Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/1995

Home

Page 8 --August 15, 1995 Z.B. from both before they acquired a vested right. They never got -- or even sought -- approval from the county or village. City ofWeslaco v. Carpenter, 694 S.W. 2d 601 (1985). Home Business -- Paving Company Stores Equipment in Residential Area Holsheimer v. Columbia County, 890 P..2d 4:47 (Oregon) ~995 Hughes owned the Ponderosa Paving Co. The company sro'red its materials, equipment and vehicles on a 2.3 acre parcel of land in Columbia County, Ore. After receiving complaints about how he stored the paving vehicles, Hughes applied for a conditional use permit to allow "parking of vehicles belonging to Ponderosa." Hughes' parcel was in a rural residential zone which allowed home occupations as permissible uses. Under state law, Ponderosa was a home occu- pation if Hughes ran it out of his home or another building associated with uses permitted in the rural residential zone. The county approved Hughes' application. The county found Ponderosa's business essentially consistbd of two parts. The first part included actual pav- ing operations, which occurred away from the residential parcel. The second part were routine administrative tasks of the paving business. The county found the storage of the vehicles every night was encompassed in the second part of the business. The Land Use Board of Appeals reversed the county's approval of the appli- cation. The board stated that the daily storage and movement of equipment to and from the home site and off-site locations fell outside the statutory defini- tion of home occupations. Ponderosa's vehicle storage violated the statutory requirement that the home occupation operations take place in specific buildings. Hughes appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The board properly found that the proposed use did not qualify as a home occupation. The statute which defined home occupations required that the activities occur in a specific building, so Ponderosa's vehicle storage did not qualify as a lawful home occupation. Ponderosa's business activities involved more than mere storage on the home site itself. Parking the paving vehicles also included the constant movement of the equipment to and from the off-site locations, and the movement of the vehicles was not limited to the structure where the storage took place. Editor's Note: The summary in our July 15, 1995 issue entitled "Spot Zoning -- Landowner. Says Rezoning Is Unlawful Spot Zoning" was missing a word. The second sentence of the last paragraph should have read, "Just because the area was small and rezoned at a single landowner's request did not make it spot zoning." Zoning Bulletin apologizes for any confusion caused by this omission and thanks subscriber Bob Hamblen for pointing it out.