Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/02/1997

Home

. ,. Page 8 - November 10, 1997 Z.B. would be included in a residential district. The land was near an interstate, so it was unsuitable for residential development because of noise and aesthetics. Moreover, the amendment benefited the entire community by promoting commercial development. The zoning amendment didn't constitute spot zoning. The amendment benefited the entire community, and there was no proof the amendment was passed solely to benefit the car dealership, as the owners argued. Agricultural Use - Resident claims neighbor needed special permit to sell cattle Collins v. Klamath County, 941 P.2d 559 (Oregon) 1997 Collins complained to the planning director of Klamath County, Ore., that Simonsen was conducting - without a conditional use permit - cattle sales and other activities in a district zoned "exclusive farm." Under the county land development code, "farm uses" were permitted in an exclusive farm zone, but "stockyards and animal sales" needed a conditional use permit. Simonsen responded that it was unclear as to whether his use was a "farm use" or an "animal sale use" under the county code. He also claimed that his animal sale activities constituted a "farm use" as defmed by a state statute, which he said meant it was a permitted use anywhere in any exclusive farm zone under state law. The planning director asked a county hearing officer to determine whether Simonsen's use fell within "farm uses" or "stockyards and animal sales." The county hearings officer found Simonsen didn't need a permit, and Collins appealed to the county board. The board found the definitions of "farm use" and "animal sales" were inconsistent with each other when applied to the situation at hand. Looking to the "custom, culture, and history" of the county and state as they applied to agricultural practices in the state, the board determined that the hearing officer was right. Collins appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), which upheld the board's interpretation. However, LUBA returned the matter to the county board after concluding the board failed to make necessary findings about the specific nature of Simonsen's use and how that use satisfied the standards the board applied. Collins appealed to court. Neither Collins nor the county challenged LUBA's conclusion that the county board had not made sufficient findings. DECISION: Affirmed. The matter had to be sent back to the county board. Neither Collins nor the county challenged LUBA's finding that the county board failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision. Nevertheless, the court commented on an issue the county board would have to address upon reconsidering the matter. Specifically, the court found that the state statute allowing for specific nonfarming activities to be conducted in farm use areas without a permit didn't apply to county code provisions Il~ governing farm uses in those areas. .,..~