Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/06/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin The IO''vLl appealed. Decision: Judgment in favor of the town. The IOVl.rn argued on appeal rhar rhe lower court had erred as a matter of law by concluding mat "allowed" and "legally existing nonconform- ing" uses were "permitted" uses. The town claimed thaT allowing legally exisring nonconforming uses to continue did not transform them into al- lowed or permitted uses in the RPD under the ordD-lance. Therefore, the ordinance does not entitle Gensheimer IO build an access road withom a perrnir because the home was a prohibited use in the RPD. Gensheimer countered that the term "permitted" should be given its COIILmon and generally accepted meaning of "allowed," and, because the home was allowed IO continue under the ordinance as a legally existD-lg nonconforming use, iT should be considered a permitted use in the RPD. Bm by its terms and by its strucmre, the ordinance was not neutral with respeCT IO its treatment of nonconforming uses and permitted uses. Non- conforming uses were subject to separate-and more stringent-land use standards than permitted uses. nle coun was not persuaded by Gensheimer's argument that the home was a permitted use, and, even if iT were, there was another section of the ordinance that stated: "[w]henever a provision of this Ordinance conflicts with or is inconsistent with another provision of this Ordinance ..., the more restrictive provision shall control." The more restrictive provision here stated that: "[s]ave for normal upkeep and maintenance, no change or addition IO a non-conforming use may occur wirhout fustobtaiuing a permit from the Plannitlg Board." Because rhe appeals courr found that Gensheimer was required to get a permit ro build the access road, the ordinance governed the conditions under which the permit could be granted, and the board had not abused its discretion ,;;,,-hen denying rhe permit, rhe decision in Gensheimer's favor was vacared. Notice-City fails to notify conservation department about proposed change to agricultural zone Petitioners argue failure warrants reversal of plan approval Citation: North East Medford Neighborhood Coalition v. City of Medford, 214 Or. App. 46, 2007 WL 1990262 (2007) OREGON (07/11/07)-'Cedar Landing owned 122 acres of land in the city of Medford. The property was zoned SD-lgle-family residential, and part of the land contained an exclusive agriculture overlay zone that only allowed agricultural buildings. In January 2005, Cedar Landing applied for preliminary approval of a planIled unit development (POO) on the property. While the city was con- sidering the application, the portion of rhe land containing the exclusive agriculture zone was discovered; ir had apparently been left off the maps which were being used by the city at the time of Cedar Landing's applica- 10 122