Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/1998

Home

,- Z.B. January 25, 1998 -- Page 7 the same family, the building in which it conducted its operation was designed for occupancy by a single family, so its use was permitted. The city hearings officer denied Recovery House's application. Recovery House appealed to the city planning commission. The planning commission rejected Recovery House's argument that its use qualified as a permitted use. It claimed that if the phrase "designed or used" was read literally, intense nonresidential uses would be allowed in the zone in any structures that were originally designed for single-family residences. The com- mission then approved Recovery House's permit, subject to certain conditions. Recovery House appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), arguing the commission improperly found its use was not permitted as of right. The city claimed the issue was moot because it gave Recovery House what it asked for -- the conditional use permit. LUBA agreed, finding that by complying with the city's demand that it apply for a conditional use permit, Recovery House accepted the validity of that demand. LUBA dismissed Recovery House's appeal, finding that it had no authority to consider an appeal of a conditional use permit that had been applied for and granted. Recovery House appealed to court. DECISION: Reversed, returned to LUBA. LUBA had the authority to consider the merits of Recovery House's appeal. The matter was returned for LUBA to review the commission's conclusions. Recovery House did not get what it asked for; it may have gotten what it applied for, but its application for a conditional use permit was compelled by the city. Recovery House's principal argument throughout all the proceedings was that it didn't need a conditional use permit to operate the recovery facility. The planning commission considered the issue of whether Recovery House needed a conditional use permit, and decided that under the city's land use regulations it did need such a permit. This decision was adverse to Recovery House and involved a "land use decision," so LUBA had the authority to hear Recovery House's appeal. see also: MedfordAssembly of God v. City of Medford~ 681 P. 2d 790 (1984). see also: Holland v. City of Cannon Beach, 908 P..2d 838 (1995). Nonconforming Use . Nursing home seeks variance to build apartments in existing buildings Rudolph Steiner Fellowship Foundation v. De Luccia, 662 N. Y.S. 2d 411 (New York) 1997 In 1963, the Rudolph Steiner Fellowship Foundation got a special permit from the Town of Ramapo, N.Y., to operate a nursing home "with adjunct services and facilities." The home was in a single-family residential zone, and nursing homes were allowed only by special permit. The foundation's permit limited the nursing home use to no more than 10 percent of the property. The nursing home housed elderly residents with its employees and their