My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
HO DECISION (202)
Images9
>
Public Works - Planning
>
FOR PUBLIC VIEW ON INTERNET
>
Old Cases
>
HO DECISION (202)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/8/2012 12:54:19 PM
Creation date
10/30/2024 3:02:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Land Use
Case_Number
02-022
Land Use Type
Partition
Tax_Lot_Number
084W24C 00903
Document_Type
Decision
Site_Address
6683 FERN FOREST LN
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
(City Planning and Zoning), but it is clear by the extensive <br />subdivision and partitioning case law that most subdivision and <br />partitioning decisions are land use decisions. Local partitioning and <br />subdivision regulations must then comply with state statute, or state <br />statute must apply directly to local government decisions. <br /> <br /> ORS 92.217 also lends support to the determination that local <br />regulations cannot be used to supercede state subdivision and <br />partitioning laws: "A lot or parcel lawfully created shall remain a <br />discrete lot or parcel, unless the lot or parcel lines are vacated or <br />the lot or parcel is further divided, as provided by law." <br /> <br /> In Kishpaugh v. Clackamas County, 24 Or LUBA 164, (1992), the Land <br />Use Board of Appeals found the purpose of this law was to prevent local <br />governments from refusing to recognize lawful divisions of land such <br />that lots and parcels could not be sold to third parties, and to <br />establish that the property lines established by such land divisions <br />remain inviolate, absent the employment of a specific process to <br />eliminate such property lines. Again, local laws are not to be used to <br />confound state subdivision and partitioning laws. <br /> <br /> Finally, under MCSPO I2(g), one of the objectives of the MCSPO is <br />to regulate the subdividing and partitioning of land in unincorporated <br />Marion County in accord with applicable state statutes and state <br />planning goals. Consistent with state statute, applicant's proposed <br />land division, P 02-21 and P 02-22, may be processed as separate <br />partitions and not as one-subdivision. Notice was not defective, and <br />the hearings officer has jurisdiction to consider this partitioning <br />application. <br /> <br />IV. Findings of Fact <br /> <br /> The hearings officer, after careful consideration of the testimony <br />and evidence in the record, issues the following findings of fact: <br /> <br />The subject property is designated Rural Residential in the MCCP, <br />and is zoned AR. The purpose of this designation and zoning is to <br />allow the creation of acreage homesites at a density that <br />maintain~ the character and environmental quality of the county's <br />rural residential areas. The property is also in a sensitive <br />groundwater overlay zone - five-acre minimum (SGO-5), and a <br />geologically hazardous areas overlay zone. <br /> <br />The subject parcel is on the west side of River Springs Drive S, <br />approximately ~ mile south of its intersection with Vitae Springs <br />Road S. The property is currently vacant. The parcel was lawfully <br />created by P 99-1, and is recorded as parcel 3 of partitioning <br />plat 2001-65. <br /> <br />P 02-22 - ORDER -4 <br />KOLOEN <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.