457 P.3d 369
Or. Ct. App.2020Background
- Deschutes County had an acknowledged comprehensive plan; the 541-acre subject property had long been designated Surface Mining (SM) and was never included in the county’s Goal 3 (agricultural land) inventory or zoned EFU.
- Tumalo Irrigation District applied for a post-acknowledgement plan amendment (PAPA) to change the property from SM to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) and rezone to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10).
- County hearings officer denied the application; on appeal the county commissioners reversed and approved the amendment, concluding the property was not subject to Goal 3 because it was not in the county’s acknowledged Goal 3 inventory.
- Central Oregon Landwatch challenged the county’s approval before LUBA, arguing NRCS soil data showed the property met Goal 3’s soil-based definition of agricultural land and thus an exception or inclusion in the Goal 3 inventory was required.
- LUBA upheld the county, applying Urquhart and Caldwell to hold the PAPA did not require revisiting the pre-existing inventory exclusion because the amendment did not cause the Goal 3 noncompliance.
- On appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals, the court affirmed LUBA, holding a PAPA is reviewable under a statewide goal only if the amendment directly or indirectly causes potential noncompliance with that goal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a PAPA that changes a property from one non-Goal-3 designation to another requires the county to re-evaluate and apply Goal 3’s agricultural-land definition to the property | COWL: The county must apply Goal 3 (NRCS soil classification) before changing designation; soils show property is agricultural as a matter of law | County & Tumalo Irrigation Dist.: The property was previously excluded from the Goal 3 inventory after acknowledged planning processes, so the PAPA does not implicate Goal 3 and no exception or inventory change is required | Held: Affirmed LUBA — a PAPA is reviewable for compliance with a statewide goal only if the amendment itself (directly or indirectly) affects the goal; because the amendment did not cause Goal 3 noncompliance, the county need not revisit the prior inventory exclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Urquhart v. Lane Council of Governments, 80 Or. App. 176 (1986) (PAPAs are reviewable under a statewide goal only when the amendment causes the potential noncompliance)
- Opus Dev. Corp. v. City of Eugene, 141 Or. App. 249 (1996) (PAPA review may include statewide goals implicated by the amendment)
- 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Jackson County, 79 Or. App. 93 (1986) (a plan amendment can affect unamended plan provisions so as to create goal compliance issues)
- Dept. of Transportation v. Douglas County, 157 Or. App. 18 (1998) (exception where county amends plan to achieve compliance with rules promulgated after acknowledgment)
- Mountain West Inv. Corp. v. City of Silverton, 175 Or. App. 556 (2001) (LUBA order unlawful in substance when it misinterprets applicable law)