CU24-028 BOC Order - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

photographs taken by him on the date of the hearing that were admitted as Exhibits 1 and 2. The first photograph shows an intersection and the second shows a vehicle on neighboring properties. Mr. Adelman addressed noise consideration, and the possible trespass to neighboring properties based upon Mr. Beilke's submission. 16. In addressing the "easement" described by Mr. Beilke's letter and Mr. Adelman's testimony, Marion County Planning Alex Seifer clarified that there is not an "easement" but a dedicated county right of way. There is a public right of way, but not an easement. 17. Marion County Code Enforcement Officer Chad Goffin testified at the hearing. Mr. Goffin testified that he wanted to testify after hearing testimony presented at the hearing. Mr. Goffin testified about his belief that Mr. Klopfenstein did not respond to his correspondence. Mr. Goffin testified about the events leading up to the citation issued to Applicant arising out of his use of the property which led to Applicant's seeking conditional use of the property. Mr. Goffin addressed the multiple attempts to contact Applicant about code enforcement issues regarding the property. Mr. Goffin stated that Applicant told him he would be removing the equipment from the Subject Property and would consider purchasing alternate property with zoning to allow the proposed use. Mr. Goffin testified that he did not recall any discussions with Applicant regarding a mulching business, and understood that the property was being used as a staging area for the tree service operations. Mr. Goffin has not conducted any further site visits to the Subject Property, and did not offer a statement regarding whether the Applicant was currently in compliance. 18. Marvin Klopfenstein presented testimony in rebuttal to the testimony in opposition. Mr. Klopfenstein addressed that the testimony presented addressed noise complaints prior to the time when the berm and trees were placed on the property. With respect to the northward development of the property, Mr. Klopfenstein indicated his willingness not to proceed toward Mr. Weddle's property. Mr. Klopfenstein noted that only approximately 2 acres of the property would be used for the mulching operations. Mr. Klopfenstein stated that diseased trees are not taken to the Subject Property but rather are taken to a designated site for diseased trees. Mr. Klopfenstein stated that the farmers to whom he delivers mulch have told him that it is essential to their operations and submitted declarations to support the importance of the wood chips and mulch to their farming operations. Mr. Klopfenstein testified that the tree service operations do not occur on the property, and that the recent noise experienced by Mr. Weddle was from the excavation required to construct the berm, which will mitigate the impacts on neighboring properties. 19. Mark Shipman stated that he was not involved with the Stipulated Judgment reached with Marion County, but presently, because of the Planning Approval and compliance with the Stipulated Judgment, Applicant is in not in violation of the code. CU 24-028 - ORDER Klopfenstein Page 7 Page 12 of 26