Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/06/1996

Home

vitality0 Because the ordinance allowed uses that conflicted with the compre- hensiv~ plan, the board should not have denied the permit. Weyerhauser v. Pierce County, 873 P. 2d 498 (1994). ConditiOnal Use-- Is owner entitled to change agricultural land to residential? Howard v. Canyon County Board of Commissioners, 915 P. 2d 709 (Idaho) 2996 Howard owned 78 acres in an agricultural zone of Canyon County, Idaho. He wanted to put a residential subdivision on 28 acres. Howard asked the county's Planning and Zoning Commission for a condi- tional-use permit. After viewing the site, the commission denied' the permit. The commission said the use would have adverse effects on the area's agricul- tural character. HoWard appeaied to the county Board'of Commissioners. He gave evi- dence the land was no good for agricultural 'use, there would be no traffic probIemy, and the fire district thought the subdivision would increase the water supply for neighboring subdivisions. Several neighbors objected. The board d~.nied Howard's request. Among other things, it found the proposal would change the area's character so it would conflict with the comprehen- sive plaa. It also said Howard gave no evidence the subdivision would add' to the public welfare or convenience. Howard appealed to court. The court found the evidence supported the board's Change-inrcharacter finding. Howard appeaIed again. DECISION: Affirmed. The lower court .properly upheld the board's denial of Howard's condi- tional-use permit. Howard did not meet all the requirements for a permit. Under the zoning ordinance, among the factors the board had to consider were if the use would be "essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare" and if it would comply with the comprehensive plan. The board properly found Howard did not prove those things. The area was mostly agri- cultural, land Howard sought to change about a third of his land to a nonagricultural use. In fact, the subdivision would cut Howard's remaining agricultural land down the middle. The comprehensive pIan sought to "relieve farm areas of the adverse effects of scattered nonfarm uses" and "eliminate divisions of agriculture parcels for purposes other than bona fide agricultural activities." Special Permit. Neighborhood association fears noise from speedway expansion Concerned Residents of New Lebanon v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of New Lebanon, 641 N.Y.S. 2d 199 (New York) 1996 Lebanon Valley Auto Racing Inc. owned property in the town of New