CU25-049 PC Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Marion County Code Enforcement commented: “Unauthorized business, significant vehicle traffic, numerous stored vehicles, RV habitation with gray water being dumped onto neighboring farm field. They called and reported RV was vacated; however, no inspection to prove otherwise. Admitted to RV habitation for over one year. All code violations must be resolved.” All other agencies either failed to comment or stated no comment on the proposal. PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS: 6. Marion County Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on January 6th, 2026. After issuing the hearing notice, one written comment from the public was submitted. At the hearing itself, verbal testimony was also taken. Comments from neighbors are summarized below. One neighbor on Lardon Rd NE submitted a letter of concern for the proposal leading up to the public hearing. This comment brought up concerns about the cleanliness of the out-house and garbage bins. This letter was not brought up at the hearing. A neighbor testified in opposition at the public hearing and brought up alleged unrelated violations on the subject parcel such as livestock storage, trash blowing on to other properties, graywater dumping, RV habitation, and noise issues. They did not address any activity related to the roofing business. The neighbor agreed with the conditions and found it fair that the home occupation could be approved if all code violations were resolved. The applicant rebutted against the neighbors claims that did not involve the proposed use. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS: Prior to deliberating on whether the applicants met the applicable criteria, the Planning Commission considered whether the proposed use required a conditional use permit, given concerns that the business may not meet the definition of a home occupation. The applicant testified that no business materials are stored on the property. As a subcontracted roofing business, all materials are delivered directly to job sites, waste is disposed of at licensed facilities, and no materials are brought back to the residence. The applicants clarified that the items listed in the application consist solely of personal tools, and that the work truck, dump truck, and flatbed trailer do not constitute materials. The only potential item located on the property is a portable restroom affixed to the flatbed trailer, which the Planning Commission determined does not constitute stored material. The applicants further testified that the portable restroom is regularly cleaned and maintained. Based on this information, the Planning Commission found the operation comparable to that of other tradespersons who commute to job sites and do not conduct business activities from their residence. The Planning Commission further noted that cited code violations were not land use–related and concluded that requiring a home occupation permit in this instance would set an inappropriate precedent. 7. Since the property is located in an EFU zone, the proposal must satisfy the conditional use criteria in MCC 17.136.060(A). Those requirements are: 1. The use will not force a significant change in, or significantly increase the cost of, accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use. Land devoted to farm or forest use does not include farm or forest use on lots or parcels upon which a non-farm or non-forest dwelling has been approved and established, in exception areas approved under ORS 197.732, or in an acknowledged urban growth boundary. For purposes of this section, a determination of forcing a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm and forest use or a determination of whether the use will significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use requires: (A) Identification and description of the surrounding lands, the farm and forest operations on those lands, and the accepted farm practices on each farm operation and the accepted forest practices on each forest operation; (B) An assessment of the individual impacts to each farm and forest practice, and whether the proposed use is likely to have an important influence or effect on any of those practices. This assessment applies practice by practice and farm by farm; and