Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/01/1995

Home

Page 6- July 7[5, 7[995 Z.B. vehicle park to expand. Parts of the park's wastewater system were already deficient, and the proposed expansion made necessary a system upgrade. Rather than keeping the system completely on site, the owner proposed using a nearby creek to dispose of waste. As required to make the change, the owner requested a modified permit from the Department of Environmental Quality, a state agency. With the appli- cation, the owner had to file a land use compatibility statement, a portion of which the county had to be complete. The county planning director concluded that the expanded park was an outright permitted land use under the county code, and that the proposed treatment system shared that status because it was incidental to the park. The Land Use Board of Appeals affirmed. The Knee Deep Cattle Co. ap- pealed, saying the county's portion of the land use compatibility statement was not a reviewable land use decision. DECISION: Affirmed. The county's decision that the state permit application was compatible with the county code was a final land use decision. It met the two standards -- the state agency had to be required to ensure compatibility with local legislation, and had to be authorized to rely on the local governmet~t's determination of compatibility. State law gave the Department of Environmental Quality that power. The finding that the proposed system was incidental to the permitted park was an application of land use legislation that required the county to exer- cise policy or legal judgment. Therefore, it was a land use decision over which the board had jurisdiction. Flowers v. Klamath County, 780 P. 2d 227 (1989). Appeal -- Property Owner Challenges Agency's Authority Gerdts v. State, 620 N. Y.&2d 512 (New York) 1994 Gerdts owned property in New York State's Adirondack Park. The state enacted the Adirondack Park Agency Act, which created the Adirondack Park Agency to make various decisions about the park. Although Gerdts' property was not the subject of any agency action, he sued the state, several officials, and the agency. Gerdts asked the court to de- clare several agency actions illegal, including the agency's imposition of con- ditions on permits and its sponsorship of environmental conferences. Gerdts said the Act did not authorize the agency's actions. He argued the agency's pervasive abuse of authority in enacting "lawless rules" violated his due pro- cess rights under the federal Constitution and his "right to pursue happiness under the Declaration of Independence." The state asked the court to dismiss Gerdts' claims. The court found Gerdts could not challenge the agency in court because the agency did not harm any of his property rights. Therefore, it dismissed his claims. Gerdts appealed, claiming that even without specific harm to his property, he was entitled to sue because the agency systematically abused its authority