Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />~ <br />" <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br />November 10, 1997 - Page 3 <br /> <br />'10 <br /> <br />Commercial Use - Did city's delay entitle owner to permit for bed and <br />breakfast? <br />State ex reI. Currier v. Clatsop County, 942 P.2d 847 (Oregon) 1997 <br />Currier wanted to build a three-unit bed and breakfast in Clatsop County, <br />Ore. The land was zoned rural residential, so on July 22, 1994, he applied to <br />the county planning commission for a conditional use permit. On Aug. 16, he <br />modified his proposal to allow for a five-unit bed and breakfast. <br />After hearings, the commission denied Currier's application in an order <br />that became final on Dec. 15. Currier appealed to the Board of County <br />Commissioners, which scheduled a hearing for March 8, 1997. <br />Two days before the hearing, Currier sued the county. He asked the court to <br />order the board to approve his application on the ground that the board had not <br />" issued a final decision within 120 days, as required by state law. State law <br />provided that if a county board didn't take final action on a permit application - <br />within 120 days after it was completed, the applicant could seek a court order <br />requiring the board to issue its approval. The court had to order the board to <br />grant the permit unless the board's approval would violate a substantive <br />provision of the county's land use regulations. <br />The county claimed Currier wasn't entitled to the requested order. Under <br />Currier's proposal, the bed and breakfast would be accessed by a private road. The <br />county argued the proposed bed and breakfast would violate the county's zoning <br />ordinance, which stated c'Private roads shall not be approved ... if the private road <br />is intended to serve commercial or industrial district uses." (Emphasis added.) <br />According to the county, the ordinance applied to any commercial or industrial <br />use, wherever the use was located. Currier, however; claimed that the ordinance <br />prohibited a private road only if the use was in a commercial or industrial district. <br />The court refused to order the board to issue Currier a permit, finding his <br />application violated the zoning ordinance'srequirementthat access to the bed <br />and breakfast be by a public rather than private road. <br />Currier c ppealed. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br />The court properly refused to order the board to grant Currier a permit. <br />Because Currier's proposed bed and breakfast would be served by a private <br />road, it would violate a substantive provision of the county's land use regulations. <br />The provision prohibiting private roads for "commercial odndustrialdistrict <br />uses" could be read to support either party's argument. By itself, it could mean <br />either c'uses of a kind permitted in commercial or industrial districts" or "uses <br />when they [were] actually found in commercial or industrial districts" - it <br />could describe either the nature or the location of the commercial or industrial <br />uses. However, the purpose of the ordinance as a whole suggested the answer. <br />Private roads could be built to less substantial standards than public roads, <br />and didn't involve dedications for public use. Private roads were thus designed <br />for more limited uses than public roads. A commercial use, wherever it was <br />located, was likely to place greater demands on a road than would a noncom- <br />