Opinion ID: 2608707
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Article VI, § 1.2 of the Jackson County Zoning Ordinance authorizes the Hearings Council to approve a conditional use permit if it finds: 1. That the use will not be injurious to property and improvements in the area of the request. 2. That the use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the area where the proposed use would be located. On June 19 and 22, 1978, the Jackson County Hearings Council held a hearing on the application of the City of Gold Hill for a conditional use permit to build the sewage treatment plant. Extensive testimony was received at that hearing, including testimony to support findings and conclusions by it that the plant was not designed to cause any odors, however, occasionally there may be odor which can usually be corrected; that odor will be a non-existent or negligible problem; that the nearest residence is approximately 400 feet from the proposed sewage treatment plant; that the site will be landscaped to make it more aesthetically pleasing; and that the proposal satisfied requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and had been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Environmental Quality. A considerable number of landowners in the area appeared at that hearing to object to the issuance of a permit for construction of the plant. By letters or oral statements some of these landowners contended that the construction of the plant would impair the market value of their property. The only evidence directly to the contrary was a statement made in presenting the staff recommendation that we discussed this application with Harley Finney, the chief appraising officer of the Assessor's Department, who    indicated that it is unlikely in his opinion that this proposed use would have any adverse effect on property values in the area. He pointed as an example of this to the City of Ashland, which installed some time ago a sewage disposal plant and which today you can see that subdivision development is partially encircling this, uh, facility. There may be an occasional problem caused by odor. This would emanate from chemicals used at the plant. Such a problem is likely to be very temporary, at worst, and easily correctable according to the information we've received. The engineer who designed the proposed plant also stated at the hearing that the plant would not be detrimental to homes of people living in the area, and that [i]f it's operated properly there won't be any odor problem. The protesting landowners were not represented by an attorney at that hearing and no contention was made by them at that hearing that the Hearings Council should or must make a finding on the question whether the market value of nearby property would or would not be impaired by construction of the plant. At the conclusion of that hearing one of the members of the Hearings Council made the following statement: One of the points brought out was that there would be some devaluation of property along the Rogue River to the home sites. This may be true, and, however, we are supposed to get expert testimony on these types of points and tonight we have just heard referrals to real estate people and so forth that say this, and I would like to say to the people that oppose this that this application, whether we vote for or against it, has to go before the county commissioners. I see, if it is appealed, it has to go before the county commissioners. And if it would do so, it might be a good point to get some expert testimony along these lines.   . Another member of the council then said: I can understand the concern of the property owners nearby ... and I would have to think twice before I would purchase a piece of property adjacent to it. Now this is only a personal feeling since there has been no expert testimony offered here, but I do feel that there is going to be a certain amount of actual damage to the property owners in the general area of the location of this plant.    The chairwoman also said: I feel that there will be some financial damage. An attorney representing petitioners then filed a notice of appeal to the Jackson County Board of Commissioners. By that notice of appeal he contended that there were errors in some of the findings of fact. He also objected to some of the various conclusionary findings, including a finding that odor will be a non-existent or negligible problem; that it would not degrade environmental quality and to a finding that Harley Finney had indicated that it is unlikely the proposed water treatment plant would adversely affect the value of nearby property on the ground that Harley Finney had not testified and no written statement by him had been offered. The notice of appeal did not, however, contend that the Hearings Council had erred in failing to make a finding on the question whether construction of the plant would or would not impair the market value of nearby property. A hearing on the matter was then held by the Jackson County Board of Commissioners on July 20, August 2 and August 4, 1978. At that hearing the attorney representing the petitioners not only presented argument in support of the various contentions made in the notice of appeal but also offered additional evidence, including the testimony and materials prepared by an appraiser, in support of the contention by petitioners that the market value of their lands would be impaired by construction of the proposed sewage treatment plant. The attorney representing the City of Gold Hill objected to additional evidence upon the ground that under the procedural rules of the Board of Commissioners an appeal from an order by the Hearings Council is limited to argument by the parties unless there is some showing that additional evidence is required in the public interest or that such evidence could not have been produced with due diligence before the Hearings Council. He contended that evidence relating to market value could have been produced with due diligence at that hearing. That offered evidence, as well as other evidence offered by petitioners, was then rejected. The chairman of the board noted, however, that: The record indicates that the landowners had testified at the previous hearings as to their belief that their property values would be lowered. The attorney for petitioners also objected, as in the notice of appeal, to the finding by the Hearings Council referring to the hearsay statement by Mr. Finney on the subject of land values. That finding by the Hearings Council was omitted by the Board of Commissioners in the findings, conclusions and order which it then issued on August 23, 1978, and which otherwise adopted most of the findings and conclusions as previously made by the Hearings Council. Commissioner Moore dissented upon the ground that the city had not met its burden of proving that the use would not be injurious to property and improvements in the area. Petitioners then filed a petition for writ of review in the circuit court. The petition alleged, among other things, that the Board of Commissioners had declined to consider any additional evidence outside the record of the Hearings Council; that the Board failed to make any finding of fact that the operation of the sewage treatment plant, including odors and noise from it, would not be    injurious to residential properties in the area; that the Board had granted the permit after evidence was in the record showing an adverse impact upon neighboring residential properties, without first making findings of fact (1) that there was no other land available for said use, and (2) if there was, that the subject site was better suited to said purpose than any other land available. and that: Defendant Board of Commissioners found a lack of detriment to neighboring residences without any competent, substantial, reliable or probative evidence   . No contention was made in that petition that the Board of Commissioners was required to make a finding of fact upon the question whether construction of the proposed sewage treatment plant would or would not impair the market value of adjacent property. Upon the denial of a writ of review by the circuit court petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the circuit court, as previously stated.