acknowledged that the equipment and vehicles do move in and out of the site in addition to the active mulching operation. CU 24-028 - ORDER Klopfenstein Page 5 Page 10 of 26