Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/1997

Home

Page 4 -- November 15, 1996 Z.B. variance -- the conditions set for special exceptions represented a finding by the Legislature that the use would be in harmony with zoning and would not have adverse effects on the area. Therefore, when the conditions were met, the law specifically permitted the use. The board could consider public wel- fare concerns, but could not bow to "community pressure" expressed through general objections.The board didn't have enough evidence before it to deny Gordon & Jack's request. Matter of North Shore Steak House v. Board of Aj~jpeals of In. corj)orated Village of Thomaston, 331 N.Y.S. 2d 645. Matter of Robert Lee Realty Co. v. *tillage of Sl~ritzg Valle3; 474 N.Y.S. 2d 475. Mobile Home -- Neighbor has concerns about proposed home's affect on deer and elk 7-7aigh v. Columbia ]{iver Gorge Commission, 92~ ~..2d ]350 (Oregon) 1996 Haigh owned 11 acres in Oregon, in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. She asked the Columbia River Gorge Commission for permis- sion to put a mobile home on the land, install a septic system, and build two decks, a shed and a driveway. The commission's executive director denied the request, finding it incon- sistent with the guidelines for protecting the winter range for deer and elk. Haigh said the director's decision denied her all beneficial use of the prop- erty, and asked the director to reconsider. Haigh's neighbor, Czerniecki, asked -- and was allowed -- to participate in the case. In the review process, the director had to consider whether there were other ways the property could be used without being worse for "scenic, cul- tural, recreational or natural resources" than Haigh's proposal~ The other allowed uses were "livestock grazing, cultivation, agricultural buildings, for- est practices, airstrips, environmental facilities, soil and water conservation uses, development and production of mineral resources, boarding of horses and recreational development." After considering all those uses, the director allowed Haigh's request with conditions. According to the director, the alter- natives were either infeasible (because of the property's characteristics) or worse for the deer and elk winter range than Haigh's proposed mobile home. Czerniecki claimed cultivation, mineral resource production and horse board- ing were feasible, but the director found they would require more intrusive fencing, land clearing and/or buildings than the mobile home. Czerniecki asked the commission to review the director's decision, and the commission upheld it. Czerniecki appealed to court. DECISION: Affirmed. The commission properly upheld the director's decision. The evidence