Laserfiche WebLink
12J05/2006 17:26 19707253303 GRAND COUNTY ZONING PAGE 05 <br />FAIRFIELD AND WOODS, P. C. <br />ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW <br />Board of`Cuand County Commissionan <br />December i. Zo~6 <br />Page 3 <br />Even i£the Board finds that the applicant has submitted a complete application, the Board <br />still has the discretion to deny the permit. As quoted in the.Hfllsfde Community Church decision, <br />"If the specie] permit pt+ocess were pnrcly ministerial then: would be no need to mandate a public <br />heating." <br />IiI. The special use permit is not compaflbte with the Master Plan, and roust be denied. <br />A £~oding that the proposed special use is consistent with the Vlastez Plan is required <br />before a special use pctrnit may be granted. Grand County Toning Regulations ¶ 11.1.2(8) <br />(coos). <br />Chapter 4 of the Grand County Master Plan presents "Strategic Gmw'tlt Strategies and <br />implementation Actions." On page 29, under the heading "Growth Strategy No. C-1," the fourth <br />Implementation Action provides in part: <br />1 o guest ranches, fishing Lodges, <br />town aowth areas. Wltere commercial or tourist uses and or <br />zoning are present within designated county growth areas (such as <br />Tabernash or Silver Creek), expansion of these uses oz zoning <br />designations is highly dts~ouraaed. <br />(Emphasis added.) 13y implication, the Master Plan provides that special use permits for <br />resource extraction within town growth areas wliC trot lie granted. The proposed expansion of <br />the Thompson gavel pit is within the Town of Grarlby's Urban C}rowth Area., as shown by a map <br />in the Csrand County Master Plan. <br />iV. The special nee permit is not compatible wink the adjacent land uses, and should be <br />denied. <br />Applfcant cites to Rathknpf's The Law of Zoning and Plannfng as a "highly regarded <br />treatise," That same treatise describes the history and use of special use permits as follows: <br />[T]oning regulations now almost uniformly recognize that a use <br />may, or should. be permitted in a district, although not specified as <br />a use permitted as of right, where the conditions surrounding its <br />txoposed location within district or the conditions that may be <br />imposed upon the particular mode of operation of this use render it <br />compatible with uses in the ad,~acent aroa and the district as a <br />whole. <br />3 Rarhkapf s The Law of Zoning and Planning § 61:2 (2005) (emphasis added). T'he treatise <br />goes on to note: <br />