BOC ORDER - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

between uses and users. For the reasons that follow, the property owners respectfully request that the Board of Commissioners accept their appeal and reconsider the Hearings Officer's interpretation of the County's Zoning Code for the following reasons: The Hearings Officer's decision in this case reverses the County Planning Department's established interpretation of MCC 17.110.800 (see pg. 4 and 8 of the decision). The applicant and the County's Planning Staff could find no prior appeals interpretating this particular code provision and could find no other materials indicating that the Planning Staff s interpretation has given rise to similar issues elsewhere in the County. The Hearings Officer's interpretation represents a departure from an interpretation that had been applied previously without incident. The Board has the opportunity to restore the status quo in this case. The facts of this case appear somewhat unique, limiting the impact of any decision the Board makes to a very specific group of properties across the County. Furthermore, the resulting difference between the two interpretations at issue here is not substantial — it is the difference in the number of residences (presumably one or two additional) that are allowed to utilize an access. The Board's decision in this case would not expand or limit any private easement or access rights. Property owners would still be required to own underlying easement rights in order to utilize a private driveway access. The Planning Department's interpretation in this case simply allows property owners to better utilize those existing property rights and to more fully realize their property's potential. The single issue on review involves the interpretation of the County's zoning code. The legislature recognizes that local governments are in the best position to interpret their own code provisions. State law therefore requires that any interpretation made by a local government's governing body be affirmed under the highly deferential standard of review set forth in ORS 197.829(1) and as articulated by the Oregon Supreme Court in Siporen v. City of Medford, 349 Or 247, 243 P3d 776 (2010). Put another way, so long as the Board's interpretation of its own plan or code is plausible, that interpretation must be affirmed even if other competing plausible interpretations may exist. - The more deferential standard of review does not extend to decisions made by a hearings officer. This Board is in a unique and important position to express County policy through an interpretation of the County's zoning code. The Board has the ability in this case to reinstate the County Planning Department's approach and to interpret the driveway criteria in a manner that allows the property owners to utilize their existing easement to access a dwelling that otherwise meets all of the County's applicable criteria for a non -farm dwelling on their property. The decision in this case thoroughly establishes that the most common use of land in the area is for rural residential purposes and the property owners are simply hoping to use their land in the same manner as their neighbors. As noted in the letter from Page 2 of 3 — Letter to Marion County Board of County Commissioners