Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/01/1995

Home

,' ' Z.B. July 15, 1995 -- Page 7 and unconstitutionally restricted all residents' property rights. He also claimed his status as a taxpayer gave him a right to sue because any use of funds in imposing unauthorized conditions would be illegal. DECISION: Affirmed. Gerdts could not sue the state as a property owner or a taxpayer -- he did not have a legally protected interest at stake in any of the agency's actions. Gerdts was not involved in any of the administrative proceedings about the permit conditions he challenged. The conditions did not apply to Gerdts' prop- erty or prevent him from doing anything, and the agency had no plans to do anything regarding Gerdts' property. Gerdts did not allege he suffered any spe- cial harm different from other park residents, so he had no affected interests in the agencyi's actions. Contrary to Gerdts' claims, his allegations about the agency's systematic abuse of authority did not give him any right to sue -- he needed specific harm that affected him. Also, the agency's use of funds to hold an administrative hearing did not give taxpayers the right to challenge its deci- sions. Matter of Schulz v. Warren County Board of Supervisors, 614 N.Y.S. 2d 809. Matter of Mobil Oil Corp. v. Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 559 N. YS. 2d 947. Enforcement State Commission Orders County to Limit Certain Use Approvals Jackson County v. Land Conservation and Development Commission, 888 P. 2d 98 (Orego~O 1995 The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission determined that Jackson County, Ore., was involved in a pattern of land use decision mak- ing that violated the county's comprehensive plan or land use regulations. As a remedy, the commission made the county limit to two years the validity of land use approvals for dwellings in three resource zones. The county and a citizens group appealed the commission's order, claiming the commission did not have authority to impose the two-year limitation. Al- ternatively, they alleged that the commission had to adopt a formal rule autho- rizing the limitation before imposing it. DECISION: Affirmed. Under Oregon law, the commission had express authority to make the county set limits on the validity of land use approvals. The commission did not need to adopt a rule authorizing the limitation before imposing it because the commis- sion had general rule-making power. The two-year limitation was merely a selection of a remedy, rather than an expression of policy. Di~ki~s v. Board of Accotmtancy, 846 P2d 1186 (1993).