Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/1998

Home

Z.B. September 10, 1998 -- Page 7 7'0 activities over the years, including the shooting of rifles and pistols. In 1993, the county cited the club with violating a zoning ordinance. The county claimed the club's expanded shooting range was a nonconforming use. A court upheld that decision. In the meantime, the club sought a variance to expand its facilities to allow high-powered rifle and pistol practice. The county board of zoning appeals granted the variance subject to 18 conditions the club had to meet by May 1, 1995. One condition was that there would be no shooting until the conditions were met. On May 1, the board held a meeting on the club's property. The meeting was open to the public, but the board stated it wasn't a public hearing. Instead, the board stated that it was a meeting to inspect the premises to see if the club met all of the conditions of the variance. The board invited an expert to evalu- ate the club's improvements. According to the board, the purpose of the meet- ing was for the board "to inspect, to see, not to listen to Club members explain or neighbors complain." After the meeting, the board revoked the club's variance because in its view the club didn't meet the variance's conditions. The club appealed to court, and the court affirmed the board's decision. The club appealed again. It argued the trial court should have reversed the board's decision because the board didn't give the club notice of the inspection or a chance to be heard, and because the board didn't support its decision with written findings. DECISION: Reversed, returned to the board. The board didn't give the board notice or a chance to be heard, and failed to issue factual findings to support its decision. The board had to reconsider whether the club met the variance's conditions. The board could revoke a variance if the variance included reasonable conditions and those conditions weren't satisfied. The conditions had to be considered reasonable because the club nei, er challenged them. The problem, though, was the way the board concluded that the club didn't satisfy the conditions. By calling the inspection visit a "public meeting" instead of a "public hearing," the board didn't give the club a chance to be heard on the question of whether the variance's conditions were met. There was nothing wrong with the meeting's purpose, but because revocation was a severe remedy, the club deserved a ~hance to defend itself. Moreover, the board didn't support its decision with written factual findings. The board couldn't get around this by claiming it hadn't decided a "case," requiring written findings, at the meeting. The board heard testi- mony from a witness that it invited for the express purpose of providing expert information concerning the club's improvements. Immediately fol- lowing the meeting, the board made a final decision to revoke the club's variance.