Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/04/1996

Home

Pag~ 4 -- February 1996 ,'{Vhen the city denied the special use permit, the only evidence it had that the t{enagers were handicapped was Sunderland's statement they were "abused, homeless, neglected, or [had] nowhere else to go." These were not physical or men~al impairments, nor did the city or neighbors regard the teenagers as handi- capped. Their objections focused on the neighborhood's young families and elderly people, and a fear the home would result in more noise and security problems. Neither objection involved perceived physical or mental impairments. While the city did not discriminate, its decision was unsupported. The home's size and location was similar to others and no evidence showed the home's use would be more "intense." The neighbors' fears that property values would decr(ase and that noise would increase were unsubstantiated. The neighbors and c~ty did not offer any alternative, "more transitional," sites. The only sup- portent finding was that the home would put troubled teenagers next to elderly famil!es and young families with small children. The city had to reconsider the application and produce better findings before denying the permit. Ordi ,fiance County Regulates Outdoor Mass Gatherings Fence v. Jackson County, 900 P. 2d 524 (Oregon) 1995 JaCkson County, Ore., amended its land development ordinance by adding provi!ions regulating outdoor mass gatherings. State statutes also regulated outdoor mass gatherings. Thee first ordinance amendment authorized fees of up to $5,000 for county services (like police assistance) provided to mass gatherings. State statutes said a county could charge up to $5,000 for receiving, processing, and renewing permi! applications, but did not mention services. T~e second amendment established a blanket $1 million liability insurance requirement for mass gatherings of less than 120 hours. State statutes permit- ted counties to require liability insurance if the county determined the mass gathering created a potential for injmTy to people or property.. Under the third amendment, the sheriff could order a gathering to disperse under Certain circumstances. State statutes provided that the district attorney for thelcounty in which the gathering was held could get a court order prevent- ing state statute violations. FeOce, a Native American resident, appealed each amendment to the Land Use B0~ard of Appeals, saying some or all were preempted by state statutes. Fence 41so claimed the amendments violated the federal and state constitutions becaus~ of their effects on Native American ceremonies and activities. Thq board agreed with some of Fence's arguments, rejected others, and told th~, county to reconsider the amendments. It found the service fee amend- ment c4nflicted with the state statute, which mentioned only application fees. It said the liability insurance amendment was illegal because the state required a case-t~y-case analysis of each event, and the county tried to require blanket coverage. The board ruled the county could not authorize its sheriff to disperse a mass ioutdoor gathering, because the state statute allowed dispersal only through" a court order. The board did not address Fence's constitutional claims.