My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/09/1995
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
1995
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/09/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/20/2025 4:28:47 PM
Creation date
10/1/2003 9:06:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
11/09/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
141
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Page 8 -- August 15, 1995 <br /> <br />Z,Bi <br /> <br />from both before they acquired a vested right. They never got-- or even sought <br />-- approval from the county or village. <br /> CiO, of Weslaco v. Carpenter, 694 S.W. 2d 601 (1985). <br /> <br />Home Business-- Paving Company Stores Equipment in Residential Area <br /> tfolsheimer ~,. Columbia County, 890 P..2d 447 (Orego~O 1995 <br /> Hughes owned the Ponderosa Paving Co. The company stored its materials, <br />equipment and'v~hicles on a 2.3 acre parcel of land in Columbia County, Ore. <br /> After receiving complaints about how he stored the paving vehicles, Hughes <br />applied for a conditional use permit to allow "parking of vehicles belonging to <br />Ponderosa." Hughes' parcel was in a rural residential zone which allowed home <br />occupations as permissible uses. Under state law, Ponderosa.was a home occu- <br />pation if Hughes ran it out of his home or another building associated with uses <br />permitted in the rural residential zone. <br /> The county approved Hughes' application. The county found Ponderosa's <br />business essentially consisted of two parts. The first part included actual pav- <br />ing operations, which occurred ~iway from the residential parcel. The second <br />part were routine administrative tasks of the paving business2'The county f6und <br />the storage of the vehicles every night was encompassed in lhe second part of <br />the business. <br /> The Land Use Board of Appeals reversed the county's approval of the appli- <br />cation. The board stated that the daily storage and movement of equipment to <br />and from' the home site and off-site locations fell outside the statutory defini- <br />tion of home occupations. Ponderosa's vehicle storage violated the statutory <br />requirement that the home occupation operations take place in specific buildings. <br /> Hughes appealed. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> The board properly found that the proposed use did not qualify as a home <br />occupation. <br /> The statute which defined home occupations required that the activities <br />occur in a specific building, so Ponderosa's vehicle storage did not qualify as a <br />lawful home occupation. Ponderosa's business activities involved more than. <br />mere storage on the home site itself. Parking the paving vehicles also included <br />the constant movement of the equipment to and from the off-site locations, and <br />the movement of the vehicles was not limited to the structure where the storage <br />took place. <br /> <br />Editor~xNote: The summary in our July 15, 1995 issu.e entitled "Spot Zo/ti/tg <br />~ Landowner Says Rezoning Is Unlawful Spot Zonitzg" was missing a' word. <br />The second sentence of the last'paragraph should have read, "Just because the <br />area was small and rezoned at a single landowner's request did not make it spot <br />zoning." Zooming Bulletin apologizes for any confusion caused by this omission <br />and thanks subscriber Bob Hamblen for pointing it out. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.