Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/1997

Home

2.. Page 4 -- December 1996 z.g. Variance -- Board says county's decision was based on wrong standards deBardelabe~z v. Tillamook Coutzty, 922 P..2d 683 (Orego~O 1996 Carter owned a house on the beach in Tillamook County, Ore. The house had ],600 square feet of living space. Apparently, the house was appropriate for only seasonal use, and Carter wanted to make it ready for year-round use. Also, Carter's adult son had disabilities, and Carter wanted to make modifica- tions to accommodate him. To meet his needs, Carter proposed adding another 2,100 square feet to the house. The only part of his property on which he could do that kind of con- struction sloped away from the ocean and the existing house. To make the addition's height even with the existing house, Carter needed the addition's height (measured from the ground) to be 5 feet higher than was allowed for buildings in that zone. Therefore, Carter asked the county for a height variance. The county's land-use ordinance had a general statement that variances were intended to relieve unnecessary hardship that could be caused when the ordinance's dimensional mandates would make a property "incapable of rea- sonable economic use." The ordinance also had specific criteria an applicant had to meet before getting a variance. The county allowed the variance. It found that because of the property's slope, Carter's variance would not result in the obstruction and other problems that commonly went with height. According to the county, the specific criteria were all it had to consider to grant the variance. The ordinance's general state- ment about the purpose of a variance was an "aspirational" goal, not a condi- tion of approval. The county interpreted "reasonable economic use" to mean "the highest and best use of the property." deBardelaben asked the Land Use Board of Appeals to reverse the county's decision, which the board did. The board found that the way the county inter- preted the ordinance's variance provisions was clearly wrong. The board said the county improperly interpreted the phrase "reasonable economic use." The board reasoned, "Because [Carter] already has a house on the subject property, the parcel is not rendered 'incapable of reasonable use without a variance.'" Carter asked a court to review the decision. DECISION: Reversed. The board should not have overturned the county's decision. The board's job was not to determine whether the county was correct. Instead, it should have determined whether the county's interpretation was u~ijusti, fiable. While the county did not decide the variance application as the board or the courts might, its interpretation of its own ordinance had to stand. Goose Hollow Foothills League v. City of ?ortla~d, 843 P. 2d 992 (1992). La~zgford v. City of Euge~e, 867 P. 2d 535 (1994). Planning Did state planning policies violate rural resident's voting rights? ?ostema v. &~ohomish Country, 922 P. 2d t76 (Washit2gton) .~996 Under the state of Washington's Growth Management Act (Act), certain