Tarr v. Multnomah County
306 Or. App. 26
Or. Ct. App.2020Background
- Intervenors (Masjid Ibrahim, Omer, Ashfaq) own a 2.2‑acre parcel in Multnomah County zoned MUA‑20 and applied for conditional‑use and design review to build a mosque serving ~150 families.
- Multnomah County’s approval standards for "Community Service Uses" (including places of worship) include a compatibility standard requiring the use to be "consistent with the character of the area" (MCC 39.7515(A)).
- Intervenors argued ORS 215.441 (a state statute protecting reasonable use of property for places of worship) precluded the county from applying its compatibility standard; alternatively, they argued the mosque in any event met that standard.
- The county hearings officer agreed both that ORS 215.441 displaced the compatibility standard and that the mosque satisfied compatibility, and approved the application with conditions.
- LUBA concluded ORS 215.441 did not displace the county standard but upheld the approval on the hearings officer’s alternative finding that the mosque met the compatibility standard. The Tarrs sought judicial review.
- The Court of Appeals held ORS 215.441 does displace county compatibility‑type approval standards for permitted places of worship and affirmed LUBA’s ultimate result (for different reasons), dismissing the cross‑petition as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Tarr's Argument | County/Intervenors' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ORS 215.441 permits a county to apply a compatibility standard ("consistent with the character of the area") to a proposed place of worship | ORS 215.441 does not displace local approval standards; county may apply compatibility | ORS 215.441 requires counties to allow reasonable uses for places of worship and displaces local standards except as the statute allows | Held for Intervenors: ORS 215.441 precludes conditioning approval on a compatibility standard like Multnomah County’s |
| Whether the mosque satisfied the county’s compatibility standard (scope of the relevant “area”) | The hearings officer used the wrong geographic area and improperly assessed compatibility | The mosque is consistent with the area as evaluated by the hearings officer | Not reached as dispositive; compatibility‑based challenges fail because statute displaces the standard |
| Whether the hearings officer was required to compare mosque impacts to single‑family residence impacts | Tarr: officer should have compared impacts to allowed residences | County/Intervenors: no such comparison required or was made adequately | Not dispositive; statutory displacement means the comparison issue does not alter outcome |
| Whether certain conditions of approval lack substantial evidence | Tarr: some conditions unsupported | County/Intervenors: conditions supported by evidence | Not dispositive on review because ORS 215.441 bars application of compatibility standard and the approval survives on statutory grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606 (Or. 1993) (statutory‑interpretation methodology).
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (Or. 2015) (text, context, and legislative history guide statute construction).
- Chase and Chase, 354 Or 776 (Or. 2014) (courts examine text and context in interpreting statutes).
- Boyajian v. Gatzunis, 212 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000) (upholding similar state legislation regarding places of worship against Establishment Clause challenge cited in legislative history).