Grass court appeal Sept. 14

The owner of Baker City’s grass tennis court complex will take his case to the City Council on Sept. 14.

Don McClure wants to extend the lights-out deadline at the four-court complex from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m., and to play host to tournaments on as many as 30 days per year, up from the current limit of 22 days.

In May the city Planning Commission denied McClure’s application to make those changes to his conditional-use permit for the courts.

McClure appealed to the City Council.

Councilors are scheduled to consider that appeal at a public hearing during their next regular meeting, which is Sept. 14 at City Hall, 1655 First St.

On Tuesday night the Council had a work session to discuss the guidelines, as prescribed by state law, for that public hearing.

Councilor Clair Button was absent Tuesday, and Councilor Milo Pope left early because he had a previously scheduled conference call.

This isn’t the first time the grass tennis courts have landed on the City Council’s agenda.

In 2003 the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) ruled that the City Council erred in allowing Borden and Sandi Granger to build the first two grass courts in 1995, and the second pair in 2000, without obtaining a conditional-use permit (McClure bought the courts from the Grangers a few years ago).

In the spring of 2004 the city Planning Commission granted the Grangers a conditional-use permit that includes the 9 p.m. lights curfew and the limit on the number of tournament days.

The Commission denied McClure’s appeal based on a city zoning rule that prohibits the expansion of any  “non-conforming use.”

The grass courts qualify as non-conforming because they wouldn’t be allowed under current zoning rules, according to the city.

During the work session councilors discussed only the procedures for the Sept. 14 public hearing rather than the specifics of McClure’s appeal.

Land-use appeals such as McClure’s are known as “quasi-judicial hearings,” and councilors, much like jurors in a criminal trial, are supposed to avoid discussing the case before they make their decision.

Bogart told councilors that it’s important they adhere to those guidelines to ensure their ruling is legally defensible.

However, regardless of the Council’s decision, either McClure or someone else could appeal that decision to LUBA.

Young told councilors that if they do have a conversation with anyone about McClure’s appeal — what’s known as an “ex-parte contact” they need to disclose that at the beginning of the Sept. 14 hearing.

A councilor who believed that such a conversation might influence their decision would have to recuse himself or herself from voting on the appeal.

That would also be the case for any councilor who has a conflict of interest in the matter, Young said.

“If you or any family member can gain or be hurt by the decision, you need to step down and sit in the audience,” he said.

Young said the key to making the hearing go as smoothly as possible is to maintain a level of order when each party, the applicant and the state attorney, gave testimony.

“It’s very easy to go off on a rabbit trail,” he said.

He suggested to the council that if an individual, while giving testimony, gets off topic, that the mayor politely interrupt and ask about the relevancy.

Mayor Dennis Dorrah told the councilors that if they want to interrupt a speaker during testimony, they should turn on their light (each councilor has a light on the lectern) to notify the mayor before interrupting.

“We want to have some order among ourselves too,” Dorrah said.

Bogart urged the Council to not rush to a decision.

“There is no need for a quick decision, you have all winter,” he said.