State ex rel Elitextrx v. Siegel

A Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) “must demonstrate that the requested license is for a land use that is allowable as a permitted or conditional use within the given zoning designation where the land is located. ORS 475C.053(1).Whether a land use is “outright permitted” or “conditional” as those terms are used in the statute, depends on whether the proposed use requires discretionary local permit approval “within the given zoning designation where the land is located. ORS 475C.065.

Elitextrx appealed the circuit court’s dismissal of a mandamus action that it brought against the planning director for Multnomah County and Multnomah County (the county). A Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) “must demonstrate that the requested license is for a land use that is allowable as a permitted or conditional use within the given zoning designation where the land is located. ORS 475C.053(1).Whether a land use is “outright permitted” or “conditional” as those terms are used in the statute, depends on whether the proposed use requires discretionary local permit approval “within the given zoning designation where the land is located. ORS 475C.065. Elitextrx wanted to obtain a production license from the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (OLCC) and were required to request a LUCS from the city or county that authorized the land use. The parties disagreed on the meaning of “conditional use” and “permitted” within the statute. Elitextrx argued that whether a use is “outright permitted” or “conditional” is determined by the base zone where the property is located. Because plaintiff’s proposed use was a “farm use” that is listed as “allowed” then the use was “outright permitted” and the LUCS had to be issued to them. The county responded that a land use “is ‘outright permitted’” only if it is allowed without conditions, whereas as use is “conditional” if it is allowed subject to conditions met through final local permit approval. After reviewing the legislative history for ORS 475C.053, the Court agreed with the interpretation of the county. AFFIRMED.