Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/1999

Home

Page 4 -- March 25, 1999 Z.B. Even if all Sadlowski's factual allegations were true, the city officials weren't liable. State law protected public employees from liability for any damages caused by negligence. Sadlowski couldn't show city officials' duty to inspect or en- force regulations regarding the neighbor's property created a special relation- ship with him, because Sadlowski's alleged harm was caused by his neighbor -- not city officials. .. The officials had immunity for all discretionary duties. Any decisions they made with respect to the alleged zoning violations involved discretion regard~ lng whether to allocate public resources to investigate and pursue an enforce~ ment action against the neighbor. These were exactly the kinds of decisions protected by immunity. Moreover, state law also provided immunity for the failure to inspect property for code violations. see also: McNamara v. Honeyman, 546 N.E. 2d 139 (1989). see also: Onofrio v. Department of Mental Health, 562 N.E. 2d 1341 (2990). Rezoning -- State transportation department challenges county's grant of rezoning request Citation: Departmen~ of Transportation v. Coos County, CoUrt of Appeals of Oregon, No. CA A104203 (~999) Menasha Development Corporation owned a 125-acre parcel in Coos County, Ore. The property was zoned "exclusive farm," but Menasha wanted to develop the property as a residential subdivision. Access to the property was via local roads onto a state highway.. Menasha asked the county to rezone the property to rural residentiai, which would allow up to 25 residential homes On five-acre lots. State law required that if a land use amendment significantly affectbd a transportation facility like the highway in question, certain mitigation mea- sures had to be included. An amendment "significantly affected" a facility if it reduced the level of service below the minimum acceptable level identified in the state Transportation System Plan. "Level of service" described the quality of traffic flow. Levels A to C were considered good, while urban streets and signalized intersections were typically designed for level of service D. Level of service E was considered the limits of acceptable delay, while level F was considered unaccept.able by most drivers. The highway near Menasha's prop- erty had a minimum acceptable level of C. Menasha claimed its traffic study showed the proposed.rezoning would have no significant effect on the highway. The study showed the highway op- erated at a level of service E, well below the minimum acceptable level. The study apparently showed the proposed subdivision would add enough traffic that the highway's reserve capacity would be reduced by 29 percent, from 28 vehicles per peak hour to 20 vehicles per peak hour. The county agreed that the proposed rezoning wouldn't have a significant