Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/1995

Home

Page 2 March 15, 1995 .... Z.B. Board La'ndov~ne~"Says B0'a/'d's Interpret~ition of zoning Law Must Be Consistent Alexanderson v. Clackamas County, 869 P. 2d 873 (Orego~O 1994 ' Alexanderson owned i7 acres of l'and 'in a ~'esource zone of Clackamas County, Ore. He wanted t6 divide the pai'cel into ohe 15-acre and one 2-acre lot. Alexanderson proposed using the 2-acre parcel for farm or forest production. The co. unty hearing officer denied Alexanderson's..application, befieving the ordinahce }~quired consideration o.f.~l~ entire property's suitability for farm or forest pi'oduction (not just the'two acres. Alexanderson proposed using that ~vay),.Alexanderson appealed to the Land Use.Board of Appeals, arguing that the hearing officer improperly conSidered the entire lot because the county had interpreted the ordinance differently 13 times before. The board affirmed the .hearing officer,s decisibn~ ', ~ . · Alexan~lers. on appeaied a~ain, arg'Uing the county and its decision makers had a duty to apply the ordinance consistently. .' DECISION: Affirmed. ': ~ ' ,"' " ' The county's 13 contrary dbcisions Vo..e.re made by staff mdmbefs, ~{ot hearing officers. Hearing Officers were not bOund by staff members? deci.sions because hearing officers reviewed appeals of those decisi6ns (i.e; they were higher level decision makers). Hearing officers would have to follow staff members' find- ings 'only if there was evidence that their different interpretations were part of a sch.eme to act inconsisiently from ca~e to case. Alexanderson failed to prove this, so the board's decision was affirmed. Friend of B~yant Woods Park v. City of Lake Oswego, 868 P. 2d 24 (1994,). Zoning Change-- Board Refuses to Hold Public Hearing on In!tiatiye Petition Save Our State Park v. Board of Clallam County Commissioners, 875 P. 2d 673 (Washington) 1994 Clallam County's zoning code had a Planned Recreational Community Zone, which allowed tourist services, hotels, ~pas, pet kennels, and intensive residen- tial and commercial enterPris, es. "~' A citizens' group, Save Our State Park (SOS)i wanted to repeal the.part of the code thai' created this zone. It gathered signatures' t6 'Place an initiative petition on the b:a!lot, .seeking the repea!. When SOS got eno.ugh' signatures, the county auditor validated the petition and sent it to the Board of Clallam County Commissioners. Under the county's Home Rule Charter and COunty C6de, the board h.a,.d to consider all validated petitions, hold'a public hearing, and acce. pt or reject the petition. The board refused to hold a public hearing on the initiative. The board decided zoning matters were not proper subje, cts for initiative petitions ~ the state granted zoning authority to the county's legislative body S° any changes to the code would be considered by people with expertise in.Zoning matters: SOS asked the court to force the board to hold a public hearing on the initiative petition. The court denied this request.