Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/2004

Home

Page 4 -- March 10, 2004 Z.J~, Neighboring landowners appealed the decision to the board of county com- missioners. The board reversed the examiner's approval, finding the asphalt plant was inconsistent with the sub-area plan because the plan generally pro- hibited new industrial uses, the plan specifically prohibited asphalt recycling, the mine site never produced asphalt, and the proposed asphalt plant did not preserve the area's existing rural character. Lakeside sued, and the court ruled in its favor. The coun .fy appealed. -DECISION: Affirmed. The board could not invoke the plan's general purpose statements to over~ rule the specific author/ty granted by the zoning code to manufacture asphalt as an accessory use to mining. Because a comprehensive plan was a guide and not a document designed for malting specific land use decisions, conflicts concerning a proposed use were resolved in favor of the more specific regulation. The board did not alter the examiner's findings but essentially concluded the asphalt plant was inconsistent with the sub-area plan's general purposes, including the prohibition of large-scale development. The board's decision violated the rule that specific zoning laws trump gen- eral purpose growth management statements. see also: Schofield v. Spokane County, 980 P. 2d 277 (2999). see ah'o: Citizens ro Preserve Pioneer Park LLC v. City of Metver Island, 24 P. 3d 207.9 (2001). Conditional Use Permit -- Landowner wants to build vet hospital in ruraI area Planning commission finds prOposal comports with surrounding uses Citation: Luzuriaga v. County of Riverside, Court of Appeal of California, 4th App. Dist., Div. 2, No. 5033200 (2004) CALIFORNL~k (01/06/04) -- Luzufiaga bought property in a rural area to build a veterinary hospital. The property was in an area zoned for rural-residential 1.lSd. Luzuriaga filed for a conditional use permit. The Riverside County Plan- ning Commission recommended the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approve Luzuriaga's application. However, the board refused to do so. Luzuriaga sued, and the court ruled in the county's favor. Luzuriaga appealed, arguing the planning commission a~eed the proposed vetehna~ hospital should have been approved and the board was required to act in accordance with this decision. DECISION: Affirmed. Luzuriaga was not entitled to the conditional use permit. The commission stated the project may be consistent with the existing