Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/03/1996

Home

Page 8 --August 15, 1996 Z.B. who made the decision could still face consequences from the voters.) The county's immunity from zoning extended to the company. Operation of a county jail was a government function, exempt from zoning. Under state law, the county had to provide a place to confine its prisoners. A private company couldn't operate a jail without government involvement, so the company's activities re- mained a protected government function. Edelen v. Nelson County, 723 S.W. 2d 887 (1987). Regional Jail Authority v. Tack. et-t, 770 S.I~2d 225 (]989) Limitations. Period -- When did planning director's decision become final and appealable? Lloyd District Community Association v. City of Portland, 916 P. 2d 884 (Oregon) 1996 At a former hospital site in Portland, Ore., the state mental hospital wanted to run an intermediate psychiatric hospital. The plan was proposed to the city's planning direfi~or, and the director approved it without a hearing or any other procedures. On Feb. 21, 1995, the director wrote a memo to a city commissioner stating the use .was already allowed from prior approvals, and did not need further land-use review. The.planning bureau sent a copy of the director's mem0..to the Lloyd District Community Association. Around the end of March, the-association's lawyer asked the planning dkec- tor for further review of the proposal. The dkector denied the request. On May 9, the planning bureau sent interested Parties including ihe association -- a "Notice of Use Determination." The notice expressed the same things as the Feb. 21 .memo, but also stated appeals to the Land Use Board of Appeals would be allowed if filed within 21 days. .The association appealed to the board within 21 days of May 9. The. city asked the board to dismiss the appeal, saying the association did not file it on time. According to the city,.the Feb. 21 memo 'was the final land-use decision the association should have appealed.. · The board dismissed the association's case. It said because the association knew about the dkector's decision from the Feb. 21 memo, it should have appealed after getting the memo. Only parties who fkst learned of the decision through the later notice had 21 days from May 9 to appeal. The association appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The board properly dismissed the association's appeal. Under state law, the association could appeal the director's decision within 21 days of getting actual knowledge of it. The association's attempt to get further review through the city did not change the fact that the director's decision became final and appealable on Feb. 21. The memo clearly stated the use was allowed and no further land-use review Was needed. "