Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/06/1996

Home

The court granted the city's motion, finding the ordinance's exclusion of mobile-home parks from a particular zoning district did not violate the Act. The developers appealed. They claimed when the Legislature added to the Act the clause about mobile-home parks, it meant to prohibit ordinances that "generally" excluded mobile-homes parks. They said because the city's ordi- nance generally excluded mobile-homes parks, it violated the Act. According to the city, the Act's wording prohibited exclusion of mobile homes generally -- not mobile homes £nparks generally. Under this interpreta- tion the ordinance did not violate the Act because it didn't exclude mobile- home parks generally; it allowed them in certain districts. DECISION: Affirmed. The zoning ordinance did not violate the Mobile Home Commission Act. The Act prohibited ordinances that generally excluded mobile homes, not thosethat generally excluded mobile-home parks. The word "generally" modi- fied only that which directly preceded it (mobile homes); it couldn't modify both what preceded and followed it (mobile-home parks). The Act did not prohibit ordinance provisions that merely limited the place- mentiof mobile homes in particular districts. The ordinance would violate the Act ordy if it generally excluded mobile homes in mobile-home parks, which it didn't. Mobile homes were allowed in mobile-home parks in certain districts under certain conditions. Wortelboer v. Benzie Co., 537N. W. 2d 603 (]995). Engineered Housing Concepts Inc. v. Wayne Co., 447N. W. 2d 777 (1989). Appeal -- Did wrong agency name on check void appeal? Ray v. Douglas County, 914 t>.2d 26 (Oregon) ]996 The Yardses wanted to run a campground in an exclusive farm-use zone of Douglas County, Ore. They applied for a conditional-use permit, which the county approved. The county's decision became final on Nov. 1, 1995. Ray objected to the county's decision. Under state law, parties who wanted to appeal land-use decisions had to give the Land Use Board of Appeals a notice of intent to appeal within 21 days. A $50 filing fee and a board-pre- scriberd deposit for costs had to accompany the application. The board's rules required a $200 payment for the fee and costs to accom- pany the notice. Checks had to be made out to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Without the payment, a notice "[would] not be accepted for filing." Another rule stated, "Technical violations not affecting the substantial rights of parties [would] not interfere with the review of a land use decision ... Failure to com- ply with the time limit for filing a notice of intent to appeal ... is not a technical violation." Toward the end of the business day on Nov. 22, 1995,. Ray filed with the Land ~Use Board of Appeals a notice of intent to appeal. With the notice, he gave a $200 check made out to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. The board accepted Ray's filing and began review proceedings. However, a few weeks later, the board dismissed Ray's appeal. It said because the check