Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/2006

Home

60 Page 4 - October 25, 2006 Z.B. use permit for the track from the planning commission. However, after another hearing, the zoning board of appeals revoked the permit, fmding that the plan- ning commission could not grant a special use permit for a motocross track in an agricultural district. . Bracelin sued the board, but the court ruled in its favor. Bracelin appealed, arguing that the zoning ordinance was illegal because there was no provision for any motocross track or any other type of track at all. DECISION: Affirmed. Having no allowance for any motocross track or other type of track did not make the ordinance illegal. For the zoning ordinance to be invalid, Bracelin had to establish that: I) there was a demonstrated need for the excluded land use in the township or surround- ing area; 2) the use was appropriate for the location; and 3) the use was lawful. At the board of appeals hearing, a few people commented that there were very few places for them to participate in motocross, and they emphasized that the track was family-oriented. Such comments from a handful of people did not demonstrate a sufficient need for a motocross track in the township or sur- rounding area, but merely indicated a desire to have the track. Furthermore, there were similar types of tracks in other nearby towns. Ultimately, Bracelin failed to demonstrate a need for a track at his proposed location. Because the first prong of his argument failed, the decision of the lower court had to be affirmed. Subdivision - Property owner avoids subdivision requirements by applying for boundary line adjustment Adjustment would make lot smaller than minimum required for zone Citation: Mason v. King County, Court of Appeals of Washington, Dlv. 1, No. 56341-6-1 (2006) , WASHINGTON (08/28/06) - Parker owned two adjacent lots in an.A- ~O zone of King County. A-IO zones were for agricultural uses with 10-acre minimum lot sizes. Parker applied for a boundary line adjustment th\1;t would change the size of one of his lots to less than eight acres. Boundary line adjustments were exempt from the county zoning code's subdivision requirements. The countY Depart- ment of Development and Environmental Services approved Parker' srequest. Mason, a neighboring property owner, sued. The court ruled in favor of the county. Mason appealed, claiming that the approval was illegal because it created a substandard, undersized lot that was exempt from the local subdivision statutes. DECISION: Reversed. Because the boundary line adjustment would transform a legally created lot into a substandard, undersized lot, the department should not have approved the adjustment. @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. Il .........-...... '\ ) ~.-.:...., (- ) 1 J .j "J .' I