Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/2017

Home

September 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 18 Zoning Bulletin Ordinance 561. On June 12, 2015, Van Zuyen d/b/a Peyote Canyon submitted the final items required to support his building permits. On June 16, 2015, the Board denied Peyote Canyon a building permit for the pole building remodel. In denying the permit, the Board cited Ordinance 561 and said that since the building permit application was incomplete at the time the ordinance was adopted, the building peiinit application had not vested. Also on June 16, 2015, the Board adopted Ordinance 562, continuing Ordinance 561. In October 2015, the Board adopted Ordinance 565, peiauanently prohibiting marijuana production in the RL-5 zone. Peyote Canyon appealed the denial of the building permit. The Mid - Columbia Building Appeals Commission affirmed the denial. Van Zuyen d/b/a Peyote Canyon then filed an action in court, appealing the permit denial and asking the court to declare that the Board had not sufficiently identified facts constituting an emergency in support of Ordinance 561. In response, the County argued that the finding of an emergency was not required. The County conducts its planning under Washington's Planning Enabling Act (the "Act"). Under the Act, RCW 36.70.790 provides that a Board that intends to conduct studies in a reasonable time, or hold a hearing for the purpose of, the adoption of any zoning map or amendment, may adopt "as an emergency measure a temporary interim zoning map the purpose of which shall be to so classify or regulate uses and related matters as constitute the emergency." The County argued that since "Ordinance 561 ha[d]' nothing to do with a zoning map . . . RCW 36.70.790 [did] not apply," and instead RCW 36.70.795 and RCW 36.70A.390, which expressly, applied to the adop- tion of an "interim zoning ordinance" applied. Van Zuyen and the County both moved for partial summary judg- ment, asking the court to find there were no material issues of fact in dispute and to decide the matter in their favor on the law alone. The trial court agreed with the County's argument, and granted the County's motion. The trial court dismissed Peyote Canyon'sclaim, affirming the building permit denial. Van Zuyen d/b/a Peyote Canyon appealed. On appeal, Van Zuyen again contended that Ordinance 561 was insufficiently supported by findings of fact supporting an emergency. The County again asserted that the finding of an emergency was not required. The County further argued that, in any case, if an emergency was required to justify interim zoning, the Board had sufficiently identified facts constituting an emer- gency to justify Ordinance 561. DECISION: Judgment of trial court affirmed. The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3, held that interim zoning under the Act, such as with Ordinance 561's moratorium on 4 © 2017 Thomson Reuters