Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/07/1996

Home

Page 6 t. April 15, 1996 Z.B. act on th~ application within 120 days, so Copeland asked a court to order the county t(~ issue the permit (which, under a state statute, was the appropriate remedy t~or the county's failure to act within 120 days). The Court ordered the county to either grant the permit or show why it should not. Copeland and the county then agreed the county would issue the permit w:ith conditions. A group called the Murphy Citizens Advisory Committee appealed the stipulatiqn to the county's Land Use Board of Appeals. The board found it had no j~risdiction because the stipulation was not a land use decision. The committee appealed to court, and the Court found the stipulation was appeal- able as ailand use decision. It sent the case back to the board, and the board sent the qase back to the county. The dounty issued the permit, and the committee again appealed to the board. Tl~e board dismissed the appeal, saying it had no jurisdiction. This time, it r41ied on a new statute that excluded from the definition of "land use decision"C,; the type of court order Copeland originally requested, as well as local laneI use approvals issued in response to such orders. The ePmmittee appealed again. It said the county's grant of the permit was a land use decision .because it was not issued in response to a definitive court order. Instead, it was a settlement based on an order that gave the county a choice between issuing a permit or showing why it should not. DECISION:. Affirmed. The bPard properly found it had no jurisdiction. The county granted the permit in __response to a court order, so it was not a land use decision under the new statu~e. The committee failed in its argument that the statute did not apply. The statute did not distinguish between court orders that definitively. compeller the county to do something and orders that gave the county alter- natives. Its language applied to any order compelling the county to issue a permit ba~ed on 120 days of inaction. State ex rel. Compass Corp. v: City of Lake Oswego, 878 P.2d 403 (1994). Code Violation Po01 Owner Says Required Fence Would Be 'Major Aesthetic iEyesore Malin iv. Albany Uniform Code Board of Review, 637 N.~S. 2d 531 (New York) 1996 Malin Owned a $750,000 home in Albany, N.Y. There were more than 30 other homes in his neighborhood. He had a motorized cover on his swimming pool, but dld not build a fence around the pool as required by the State Uniform Fire Prevet~tion and Building Code. Malin ~Was cited for failing to build an enclosure around his pool. He applied for!a variance, claiming the enclosure requirement would be an exces- sive and u.r~reasonable economic burden. He a/so said he did not need an enclosure because the pool cover achieved the code's safety objective. At the hearing, Malin claimed a fence around his pool would be a "major aesthetic eyesore," and that he would have to pay more than the average person to