Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin to the higher priority lands (e.g., nonagricultural land) due to physi- cal constraints. In the city, a highway physically separated the UGB from. another area that was not designated for agricultural uses. LUBA had found that the city and county properly concluded that because of the high cost of extending urban services across the high- way, urban services could not reasonably be provided in that other area, thus justifying inclusion of the lower priority agricultural land. The court agreed. In doing so, the court found the state highway was a "physical constraint" under the statute. The court also rejected the Residents' argument that findings on policies in the city's comprehensive plan regarding community form, growth management, and transportation needs were irrelevant when determining the location of the UGB expansion. The court said those findings were relevant to location factors set forth in Goal 14 that allowed the comparison of needed transportation improvements in alterative expansion areas as part of the "orderly and economic pro- vision of public facilities. and services." The court said it was also proper to consider the effects of an expansion on compact growth and community form in comparing the social consequences of the alternative expansion areas. See also: D.S. Parklane Development, Inc. v. Metro, 165 Or. App. 1, 994 P.2d 1205 (2000). See also: City of West Linn v. Land Conse?'vation and Development Com'n, 201 Or. App. 419, 119 P.3d 285 (2005). Non-Conforming Use-Residents argue addition of tent for outdoor dining area at restaurant is a separate or expanded use Residents challenge issuance of revised zoning certificate of occupancy; they say special permit is required Citation: Piesco v. Hollihan, 47 A.D.3d 938, 849 N. Y.S.2d 671 (2d Dep't 2008) NEW YORK (Ol/29/08)-Kilerciyan Properties operated a ma- rina and restaurant in the village. The property was zoned WF-2, a waterfront district where no uses were permitted as of right, but where marinas and restaurants were permitted by special permit. The use of the property as a marina and restaurant pre-dated the en- actment of the zoning ordinance requiring a special permit. After Kilerciyan erected an unenclosed tent over the area used for outside dining, the village issued a revised zoning certificate of oc- cupancy (CO). That revised zoning CO identified the restaurant as having a seasonal tent and declared that the property "predate[d] 6 24