Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/1998

Home

i: Z.B. December 24, 1997 -- Page 7 The city could amend its zoning ordinance under its police powers whenever it determined circumstances and conditions warranted such changes. In this case, the setback restriction served no purpose when applied to properties bounded by abandondd streets. For this reason, the city council found it in the best interests of the public to amend the definition of comer lots. This decision clearly rested in the sound discretion of the council. The amendment was not arbitrary and did not singularly benefit the ' Lauridsens. It applied to all properties in the city, including a number of other properties bounded by abandoned roads. The Shrivers were not entitled to damages based on the anticipated construction of a garage on the Lauridsens' property. They had no right to an unobstructed view across a private lot that complied with all applicable zoning restrictions and setback lines. . see also: Neuzil v. City of Iowa City, 451 N. W. 2d 159 (1985). see also: Mohr v. Midas Realty Corp., 431 N.W. 2d 380 (1988). Notice -- Did citizens' appeal of board's decision meet state notice requirements? Ray v. Douglas .County, 941 P.2d 558 (Oregon) 1997 The Yards sought approval from Douglas County, Ore., to operate a recreation- al vehicle campground. The county granted the Yards a conditional use permit. Ray and other neighbors challenged the county's decision to grant the permit. The county's Land Use Board of Appeals sent the issue back to the county for reconsideration. It notified Ray and the others of its decision by mail on Feb. 6, 1997. Later, believing it forgot to notify all the parties involved, the board again sent notice of its decision on Feb. 12. Ray received both mailings. Ray asked a court to review the board's decision. Under state law, such appeals had to be filed within "21 days following the date [the board] delivered or mailed the order [being appealed]." Ray filed an appeal on Feb..27 m 21 days after he received the Feb. 6 notice. State law also required that parties seeking court review notify the opposing party "by registered or certified mail" within the 21-day time limit. Ray sent the Yards (the opposing party) notification by ordinary mail. The Yards received it Feb. 28 -- 22 days after Ray received the board's Feb. 6 notice. The county asked the court to dismiss Ray's appeal, arguing Ray failed to notify the Yards within the time limit. Ray objected. He claimed the time limit didn't start tO run until Feb. 12, the date of the board's second mailing. DECISION: Appeal dismissed. Ray failed to comply with the state's notice requirement, so he could not appeal the board's decision. Ray had 21 days to notify the Yards of his appeal, starting from the date he got the board's first letter. That the board twice notified Ray of its decision didn't change the fact that Ray knew about the decision Feb. 6. He had until Feb. 27 to notify the Yards of his appeal. The Yards received notice on Feb. 28,