BOC ORDER - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

more than four dwelling units unless the parcels, on which those units are proposed to be placed were established with the approval of Marion County in accordance with State law and Marion County ordinance prior to May 1, 1977, or were approved under ORS Chapter 17.121 MCC Planned Development. MCC 17.110.800 places a limit on the number of dwellings accessed off a private easement. Marion County has long interpreted MCC 17.110.800 to allow a property that has frontage on a public street not to be considered "served" by the private easement. Applicant and Marion County's interpretation of the provision relies on the language "having direct access by abetting upon a public street or a pre existing private driveway. " Marion County interprets the limit in MCC 17.110.800 to be four parcels with dwellings and without frontage on a public road. This interpretation allows for an objective determination by counting the parcels that would be landlocked without the easement they rely on. Parcels with dwellings that have frontage on a public street, even if they use the easement, are not counted towards the maximum of four parcels with dwellings. Development of additional dwellings beyond that limit requires an approved variance to MCC 17.110.800 that meets the criteria in MCC 17.120.020. Little Haven Lane S currently serves four parcels with homes, but one (tax lot 2000) also has frontage on Viewcrest Rd S. Therefore, one additional dwelling without frontage on Viewcrest Rd S could be approved on Little Haven Ln S without requiring a variance to MCC 17.110.800. Marion County determined that three dwellings without frontage utilize the easement, and the dwelling in the present application would be the fourth. Staff provided testimony that the interpretation of MCC 17.110.800 has been consistently applied to previous decisions. Staff correctly found all criteria in MCC 17.137 required for a conditional use non -farm dwelling were met for the subject parcel. Appellants of the staff decision argue that the only "direct access" for the homes on Little Haven Lane S (Tax Lots 2000, 2300, 2301, and 2302) is through Little Haven Lane. Appellants argue that the express language of MCC 17.110.800 prohibits a private drive from serving more than four homes. Marion County expressly rejects this interpretation. The Marion County hearings officer incorrectly interpretated MCC 17.110.800 to require that dwellings must be situated on a lot having direct access to the abutting public street that actually permits access or a pre-existing private driveway. Based on this determination, the Hearings officer denied the application on the grounds that it requires an approved variance to MCC 17.110.800. The hearings officer found that the criteria specific to the conditional use non -farm dwelling in MCC 17.137 were met. The Marion County Board of Commissioners overturns the Hearing Officer's determination regarding MCC 17.110.800 and affirms Marion County's long-time interpretation that a dwelling is considered to have direct access to a public street when its parcel abuts the public street. Marion County interprets MCC 17.110.800 consistent with its plain reading and long-time interpretation. However, even if the interpretation advanced by the hearings officer was plausible, that would only mean that the county code contains conflicting provisions capable of multiple plausible interpretations. If that were the case, as an alternative basis of approval, Marion County exercises its discretion under Siporen v Medford to consider and choose among multiple plausible interpretations of its own county code to reach the same result as what Marion County understands the plain language to require.