CU24-028 BOC Order - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

VI. Additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 1. Applicant has the burden of proving all applicable standards and criteria apply as explained in Riley Hill General Contractor, Inc. v. Tandy Corporation, 303 Or 390, 394- 395 (1987). "Preponderance of the evidence" means the greater weight of evidence. It is such evidence that when weighed with that opposed to it, has more convincing force and is more probably true and accurate. If, upon any question in the case, the evidence appears to be equally balanced, or if you cannot say upon which side it weighs heavier, you must resolve that question against the party upon whom the burden of proof rests. (Citation omitted). Applicants must prove, by substantial evidence in the record, it is more likely than not that each criterion is met. If the evidence for any criterion is equal or less, Applicants have not met their burden and the application must be denied. If the evidence for every criterion is even slightly in Applicant's favor, the burden of proof is met and the application is approved. 2. Under MCC 17.119.1001 the Planning Director has the power to decide applications for conditional uses. Under MCC 17.119.140, after the Planning Director's action on the application, interested persons may appeal the decision no later than 15 days after the decision is mailed. The Planning Director's approval was dated November 8, 2024. The Notice of Decision included the Appeal Procedure and stated that anyone who disagreed with the Director's decision may request the application be considered by a Marion County Hearings Officer. The Notice of Decision stated that all requests for reconsideration be received in the Marion County Planning Division by 5:00 p.m. on November 25, 2024. Courtney and Gordon Reed and Beverly and Chadwick McCarroll are interested persons and appealed the Planning Director's decision on November 25, 2024. Additional interested persons, Roger and Debby Weddle, appealed the Planning Director's decision on November 25, 2024. The appeals were timely because the Notices of Appeal submitted on November 25, 2024, which allows for a de novo public hearing. Under MCC 17.119.150, on appeal of the Planning Director's decision, the hearings officer shall conduct a de novo public hearing on the decision. The hearings officer may hear and decide the matter. 3. Under MCC 17.119.020, a conditional use application may only be filed by certain people, including the owner of the property subject to the application. A deed recorded in the county records at Reel 4491, Page 120 shows that Marvin W. Klopfenstein owns the subject property. The application was filed by appropriate persons. MCC 17.119.020 is satisfied. 4. Under MCC 17.119.025, a conditional use application shall include signatures of certain people, including all owners of the subject property. Marvin W. Klopfenstein owns the subject property and signed the application. MCC 17.119.025 is satisfied. CU 24-028 - ORDER Klopfenstein Page 9 Page 14 of 26