Anderson v. Lane County
This text of 172 P.3d 302 (Anderson v. Lane 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.
Opinion
Lane County amended its Rural Comprehensive Plan to change the designation of certain property from “Forest Land” to “Marginal Land” pursuant to ORS 197.247(l)(a) (1991), and the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) affirmed. Petitioners seek judicial review, raising two assignments of error: First, they argue that LUBA erred in approving the county’s use of 1983 prices in calculating the potential value of timber on that land; and, second, they argue that LUBA erred by allowing the county, in the same calculation, to presume a uniform 50-year growth cycle for the timber. In Herring v. Lane County, 216 Or App 84, 171 P3d 1025 (2007), we held that LUBA erred in using 1983 prices but did not err in using a 50-year growth cycle. Herring resolves the issues in this case.
Reversed and remanded to LUBA with instructions to remand to county for further proceedings.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
172 P.3d 302, 216 Or. App. 332, 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 1668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-lane-county-orctapp-2007.