Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 2 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
commercial to residential subdivision.
The application was tabled following a public hearing last week in order to answer legal questions raised on the advisibility of rezoning property to a category that is currently being challenged in a pending court case.
On Tuesday. Washington attorney and acting zoning administrator Sharon Genebach Luke noted that the county has asked the court to rule on the validity of the zoning ordinance's residential subdivision (RS-1) section as it relates to the Nationwide Pentacostal Evangelistic Association's property. According to Luke, the NPEA’s position is that the RS-I category is invalid because it lists no uses allowed either by right or with a special permit. If the court agrees with that argument, she said, the decision will apply, in effect, to all residential subdivision property in the county. This would clear the way for landowners to carry out any type of use on parcels zoned RS-I. Luke said. If the zoning administrator orsupervisors attempted to enforce ordinance controls, they would probably be blocked by the court’s decision if the residential subdivision section is ruled invalid, she said. If the residential subdivision zone is thrown out. Luke said she hclieved property in that category will become unzoned.
Miller recalled that the planning commission had recommended adoption of an ordinance amendment last year adding uses listed by right and with a special permit for residential subdivision zones. The proposal was tabled by the supervisors, however, pending resolution of the NPEA litigation.
Supervisor chairman E. P. Luke, also a member of the planning commission, emphasized that the supervisors will not act on the proposed amendment until the court case is resolved.
Miller maintained that it would be safer to rezone the ski area property and have the supervisors enact the RSI amendment as soon as the court rules. He added that he w as only in favor of rezoning to RS-I while the category was "in flux" because the action on the ski area property will constitute down zoning. Since it's down zoning, he maintained, approval of RappSki's request will not set a precedent that other landowners can cite to have their property put in RS-I. "I see the risk involved." he said, but if someone should apply for a rezoning from agriculture, for instance, to RS-I, the commissioners could ask the supervisors to
76.5%