247 P.3d 767
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Petitioners challenge a City of Newberg EOA, part of its comprehensive plan, after a 2010 revision.
- LUBA remanded the ordinance, sustaining some assignments and rejecting others.
- Central dispute concerns how to interpret 'site characteristics' under OAR 660-009-0005(11) and 660-009-0015(2).
- Petitioners argue 'necessary' means indispensable; the city argues it can include attributes with competitive value.
- LUBA adopted a two-prong test: site characteristics must be (1) typical of the expected use and (2) have a meaningful connection to operation.
- Court of Appeals affirms LUBA, adopting a pragmatic meaning of 'necessary' as reasonably necessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of 'necessary' in site characteristics | Petitioners: 'necessary' = indispensable; dictionary meaning. | City/LCDC: 'necessary' may be broader, not strictly indispensable. | 'Necessary' is reasonably necessary, not strictly indispensable. |
Key Cases Cited
- 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 305 Or. 384 (1988) (defines context of 'necessary' in planning rules)
- State v. Young, 74 Or. 399 (1915) (interpretation of 'necessary' varies by context)
- J.R. Simplot Co. v. Dept. of Agriculture, 340 Or. 188 (2006) (inexact term illustrating flexible 'necessary' scope)
- Moore Mill & Lbr. Co. v. Foster, 216 Or. 204 (1959) (concept of 'necessary' in statutory context)
- In re Feehely's Estate, 182 Or. 246 (1947) ('necessary' as reasonably necessary in context)