Washington County v. Land Conservation & Development Commission

942 P.2d 846, 149 Or. App. 281, 1997 Ore. App. LEXIS 1024
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedJuly 23, 1997
DocketCAA91703; CAA91734
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 942 P.2d 846 (Washington County v. Land Conservation & Development Commission) 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
Washington County v. Land Conservation & Development Commission, 942 P.2d 846, 149 Or. App. 281, 1997 Ore. App. LEXIS 1024 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

DEITS, C. J.

Petitioners Washington County and Bergey seek review of LCDC’s enforcement order relating to the county’s processing of certain pending farm dwelling applications. In effect, the order requires the county to follow and apply the requirements of LCDC’s high-value farmland rules, OAR 660-33-120 et seq, rather than county regulations that existed at the time of the enforcement proceeding and that are inconsistent with the LCDC rules. Both petitioners argue, and we agree, that under our decisions in Lane County v. LCDC, 138 Or App 635, 910 P2d 414, on recons 140 Or App 368, 914 P2d 1114, rev allowed 324 Or 305 (1996), and Oregonians in Action v. LCDC, 147 Or App 342, 936 P2d 372 (1997), various provisions of the high-value farmland rules that are pertinent here cannot be applied validly in Washington County. But see Marquam Investment Corp. v. Multnomah County, 147 Or App 368, 377-78, 936 P2d 990 (1997). Accordingly, we must reverse and remand the enforcement order to LCDC.

Petitioner Bergey argues further that the order is also erroneous insofar as it pertains to three dwelling applications of his which, he maintains, the county approved at some time that the record does not reveal but that predated LCDC’s issuance of the enforcement order. However, because we have reversed and remanded the entire enforcement order, it is not necessary for us to resolve Bergey’s alternative argument. Moreover, the record in this enforcement proceeding does not provide us with sufficient information to resolve Bergey’s argument relating to the specific land use decisions.1

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

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

Related

Washington County v. Land Conservation & Development Commission
954 P.2d 178 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
942 P.2d 846, 149 Or. App. 281, 1997 Ore. App. LEXIS 1024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-county-v-land-conservation-development-commission-orctapp-1997.