Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(~ <br /> <br />._~. <br /> <br />I 0, <br />i <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I .- <br />I UJ <br />i -- <br /> <br />I <br />II <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />August 25, 2009\ Volume 3 I No; 16 <br /> <br />of Commissioners (the "Board") for a conditional use permit (':CUP") <br />for development of a recreational vehicle ("RV") park on their property. <br />Under a county ordinance, an application for an RV park qualified as a <br />cluster development. A cluster development located on a lake classified <br />as "General Development" ("GD") required a CUP. The duCharmes' ini- <br />tial proposal sought approval of a 45-unit RV park that included access <br />to a GD-classifled lake and 19 boat slips. <br />The duCharmes' application was first considered by the county Plan- <br />ning Commission (the "Commission"). At public hearings on the CUP <br />application, residents and the Commission expressed concerns, regard- <br />ing, among others: the compatibility of the proposed RV park with the <br />surrounding area; density; and environmental impact on the lake. Ad- <br />dressing those concerns, in January 2008, the duCharmes amended their <br />application, reducing the number of RVs from 45 to 30 and the number <br />of boat slips from 19 to 8. <br />Eventually, the Commission voted to recommend that the Board deny <br />the' duCharmes' CUP application. It based the recommen9.ation on the <br />following four reasons: "(1) the potential cUmulative density [was] too <br />great, given the sensitive characteristics of the [lake]; (2) the increased <br />traffic ha[d] the potential to create safety hazards, on land and on water; <br />(3) the site [lacked] sufficient vegetation to adequately screen it from the <br />highway; and (4) the GD standard [wa]s inadequate to guide develop- <br />ment on the proposed RV park site." <br />While the Board considered the Commission's recommendation, the <br />duCharmes again modified their CUP application. The modlfication: "(1) <br />removed all lake access directly from the RV p~k; (2) removed all previ- <br />ously proposed boat slips; and (3) prohibited any dockrng on the prop- <br />erty's shoreline." <br />Eventually, the Board voted to deny the duCharmes' CUP applic~tion. <br />Its denial was based on the four reasons given by the Commission. <br />The duCharmes appealed the denial. They argued that the Board's de- <br />cision to deny their application was "arbitrary, capricious, and unsup- <br />ported bya rational basis." They contended that their modified applica- <br />tion satisfied all of the standards set forth under the county's Shoreland <br />Management Ordinance. <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />51 <br />