Alliance for Responsible Land Use v. Deschutes County

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Alliance for Responsible Land Use v. Deschutes County

995 P.2d 1227, 166 Or. App. 166, 2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 358

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 8, 2000

DocketLUBA Nos. 99-027, 99-028; CA A108586

StatusPublished

This text of 995 P.2d 1227 (Alliance for Responsible Land Use v. Deschutes County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alliance for Responsible Land Use v. Deschutes County, 995 P.2d 1227, 166 Or. App. 166, 2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 358 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Petitioners Deschutes County and Scott seek review of LUBA’s remand of the county’s decisions approving two applications to divide 40-acre parcels in an exclusive farm use (EFU) zone into smaller parcels and to place nonfarm dwellings on each of the new parcels. We affirm.

Petitioners recognize that the county’s decisions are contrary to Dorvinen v. Crook County, 153 Or App 391, 957 P2d 180, rev den 327 Or 620 (1998), where we held that a materially identical county decision violated the requirement of ORS 215.780(l)(a) that, subject to exceptions that have no bearing here, the minimum lot or parcel size for county lands zoned EFU must be at least 80 acres. Petitioners contend, however, that Dorvinen was incorrectly decided and misconstrues ORS 215.780(1). Specifically, petitioners emphasize that this court’s reading of the statute is inconsistent with local governments’ understanding of and implementation of this statute before the Dorvinen decision, inconsistent with the intent of the legislature in adopting ORS 215.780, and is not sound land use policy. As we explained in Dorvinen, the problem with petitioners’ arguments is that the text and context of this statute simply do not support petitioners’ position. Accordingly, we adhere to our opinion in Dorvinen and agree with LUBA that the county erred in granting the applications.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Petitioners Deschutes County and Scott seek review of LUBA’s remand of the county’s decisions approving two applications to divide 40-acre parcels in an exclusive farm use (EFU) zone into smaller parcels and to place nonfarm dwellings on each of the new parcels. We affirm.

Petitioners recognize that the county’s decisions are contrary to Dorvinen v. Crook County, 153 Or App 391, 957 P2d 180, rev den 327 Or 620 (1998), where we held that a materially identical county decision violated the requirement of ORS 215.780(l)(a) that, subject to exceptions that have no bearing here, the minimum lot or parcel size for county lands zoned EFU must be at least 80 acres. Petitioners contend, however, that Dorvinen was incorrectly decided and misconstrues ORS 215.780(1). Specifically, petitioners emphasize that this court’s reading of the statute is inconsistent with local governments’ understanding of and implementation of this statute before the Dorvinen decision, inconsistent with the intent of the legislature in adopting ORS 215.780, and is not sound land use policy. As we explained in Dorvinen, the problem with petitioners’ arguments is that the text and context of this statute simply do not support petitioners’ position. Accordingly, we adhere to our opinion in Dorvinen and agree with LUBA that the county erred in granting the applications.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

995 P.2d 1227, 166 Or. App. 166, 2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alliance-for-responsible-land-use-v-deschutes-county-orctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack