Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/1995

Home

Page 4 -- August 15, 1995 Z.B. several objections to the application. They claimed the area was basically noncommercial, and the store would be too close to the junior high school children would have increased access to alcohol and the increase in traffic would be a hazard to children traveling to school. The residents were also concerned that the store would increase vagrancy, a. nd crime. The council also received several letters in opposition to the store and a petition containing 176 signatures. The council denied the application. At Laughlin's request, a court ordered the city to issue the permit. The court held that public pressure was not reason enough to deny Laughtin's application. The city appealed. DECISION: Reversed, denial reinstated. The council had good reasons to deny the special use permit, so the trial court improperly reversed the decision. The appeals court reinstated the denial of the permit. The local residents' concerns about increased traffic and preserving the neighborhood's residential character were valid reasons to deny the permit -- the denial was not based only on public pressure and the area's commercial zoning did not automatically make it appropriate for the sale of beer and wine. Tighe v. Von Goerke~,, 833 P..2d 1.735 (.~992). Clark Co. Liquor dX Gaming v. Simon dX Tucker, 787 P. 2d 782 (I990). Nonconforming Use- Does Combination of Uses Turn Three Parcels Into One? Clackamas County v. Gay, 890 P..2d 444 (Oregon) 1995 Three lots in Clackamas County, Ore., were originally owned by the same person. At different times, they were sold to different owners. Before 1967, some of the owners used their lots for airport-related uses. One lot, lot 603, had an airstrip on it and others were used for minor storage and other purposes. In 1967, the county first enacted restrictive zoning. The zoning regulations did not allow commercial airports or parachuting operations on the three lots. Gay bought one of the lots in 1977 and bought lot 603 in 1981. She used the lots for commercial airport and parachuting operations. In the early 1990s, the county sued Gay to stop her from any further com- mercial airport and parachuting operations that violated the zoning regulations. At trial, Gay established that there was prior and continuing use of the airstrip on lot 603. The court found a limited nonconforming airstrip use on lot 603, and allowed Gay to continue to use it an as airstrip and to park airplanes there for up to 48 hours in connection with the take. offs and landings. However, the court found that any nonconforming uses on the other lots had been discontinued. Gay appealed, arguing the court should have treated the combination of airport uses on any of the lots as a single airport use, regardless of which par- ticular activities were occurring at particular times and locations. She argued it was illogical to find that only an airstrip nonconforming use existed, without