Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/02/2004

Home

Z.B. October 25, 2004 -- Page 3 of Ha~Ter County, one of the commissioners stated, based on a report on the matter, that by law he was absolutely required' to approve the special pe~t. Tri-Coumy Concerned Citizens Inc., a local citizens' group, sued t0 revoke the special pe~t. k argued the co~ssioner had illegally prejudged the app,- cation without fatty considering all the evidence. The court found in its favor. %n~ board appealed. DECISION: Revemed. The commisazoner's statements were not enough to conclude he fatally p rej udged the application-. Thc commissioner may not have been legally cogect to say he "had no choice" amd would have been "breaNng the taw" had he voted ag~st the aPpa- cation att the time, but these co~ents did not evidence i~egal prqudgment. Decision-maNng was an evolving process, and due consideration of ap- propriate evidence and application of appropriate legal standards over the course of public hearings could pgoPerly enable the decisionmaker to fo~ a reasoned decision prior to the moment of the final vote. The focus of a prejudgment inquizy had to be the decisionmaker's state of mind as the evidence was presented, not when the evidence was subsequently discussed and considered in for~ng a decision. For ~he com~ssiouer, by the time the report was complete, se~mg extensive reference to and consideration of all required evidence, Ns ~nd was made up. He honestly felt, at that point, that it would be inappropriate and unw:trranted to vote against the application. Expression of such sentient w~ not necess~y prejud~ent; m fact, he ~atned his intent was to "follow the ia,a" and "~ve each side equ~ consideration." Consequendy, the co~ssioner had not fatally prejudged the app~cation. .~'ee ~zl.5'o: ~¢Tiliczm,ron v. Ci~ o/Hays, 64 P3d 364 .5,_'ce c~l,~o: McPhersort LandfiIl~ Inc. v. Board q'gha~'nee Coun~ Commissioners, 49. P Jet 5°°_. ~'2002~. Nonconfi)rming Use -- Electric company wants to upgrade Wansmission lines Claims du~, to provide adequate service requirea' it to do so Citci~z'on: Cyr~.5' v. Desch~tte3' Cow2ty, Court of AppeczA' of Oregon, No. AJ24563 (2004) OREGON t 1)8/25/04) -- Central Electric Cooperative inc. wanted to make im- lVrC)'./,_~men~s co a nonconforming transmission line. Central sought to upgrade ::he linc (rom o9-~].ovoit co ! i5-N]ovoit capacity and to install new Conductors h~si:e:.td oi5' ippi,/ine t',)r :~ conditional use Detroit. it appiied tar a cnan~ to LsmXer :5~:tte ',a,,v. ~ nonconforming use couid onJy be altered if there was a :e~:~ ['.::~_iLi[f.~:;';eg[ ~C do ~o. T~e count,/faired d~ere was no legal requh-ement : '_"Ii ~ ~r:ll~[:tn :'%.tis;qlnc; .'-.'Ps c'.. iR,., 'e.':'.roduc:ion :$ 3ronlolted. ----or ,note ;niormatlon 31e.~se call :~i75 .542-0048. 77