Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/03/1996

Home

Page 6 'T- Au_gust 1996 Z.B. was after the invalid amendments were enacted and before they were fixed), the town, hip's zoning ordinance didn't allow the types of activities the com- pany proposed. In August 1994, the company filed with the township a landowner curative amendment. Also under the state municipal code, landowners could challenge the validity of zoning ordinances in which they had an interest. It claimed the ordinance failed to provide for (among other things), concrete batch and manu- facturing ,plants, bituminous asphalt plants, and the manufacture of stone-related products. Because the township already was working on its own curative amend- ment, it declined to hold a hearing on the company's. In September, the town- ship enac~ted a curative amendment that provided for uses almost identical to those the company demanded. Regardless, the company appealed the township's denial of a hearing. It asked the court to hold a hearing and decide the merits of its curative amendment. The township asked the court to dismiss the company's petition. First, it argued, since it didn't have to hold a hearing, the court had no authority to consider the issue on appeal. The township also argued that because it already amended the part of the ordinance the company wanted to challenge, the issue was moot, The court compared the township's amendment to the company's, and, find- ing they were based on substantially similar grounds, quashed the company's appeal. The company appealed again. DECISION: Appeal dismissed. The issue was moot, so the appeal was dismissed. The township addressed in its curative amendment all the issues the company wanted to challenge. There would be no point to holding a hearing on those issues when they already had been corrected. Environmental Issues -- Must county prove trees grow 'efficiently' on small forestry lots? i000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation and Development Commission, 912 P2d 919 (Oregon) 1996 Oregon forest-land regulations required that local land-use legislation meet certain minimum-lot-size requirements. Lots less than 80 acres were allowed only if they were large enough to ensure (among other things), "[t]he opportu- nity for economically efficient forest operations typically occurring in the area." Municipalities had to periodically submit for review their land-use legislation to the Land Conservation and Development Commission. In yamhill County, most of the lots in mixed agricultural/forestry zones were smaller than 40 acres. The county allowed the smaller lots based on tax- lot data; the lots' owners got tax breaks for growing and harvesting trees. Following a periodic review, the commission found the county's land-use legislation :complied with the state's minimum-lot-size requirements.