Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/1995

Home

Z.B. i March 15, 1995 .Page 5 ramp in IPortland, Ore., for access to a major freeway. In response, the city council~'dopted a resolution requesting the department. . not to build the access ramp, bat instead to explore other transportation alternatives. The Central Eastside [Industrial Council (council), which sUpported construction, of the ramp, appealed!to the Land Use Board of Appeals to overtt~rn the resolution. The board ruled that because the resolution was just-.a recommendation from on~ government body to another, not a final land use decision, it could not rule ~bn the appeal. " The ,Council appealed. It argued the recommendation violated the city's own comprehensive plan for development, which mandated con.structing the access r~mp. The council claimed the recommendation effectively amended the plan ~bY dropping the access ramp project.. . .. DECISIQ)N: Reversed and returned to the board. :'" .. The tioard'needed to make additional findings of fact about the case. If the · city's rec&mmeridation was final, then the board should review' it.. To d~ide if the city's recommendation was final, the board had to consider whether ihe plan mandated construction of the ramp, or if the plan could be fulfilled ~y other transportation projects. The board also had to consider whether the city h..hd to take further action to prevent the transportation department from building ~,he ramp. If the plan required building the ramp and the city did not have to d~o anything further to block its construction, then the board should hear the ~ouncil's appeal. : Zoning ~ode -- Town Amends Code While Appeal is Pending Bald~ssare v. Planning Board of Ithaca, 607 N. Y.S. 2d 459 (New York) 1994 ~ Baldassare rented property in a business zone of Ithaca, N.Y. He submitted a site plan t~ the planning board to build' a take-out restaurant. The board denied his applicatic~n after a public hearing because of traffic concerns in the area. Balda~sare_ commissioned a traffic study and submitted a new application to the board] While the board considered his petition, the town amended its zoning code to pdrmit restaurants in the business zone only upon a favorable recommen- dation from the planning board and Special approval by the Board of Appeals. The b~ard reviewed Baldassare's application, and using the criteria set out in the zo~ng code for special uses, did not recommend special approval of the restauran!. Baldassare sued the board, asking the court to invalidate the board's decision. ~ ~' The c~ urt overturned the board's decision, finding the standards it used did not a~ply to applications for special approval, but only applied to special use permi[ts. The board appealed, arguing that it used the proper laws to reach its decision. Whil~the appeal was pending, the town amended the zoning code to make the standa[rds for special uses applicable to petitions for.special approval. DECISION: Reversed, case dismissed.