Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/05/1999

Home

Page 6 -- November 25, 1998 Z.B. The court affirmed the board's decision, and Hoey appealed again. DECISION:Affirmed. Although the zoning ordinance was ambiguous, the board's interpretation was reasonable. If Hoey wanted to build a sign larger than 96 feet, it had to apply for a variance. The ordinance was ambiguous. The subject of the provision in question was "signs in Residential districts." The first subsection referred to "this dis- trict'' and limited signs to 2 square feet. The second subsection, though, again referred to "this district" but limited signs to 96 square feet. This subsection went on to mention forestry, conservancy, agricultural, commercial, and indus- trial districts. If both references to "this district' applied to the residential dis- tricts, the ordinance contradicted itself because it would limit signs in residen- tial districts to both 2 square feet and 96 square feet. If, however, the 96-foot restriction didn't apply to residential districts, the use of the term "in this dis- trict'' in the second subsection was confusing because it preceded the discus- sion of commercial districts. Although the ordinance was ambiguous, its purpose was clearly to pro- mote the health and safety of the county. The size restrictions implicated traffic safety because large signs could distract drivers or obstruct vision, and inter- preting the ordinance to place no limits on signs in commercial districts de- feated the purpose of the ordinance. Moreover, the county had consistently interpreted the ordinance in the past to limit signs in commercial districts to 96 feet, unless the applicant got a variance. see also: Hippler v. City of Baraboo, 178 N.W. 2d I (1970). Conditional Use m Treatment center and city wrestle over definition of 'single-family dwelling' Citation: Recovery House VI v. City of Eugene, Court of Appeals of Oregon, No. A102517 (1998) Recovery House VI ran a drug and alcohol recovery facility in a residential district in Eugene, Ore. A number of uses were permitted in the district, includ- ing single-family dwellings, group facilities for up to five persons, and daycare facilities for up to 12. The city code defined "dwelling, single family" as "a free-standing build- ing designed or used for the occupancy of one family." Recovery House's building was originally degigned for single-family occupancy. At the city's request, Recovery House applied to the city planning commis- sion for a conditional use permit allowing it to house 16 people in its facility. The commission approved Recovery House's application, but attached several conditions, to which Recovery House objected. The land use board of appeals affirmed the commission's decision. Recovery House appealed to court, and an appeals court ordered the board to reconsider whether Recovery House needed a permit. The board determined it did.