BOC DECISION (644) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The subject parcel was created by 'partition and is not part of a planned development. MCC 17.110.800 contains the rural zoning code equivalent of the urban zoning code's.access standards. The subject pxoperty was created in 1.999 under the urban zoning code rather than the rural -zoning code. No MCC 17.110.800 variance was involved. MCC 16.27.510(B)(2) does not apply. The subject property was created by partition and not planned development,. MCC.16.27:510(B)(3) does not apply. MCC 16:27.510(B)(1) through (3) do not apply and are.connected to MCC 16.27.51.0 (B) (4) by the word "and", suggesting that (4) would also not apply because under this wording, (B)(4) would have to relate back to (B) (1), (2) or (3) . So, if (B) (1), (2) or-- (3) do not apply, then B(4) cannot apply. This effectively disallows any new access, by roadway exceptin a planned development. Yet, partitioning regulation MCC 16.33.680 allows creation of lots and parcels, accessed solely :by roadways other than in planned developments. The two provisions appear to be inconsistent, acid it has not been the practice of Marion County to deny access by roadway only in'planned developments in the urban area. When looking at related provisions of law, decision makers attempt to give effect to all provisions and.interpret them harmoniously. To determine whether both provisions can be given 'effectr the decision maker must determine the effect the governing body intended the provisions to have. The text of the law provides the best evidence of the intent behind -the enactment. In construing' the text, its context is also considered. Forgers v. Quigley, 345 Or 432 (2008) . MCC 16.27.510 contains specific. limitations to private roadway access unless otherwise.specifically provided. All modern lots and parcels in Oregon are created by partition or subdivision but not a.l-l-are planned developments. A quick review of Planning Division records showed no urban planned developments in Marion,County since 1995 and likely none since urban zoning code enactment in 1990. But, gases have..approved uses other than planned developments on private roadways' within the UGB. One case, ZC 03-9, was a zone change.approval that allowed two manufactured homes connected by a common garage to be developed -as a duplex on property directly west of the _subject property. That parcel was also created by partition plat 99-99 and not a planped development and is accessed by Blueberry Lane. The zone change.was approved by the Marion County` Board of Commissioners (BOC) under the same access provisions existing today. Determining the governing body':s intent in enacting legislation is paramount in interpreting provisions of law, and BOC approval of.access via.roadwa.y outside 16.27.510(B)(1) through (3) situations shows BOC-intention.to avoid this severe -restriction. A reasonable interpretation is viewing subsectidn (B)(4) as another alternative to (B) (1)- through (3) . (B) (1) and (2) cover grandfather preexisting access and (3) covers one type of development that is