Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/05/2002

Home

z.g. October 25, 2002 -- Page 3 DECISION: Affirmed' - The second' heating examiner's decision was afl'med. In addition to several broad Criteria for CUPs de'scribed/n the county's' code, the county was also given broad discretion to impose conditions on projects beyond those contained.in the original application. This discretion included modifications and restrictions the examiner found necessary to make the pro- posal compatible with the environment, state regulations, and the goals of the comprehensive plan, local zoning codes, policies, and objectives~ This. broad list allowed both the GMA and the-comprehensive zoning plan. The-court agreed the GMA and the comprehensive zoning plan were not. to be used as develop- ment regulations but noted the hearing examiner did not err when it referred to compliance with the GMA or the plan in the decision. : Tile hearing examiner did not abuse his discretion when he 'fOund the 48,500 square foot building was sufficient to promote the goals Of the GMA .and the plan, noting the need for an appropriate balance between the needs of the church and the neighbors' concerns. Citation: Timbertake Christian Fellowship v. King County,. Court of Appeal of Washington, No. 49824-0-I (2002). see also: Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 947 R2d I208 (1997). Conditional Use -- Owners dispute board's permit denial Decision was based on concerns fire department could not provide services to property during a flood WISCONSIN (09/19/02) -- The Stoetzels owned nine acres of property, in Washington County. They obtained a permit in 1999 to build a private road across a. portion of the property that was in a.floodplain. This was part of their plans to 'build a residence on another part'of their property not located in the floodplain. A later survey revealed the entire property was located' on the floodplain: - In 2000, the county board of adjustment denied their application for a con- ditional use permit to build the residence, noting its concern over .whether the fire department could provide emergency services in .the event of a flood, as required by local zoning ordinance and administrative provisions. The Stoetzets asked the court to reverse the board's decision. The court agreed and ordered the board to issue a permit, after reviewing a series of letters from the frre department which, the court believed, should have allayed the board!s concerns. The county appealed. The first letter from the local f'ne chief stated, given the flooding potential on the property, the fire department "mayor may not be capable of providing emergency services" during a flood event. The letter noted the f'zre department would make reasonable attempts to service the Stoetzel property, like any other property. The Stoetzels tried to obtain additional written assurances from the fire department, but in a second letter, the fire chief stated' the department's insurance company had instructed him not to sign any letter of assurance, noting 23