Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/2013

Home

Zoning Bulletin March 10, 2013 1 Volume 7 1 Issue 5 district. Here, the proposed site was in a light - industrial zoned area with the surrounding properties zoned agricultural. Here, the court found that restricting the time RVs could stay in one area "would relate to protecting the compatibility of uses in the surrounding area . . . , and not hindering the development of permitted uses on neighboring properties." There were concerns that, with year -round lengths of stays, the RV park would become a residential subdivision, which would be inconsistent with a light industrial and agricultural area. Thus, concluded the court, "a conditional use permit is appropriate." The court also found that an imposition of a limitation -of -stay condition was supported by evidence: Other property owners were worried about the RV Park becoming a mobile home park and becoming a residential subdivision. The Board noted unfavorable conditions when RVs stay in one location for extended periods of time. State statutory law, RCW 43.22.335(7), defined an "RV" as a vehicle -type unit primarily designed as temporary living quarters for recreational camping, travel, or seasonal use. Likewise, the County Code defined an "RV" as a motorized or nonmotor- ized vehicle for recreational use. Since RVs are not considered as perma- nent dwellings, the court found that "substantial evidence" supported the Board's decision to conditionally limit the length of stay in the proposed RV Park. Finally, the court also found that the Board had the inherent authority to impose the length -of -stay condition on the RV park. The court reasoned: "[A] board with authority to grant a special permit has inherent power to attach conditions designed to carry out the purposes for which the permit requirement was imposed." "If the conditions imposed were reasonably calculated to achieve the purposes set forth in the comprehensive plan and were not unnecessarily burdensome, the court should not set them aside." Thus, "[r]easonably calculated conditions to protect adjacent land and to achieve legitimate zoning goals are permitted." "[L]egitimate concerns in zoning decisions are to `stabilize the value of property, promote the perma- nency of home surroundings, and add to the happiness and comfort of the citizens.' " Here, the court found, the Board had inherent authority to impose conditions in harmony with those concerns, ensuring the RV park use met the county's zoning goals as set forth in the County Code. See also: State ex rel. Standard Mining & Development Corp. v. City of Auburn, 82 Wash. 2d 321, 510 P.2d 647 (1973). See also: Phoenix Development, Inc. v. City of Woodinville, 171 Wash. 2d 820, 256 P.3d 1150 (2011). Zoning News from Around the Nation CONNECTICUT State Senator Paul Doyle and Representative Antonio Guerrera have © 2013 Thomson Reuters 11