Supplemental Materials #4 - Laserfiche WebLink

Because "Drug Treatment Clinics - Non-residential" are not allowed in the S-DW zone, a "Parking Area" for a "Drug Treatment Clinics - Non-residential" may not be established on the S-DW-zoned area. Wilson v. Washington County, 63 Or LUBA 314 (2011) From pages 3 to 6 (Footnotes 1 and 2 omitted): "FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR "As noted, petitioners own two parcels totaling approximately 70 acres. The northern 40-acre EFU zoned parcel is where the winery will be located and the associated events are proposed to be held. Wineries are allowed uses in the EFU zone under ORS 215.213(1)(p) and Washington County Community Development Code (CDC) 340-4.1.T, subject to the provisions of ORS 215.452, as implemented by the county in CDC 430-145. [Footnote 1] Access to the northerly 40-acre parcel is over an approximately 12-foot wide north/south driveway across the 30-acre EFC-zoned parcel. The driveway connects with NW Dick Road, a public road. [Footnote 2] Wineries are not allowed uses in the EFC zone. "The hearings officer found that since the driveway to the winery is located on land zoned EFC, and wineries are not permitted in the EFC zone, the application could not be approved. The hearings officer based her conclusion on LUBA's decisions in Bowman Park v. City of Albany, 11 Or LUBA 197 (1984) and in Roth v. Jackson County, 38 Or LUBA 894 (2000). The parties also cite and discuss Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, 56 Or LUBA 280 (2008). We discuss all three cases below. "In their first assignment of error, petitioners challenge the hearings officer's reliance on Bowman Park and Roth to conclude that the winery could not be approved where a winery is not a permitted use under the zoning that is applied to the parcel on which the driveway to the winery is located. We understand petitioners to argue that Bowman Park and Roth are inapposite in the present appeal for two reasons. First, petitioners argue that our decisions in Bowman Park and Roth are inapposite because the CDC does not list driveways as "accessory uses" in the EFU zone[.] Second, petitioners argue that the holdings in Bowman Park and Roth should be limited to circumstances where the parcel that provides the access to the proposed winery is zoned for residential use. "In Bowman Park, the parcel that was to be developed with industrial buildings was zoned for industrial use, but the access drive that provided access to the public right of way was zoned for residential use. Based in part on the city's definition of "use" and "development" that included the establishment of access, we concluded that the proposed industrial use included the access to that industrial use. In other words, we concluded the access as part of the industrial use and could not be sited in a residential zone. "In Roth, the subject property was a flag parcel with the flag portion zoned EFU and the flag pole portion that provided access to the flag portion of the parcel zoned residential. We agreed with the petitioners' argument that access to the proposed winery was an essential part of the proposed winery use and that that access had to be evaluated as part of the proposal. In Roth, we relied on Bowman Park to conclude that because the parcel on which the access to the winery would be located did not allow winery uses, the application could not be approved. We explained that "[a] parcel providing access to a winery is an accessory use to the winery." Id. at 905. * * * * [Discussion about why Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County is inapposite.] ZVR 20-1 (Conte) Additional Application Material #4 Page 4 January 7, 2010