CU24-028 BOC Order - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

20. Alex Seifer, Marion County Planning, stated that given the testimony and information received after the Staff Decision was appealed, Marion County Planning would be proposing additional conditions of approval if the Application were to be approved. The additional conditions of approval would include: (1) No parking or storage of vehicles in the County right of way; and (2) The hours of operation for the commercial activity should be restricted to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mark Shipman indicated that such conditions of approval would be accepted by Applicant. 21. Applicant requests that the testimony of Mr. Goffin be struck from the record as prejudicial to Applicant's rights to a fair and impartial hearing, and objects to the testimony on relevance grounds. Applicant states in his February 6, 2025 submission to the record that on November 12, 2024, Applicant and Marion County Legal Counsel entered into a Stipulated Judgment to resolve the outstanding citation matter. The Stipulated Agreement is included with Applicant's first submission during the open record period. The Stipulated Judgment provides that Marion County will not cite Applicant for alleged violations on the subject property until May 12, 2025. Applicant states that Applicant is in complete compliance with the Stipulated Judgment. 22. On February 5, 2025, Steve Adelman, member of Adelman Peony Gardens, LLC, submitted a Statement in Opposition to the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Adelman stated that he believes Applicant uses a "grinder" to destroy debris generated by nonfarm activities. Mr. Adelman argues that the grinder is extremely loud with major impacts to surrounding farms and properties. Mr. Adelman's statement, supported by Exhibits 1 and 2, argues that the noise generated by the grinder creates noise with decibels equivalent to a jet plane engine and that such noise is detrimental to nearby farming operations. 23. On behalf of Adelman Peony Gardens, LLC, Attorney Nicholas Rhoten, Matheny Law, provided additional argument dated February 12, 2025. (Open Record Submittal 4). Mr. Rhoten argues on behalf of Adelman Peony Gardens, LLC that the record fails to establish that mulch is "essential" and fails MCC 17.136.060(D)(4). Mr. Rhoten argues on Adelman's behalf that the proposed commercial activity is not primarily a customer or supplier of farm uses, and that the Application fails the Farm Impacts Test. Adelman Peony Gardens, LLC, through attorney Mr. Rhoten, argues that there are ongoing violations that are not cured by the Staff Decision or the Stipulated Judgment. Adelman states that the permit is not yet effective, and then argues that the cited violations are arguably ongoing. Adelman argues that the Application must be denied because the "violations" cannot be cured with approval. 24. Applicant's final submission (Rebuttal) dated February 27, 2025 addressed the arguments submitted by Opponents, specifically the Farm Impacts Test, Connection to Farm Use, Incidental Uses on the Subject Property, and Compliance with Marion County Code. CU 24-028 - ORDER Klopfenstein Page 8 Page 13 of 26