Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/07/1996

Home

Z.B. April 15, 1996 -- Page 5 I10 existing streets. Thirteen were rectangular and one was triangular. The board received evidence regarding only eight lots' sizes; they ranged from 42,000 to 120,000 square feet, with an average size of 75,257 square feet. Lee, who owned property in the area, opposed PowelI's project. She gave the board an alternative plan that divided the property into four rectangular lots. Lee said her plan would meet the ordinance's resubdivision criteria because the lots woutd have the same character as nearby existing lots. The board approved Powell's plan. It found the neighborhood's rural char- acter would be maintained because the lots along one existing street would be "of the same shape, area, frontage and size" as lots immediately across the street. The board also found that the lots with frontage on the new cul-de-sac would be "of the same size, shape, and area" as other neighborhood lots. Lee asked a court to reverse the board's decision. She said the board should have required Powell's planned lots to comply with all the resubdivision cri- teria, not just some. She also claimed the evidence did not support the board's decision. The court affirmed. Lee appealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the lower court. The lower court improperly affirmed the board's approval of Powell's appli- cation. The evidence did not show the plan met the resubdivision criteria. The case was sent back to the lower court to reverse the board's approval. Although PoweI1 did not have to propose lots identical to existing lots, the new lots had to match existing ones closely with respect to the code's seven criteria. The code said the proposal "shall be of the same character" as oth- ers. The code defined "shall" as "mandatory and not optional." Although the code did not define "character," the dictionary defined that term as "the aggre- gate of features and traits that form the apparent individual nature of some person or thing." Therefore, Powell's lots had to comply with ail the criteria to fit in with the features that gave the neighborhood its look and feel. The evidence did not show Powell complied with the criteria. The board did not make any findings about width or alignment, and its findings regard- ing size, shape, and frontage were not supported by the evidence. Only one lot was shaped like others in the neighborhood. All six were smaller than average, and two were smaller than any other neighborhood lot. Because there was no evidence regarding the length of street frontage for the proposed or existing lots, the board did not have enough evidence to find the proposed lots' frontage was of the same character as others in the neighborhood. . Hooloer v. Mayor of Gaithersburg, 3.13 A.2d 491 (1974). Jurisdiction m Board Says It Can't Decide Opponent's Appeal of Permit Settlement Murphy Citizens Advisory Committee v. Josephine County, 909 P. 2d 180 (Oregon) 1995 Copeland Sand & Gravel Inc. applied for a permit to operate an aggregate and asphalt processing facility in Josephine County, Ore. The county did not