Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/06/1999

Home

Page 6 -- February 25, 1999 Z.B. with the developer's complete application during a public hearing and approved the request with certain conditions to ensure the project complied with city codes. Nine years later, a homeowners association protested the developer's still- uncompleted development by challenging its special use permit. According to the association, the city arbitrarily issued the permit without enough evidence. The association also claimed that even if the permit was properly granted, the zoning ordinance's sunset clause prohibited the develop6r from completing the project. In 1997, the city had passed a sunset clause that made a special use permit null and void if the city council determined that "no significant progress" had been made in the first 12 months after approval of the permit. The city claimed it properly issued the permit and argued the sunset clause didn't apply to previously issued special use permits. The court concluded the city didn't act arbitrarily in issuing the permit. It also found the sunset clause didn't apply to the developer's previously issued permit. The homeowners' association appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The sunset clause didn't apply because it was enacted long after the city issued the developer a special permit. There was more than enough evidence that the city properly granted the developer a special permit. According to its zoning ordinance, the city had to consider the planning commission's recommendation, examine the proposed permit's effect on the surrounding area, and determine that the permit wouldn't harm the public. The record showed the'city's planning commission had rec- ommended approving the permit request after reviewing the application and the property. The city council considered the commission's recommendation and the developer's completed application and determined that a special per- mit was appropriate provided the developer abided by certain conditions. The city's 1997 sunset clause didn't apply to the developer's grocery and gas station. Nothing in the clause indicated it was to apply retroactively, and no law could apply retroactively unless it was clearly meant to do so. Moreover, when the city planning commission recommended enacting the sunset clause, it specifically noted the clause wouldn't affect previously issued permits. see also: Swanson v. City of Bloomington, 421 N. W. 2d 307 (1988). see also: Frank's Nursery Sales lnc. v. City of Roseville, 295N. W.2d 604 (1980). Lot Size Does public easement area count toward minimum lot size? Citation: Marshall v. City of Yachats, Court of Appeals of Oregon, No. CA A103508 (1999) Forrester wanted to build a house on his property in the city of Yachats, Ore. Part of his property was covered by a public easement for an unimproved county road that had been established in 1890. The county had transferred its rights to the state parks department, which used the easement as a public wal 'king trail.