Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/06/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin Despite the recommendation, the department determined initially that the wall did not qualify as a historic resource under the county's unified development code. After a lively and contentious process, how- ever, the general manager of the land use deparnnent stated by letter to all panies involved that the wall could not be removed because it was of historic significance. The letter stated this was the "fInal decision" of the land use department and referred all parties to see "the rights of appeal of the Planning Board if so desired." Edgewood appealed the department's decision, but, instead of fol- lowing the suggestion in the determination letter that it appeal to the planning board, Edgewood filed its appeal vilith the zoning board of ad- justment after it conferred with the la"wyer for the department of land use on the proper venue for the appeal. The board of adjustment held a hearing-despitE Friends of Paladin's challenge to its authority in the matter. Applying the criteria of the county's development code, the board concluded ultimately that the department's decision that the wall had historic signiiicance was not supported by the evidence. Friends of Paladin rued a petition for review of the board's decision in court, assening that the board lacked jurisdiction and that the proper body to determine the matter was the planning board-as stated in the department's determination letter. The lower court rejected this argu- ment, finding that the board had jurisdiction because the department had made a zoning decision. Friends of Paladin appealed. Decision: .i\:ffumed. The issue on appeal was whether Edgewood appealed a zoning de- cision or a subdivision decision; there were different procedures for appeal under the county code based on the nature of the original deci- sion. If the decision of the land use department was a zoning matter, the board had acted within its authority, but, if it had made a subdivision decision, the board lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The appeals court had to look at the statutory scheme to determine what kind of application-and therefore, decision-had been made in this case. The evidence in the record demonstrated that the department had made a zoning decision, and, therefore, the decision of the lower" court was correct. The appeals court found that the criteria for determining the histor- ic significance, if any, of the wall were within the section of the code related to zoning regulations. In addition, these were the principal cri- teria used by the depanment in reaching its decision. Because depart- ment applied a zoning regulation, this was a zoning matter, and, by law, the board was entitled to hear and decide: "[aJppeals in zoning matters 10 134