Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/06/1996

Home

Conditional Use -- Does comprehensive plan preclude golf course's permit? I-Jansen v. CheIan County, 9~3 P2d 409 (Washington) 1996 On a 38.9-acre orchard in a general-use zone of Chelan County, Wash., the Hansens wanted to put a nine-hole golf course. Most orchard trees were gone; those that remained grew older, less desirable varieties of fruit. The Hansens claimed they couldn't get financing to replant the orchard. Most properties surrounding the proposed golf course had orchards, but some had residences. One goal of the area's comprehensive plan was to encourage people to use agricultural land for commercial production. The plan sought to promote the agriculture industry, tO discourage displacement of agricultural uses, and to lessen the conflicts other uses had with agricultural ones. Under the county's zoning code, agricultural, single-family, or duplex- residential uses were allowed as of right in general-use zones. People also could subdivide properties for those uses. Any other use needed a conditional- use permit. The Hansens applied for a conditional-use permit for the golf course. The zoning code allowed the county's Board of Adjustment to deny a conditional- use permit only after finding the use might cause one of the following: injury to public health, safety or welfare; injury to surrounding properties despite any conditions that might be imposed; or incomPatibility with the area's comprehensive plan. At a public hearing, several agencies commented 0n the proposal's effects on water quality, wetlands, erosion, dust, traffic, fire protection and water usage. Neighbors who engaged in agriculture expressed concerns about stray golf balls, pesticide sprays, noise and setbacks. The board denied the permit, finding the golf course probably would injure neighboring properties no mat- ter what conditions were imposed. The board also found the proposed use would conflict with the comprehensive plan. The Hansens appealed. The court ordered the board to reconsider its con- clusions about effects on neighboring properties and the proposal's consis- tency with the comprehensive plan. After a second hearing, the board denied the permit again. On appeal, the court upheld the deniall The Hansens appealed again, saying the board gave improper reasons for denying the permit. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the board. The lower court improperly upheld the board's decision. The case was sent back to the lower court, which had to order the board to approve the permit with any appropriate conditions based on the agencies' comments. Although the golf course might negatively effect neighbors and conflict with the comprehensive plan, the board did not see any evidence that the negative effects v~ould be worse than those caused by uses allowed without a conditional-use permit. (A residential subdivision also would displace agriculture, stop commercial production, and damage the area's economic