Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/04/2010

Home

, ,,",- :;, . ," .. .... ~ '. 10-' 62 . ' ~_.~ . January 10, 2010 I Volume 41 No.1 Zoning Bulletin The Superior Court affirmed the county commissioner's decision to Co...) issue the permit. It dismissed the orchardists' action. The orchardists appealed. The Court's Decision: Decision to issue permit affirmed. The Court of Appeals of. Washington agreed with the county. It held that a recreational overlay district is not a zoning amendment- and thus can not be challenged as such under the GMA.The court ex- plained: A recreational overlay is not a zoning amendment because it does not change the zoning; it is a special use overlay of existing zones since it allows a recr~ational use that is not otherwise allowed in a par- ticular zone. Here, the court noted that: the county's comprehensive plan encour- . aged "developing. tr.ail system" as an alternative mode of transporta- tion; and the county development regulations authorized the recre- ational overlay permit for the trail. The court found that State Parks' recreational overlay district permit was both site-specific and consistent with the comprehensive plans and county development regulations. Moreover, there was no change to the zoning classification of land underlying or contiguous to the overlay district. The court concluded that State Parks' recreational overlay district was therefore properly re- viewed as a project permit rather than a rezone. Accordingly, it could not be challenged under the GMA. . See also: Woods v. Kittitas COUrzty, 162 Wash. 2d 597, 174 P.3d 25 (2007). Case Note: The court further held that, even if State Parks' recre- ational overlay district was an amendment to the countis compre- hensive plan, the orchardists' challenge was too late. The orchard- ists had 60 days from the adoption of the county's comprehensive plan to bring a challenge that the use of a recreational overlay in art agricultural zone violated the GMA. Validity of Zoning Regulations-Landowner says township must develop its own comprehensive plan before adopting ordinance covering unincorporated areas Township maintains ~tate law allows it to rely on county's comprehensive plan Citation: RJ.Alan Co. v. Congress Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2009- Ohio-5863, 2009 WL 3837336 (Ohio 2009) 10 @ 2010 Thomson Reuters -;.,:. fT l;j....... ."'~ c....:....... -' }- '- ./'- c. ...-:..-,-~--.-.:'t1l . ."-'.f' r' .... :