Durig v. Washington County

969 P.2d 401, 158 Or. App. 36, 1999 Ore. App. LEXIS 6
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided January 6, 1999·No. LUBA No. 97-262; CA A103829·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Townsend Farms, Inc., seeks review of LUBA’s remand of a Washington County hearings officer’s approval of petitioner’s application to construct four residential buildings and an ancillary structure for seasonal farm-worker housing in an exclusive farm use zone. Petitioner’s principal assignment is directed against LUBA’s conclusions that an applicable comprehensive plan provision prohibits the “community water system” that petitioner proposes for the facility, that the provision is an approval criterion for the application and that the hearings officer erred by failing to apply the provision as an approval criterion. We agree with LUBA’s conclusions.

Petitioner makes four other assignments of error. None requires extensive discussion. Two of them challenge LUBA’s determinations that certain findings of the hearings officer are unsupported by substantial evidence. Both assignments are academic, however. Neither fact that the hearings officer found can result in the approval of the application, given the conclusion that the water system does not comply with the plan provision.

Affirmed.

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

Durig v. Washington County, 969 P.2d 401, 158 Or. App. 36, 1999 Ore. App. LEXIS 6 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).

969 P.2d 401 (Durig v. Washington County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Durig v. Washington County
34 P.3d 169 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2001)