Ooten v. Clackamas Cnty.

Under OAR 660-004-0018(2)(c), the word “and” is used conjunctively, meaning that all requirements of the rule would need to be satisfied to establish whether proposed amendment and zone changes would require a new exception to Statewide Planning Goals 3 & 4.

Ooten sought judicial review of a Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) order remanding a decision approving his application for a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change to the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners (County). Ooten assigned error to LUBA’s determination that the amendment and zone change proposal did not require new exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals 3 & 4 (SPG 3 & 4), and LUBA’s determination that all sections of OAR 660-004-0018(2) must be satisfied to establish the amendment and zone change proposal does not require exceptions to SPG 3 & 4. On appeal, Oorten argued LUBA should have read the word “and” as disjunctive, meaning that all requirements of the rule would need not be satisfied to establish the proposed changes do not require a new exception to SPG 3 & 4. The Court held that LUBA was correct to remand the case to the County for analysis under OAR 660-004-0018 in order to determine whether the amendment and zone change proposal required new exceptions to SPG 3 & 4. Further, LUBA correctly construed the word “and” conjunctively. Affirmed.