Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/1998

Home

Page 4 -- December 24, 1997 Z.B. property. The recording of a subdivision plat was needed to partition property a plat deeded the public rights of way and common areas, and served to create legally recognized lots within a subdivision. see also: Robinson v. Lintz, 420 P. 2d 923 (1966). see also: State v. Swenson, 809 P. 2d 1185 (1991). Nonconforming Use-- Did sporadic use of qUarry co. nstitute 'interruption' under ordinance? Tigard Sand and Gravel Inc. v. Clackarnas County, 943 P. 2d 1106 (Oregon) 1997 Since before 1973, .Tigard Sand and Gravel Inc. operated a quarry in Clackamas County, Ore. The county passed a zoning ordinance in 1973, and the quarry became a nonconforming use. ' From 1973 to about 1984, Tigard ran an active, ongoing quarry operation. In 1984, it stopped ali crushing and quarrying activities but kept stockpiles of crushed materials on the property. Tigard made small, incidental sales of the stockpiled materials until about 1987. By the end of 1988, no identifiable quarry activity occurred on the property. From 1989 through 1991, Tigard's property was used as a firewood- processing and wood-sorting business. Apparently, the stockpiled stone re- mained there. After 1991, Tigard resumed its quarry operation. Under the county's zoning ordinance, nonconforming uses that had been interrupted or abandoned for more than 12 consecutive months could not be resumed without conforming to current zoning regulations. Tigard apparently asked a county hearing officer to declare it had not interrupted or abandoned its quarry operation fr6m 1984 through 1991. At a hearing, there was evidence Tigard conducted no quarrying activities, it removed essential quarrying equipment, and it left the site unmaintained after 1984. Tigard claimed the remaining stockpiles were proof the quarry use hadn't been interrupted. The hearing officer found Tigard had interrupted the quarry use from 1984 through 1989, when quarry operations were merely sporadic. The officer also found the use had been abandoned in 1989 when the property was leased for a firewood processing business. Tigard therefore could not resume its quarry operation. Tigard asked the Land Use Board of Appeals to review the officer's decision. It pointed to another quarry operation a court found had not been interrupted. In that decision, the court found the quarry's operations had fluctuated throughout its 30-plus~year history. Because fluctuation was normal in that case, a single lull in operations didn't constitute "interruption." The board agreed with the hearing officer, distinguishing the other case from Tigard's. It found any use Tigard had for the property now had to conform with the current zoning regulations. Tigard appealed the board's decision to court. DECISION: Affirmed.