Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/1998

Home

Page 8- February 10, 1998 Z.B. subject to the restrictions and was aware of the restrictions at the time of purchase. Although the prior use of the gym for sporting events may have led Diana to believe her proposed uses of the gym were grandfathered, she had no reasonable expectation of entitlement to a use variance to use the property as a dormitory. Diana's purchase of the property at auction, which precluded her from making the purchase contingent on her getting a variance, didn't change the fact that she created her own hardship. Diana knew of the zoning restrictions before she bought the property, and was under no compulsion to buy the property. see also: Supkis v. Town of Sand Lake Zoning Board of Apl~eals, 642 N.Y.S. 2d 374. Sewers Development code prohibits construction of new sewer systems outside urban area Gisler v. Deschutes County, 945 P..2d 1051 (Oregon) 1997 Deschutes County, Ore., had a development code that required subdivi- sions to be connected to a county or municipal sewer system. Connection of proposed lots to a sewer system was a condition of tentative plat approval. Gisler wanted to develop property in a low-density residential zone that was neither connected to nor near a municipal sewer system. He therefore proposed separate septic systems for each subdivision lot. A county hearing officer denied Gisler's application because it didn't meet the sewer-connection requirement. Gisler appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals, which upheld the denial. Gisler asked a court to review the decision. He didn't deny his proposal failed to meei the county's sewer requirement. Rather, he argued the county's sewer requirement conflicted with one of Oregon's statewide planning goals (Goal 11). Goal 11 stated "[c]ounties shall not allow the establishment of new sewer systems outside urban growth boundaries." Gisler's property was out- side an urban growth boundary. He argued the county code required exactly. what Goal 11 prohibited, because if there were to be any subdivisions in his zone, they had to include new sewer systems outside the urban growth bound- ary. According to Gisler, the county could not have intended to exclude ali subdivisions from the residential zone. And for the subdivisions to exist, the county had to allow them to have their own septic systems. DECISION: Affirmed; application denied. Gisler's application failed to meet the county code's sewer-connection requirement. The code didn't conflict with Goal 11 of the statewide planning goals. In fact, the code and Goal 11 prohibited exactly the same thing: the establishment of new sewer systems. Unfortunately for Gisler, this meant he couldn't build the subdivision because his property was too far from existing municipal connec- tions- it didn't mean the county code was invalid. Nothing in the county code or statewide planning goals required the existence of subdivisions outside the urban growth boundary. The county was entitled to prohibit subdivisions until they could connect to the municipal sewer system.