County seeks city reconsideration of conditional use permit denial for 343 E. Main Street property

Washington County’s commissioners decided Monday, Oct. 7, to ask the City of Weiser to reconsider the City Council’s decision made after a public hearing Sept. 23, to deny the county’s conditional use permit request for a house at 343 East Main Street. 

 The plan is for the county to provide its own prosecuting attorney’s office, a first for the county in at least 50 years, if not ever. 

 Over time, Washington County’s prosecutors have typically been practicing attorneys in Weiser, and while they served in office the county paid a lease for the use of their offices. At the same time, as owners of their office buildings, previous prosecutors have also continued to pay property taxes on their business properties.

 Sitting in the middle of a residential block, the house on Main Street had served as a chiropractic office for a few years, but after the practice moved to another location, the building’s use reverted back to residential as a rental for the past several years.

 Chairman Lyndon Haines told fellow commissioner Gordon Wilkerson he had a letter ready to deliver to the city requesting the council reconsider its unanimous decision to deny the county’s request. Commissioner Nate Marvin was absent from Monday’s weekly meeting.

 After reading the city’s zoning ordinance for himself, Haines said he believes the county will be within its right to put the house to use without any action by the city.

 Pointing to the city’s permitted uses for A residential districts, he said it includes parks and playgrounds, “and similar uses owned and operated by a governmental agency, including police, fire and postal substations.”

 Haines said the county prosecutor is part of law enforcement, leading him to believe the office fits under the ordinance’s description. 

 After talking it over with Sheriff Matt Thomas, the building might be utilized as offices for sheriff’s detectives if it couldn’t be the prosecutor’s office. 

 Wilkerson expressed his disagreement with the city’s decision because their attorney had advised they would be okay approving the conditional use based on a section under conditional uses that reads “other uses deemed similar by the city to the uses above may be considered under a conditional use application.”

 Haines said he planned to take the letter to the city Monday afternoon, just inside the 15-day deadline to submit the reconsideration request.

 The county bought the house at its appraised value of $230,000 just shortly before its first scheduled conditional use hearing with the city’s Planning and Zoning commission in August. There was no representation from the county at that meeting, and one neighboring property owner submitted comments in opposition to the permit. 

 The P&Z’s recommendation for denial of the request was forwarded to the city council, with a second public hearing set for Sept. 23. 

 During the city council’s hearing, Haines presented the county’s case and answered a myriad of questions from council members. The neighboring property owner again submitted opposition to the plan, and no one from the neighborhood submitted comments in favor.

 In a vote after the hearing closed, the full council unanimously denied the request.