Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/03/1997

Home

.. Page 4 - May 25, 1997 Z.B. '"' the principal use. The list of 12 accessory uses was intended only to provide examples of acceptable uses - not to exclude uses left off the list. Once it was established that daycare centers could exist as accessory uses, the church had to demonstrate that its day care center w~s an accessory use. To be considered accessory, a use had to conform to three standards: It had to be subordinate to the principal use and minor in significance; it had to be located on the same lot as the principal use; and it had to be "customarily incidental" to the principal use -,- that is, it had to be a normal, related function of the principal use. The church's daycare center obviously satisfied the first two conditions- it was a subordinate use to the church, and it was located on the same lot. The third condition was not as clearly satisfied. However, while churches were once solely used for worship, their functions had expanded to include social services such as daycare. As the church's pastor testified, the day care center was part of his church's mission. Therefore, the daycare center had to be considered customarily incidental to the church's activities. The board's decision to approve the site plan with regard to the traffic question was not arbitrary and capricious. The church's expert testified the entranceway would not cause traffic problems. In addition, the township devoted much time and effort to its own traffic studies, which showed the church's plan was the most reasonable option. Taking ,- Can board force developer to acquire rights-of-way from neighboring owners? Snider v. Board of County Commissioners of Walla Walla County, 932 P.2d 704 (Washington) 1997 Snider requested preliminary approval for a 21-lot subdivision plan in a Walla Walla, Wash., agricultural-rural zone. The plan located the subdivision between two roads ~ a highway and Two Acre Lane. The Board of County Commissioners of Walla Walla County approved the map but imposed six conditions on the development. The board's fifth condition required Snider to widen the 12-foot-wide Two Acre Lane to 50 feet. To do this, Snider would have to get rights-of-way from owners of property adjoining the lane. Snider sued the board, asking the court to eliminate the condition. The court found the evidence supported the board's contention that the road was not adequate for the development. The court also found, however, that it was arbitrary and capricious to make Snider himself acquire rights-of- way over property owned by third parties. As a result, the court modified the condition, determining that Snider would pay for the right-of-way acquisitions and improvements, but the board had to exercise its power of eminent domain to acquire rights-of-way. Both Snider and the board appealed. The board said it was not acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it imposed the condition, and said the trial court had exceeded its authority by requiring that the condition be modified. 53