Julien 2012 Irrev. Trust v. Tillamook Cty. Bd. of Comm.

“If a public entity enacts one or more land use regulations that restrict the residential use of private real property or a farming or forest practice and that reduce the fair market value of the property, then the owner of the property shall be entitled to just compensation from the public entity that enacted the land use regulation or regulations as provided in ORS 195.310 to 195. 314”. ORS 195.305(1). “Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply in land use regulations: … (b) that restrict or prohibit activities for the protection of public health and safety”. ORS 195.305(3)(b).

Petitioners appealed a judgement upholding the county’s rejection of their claim under ORS 195.305. Petitioners assigned error to the circuit court in upholding the county’s denial, arguing that there was not sufficient evidence under ORS 195.305 because it required finding that the ordinance, as applied to the subject property itself, was needed for reasons of public health and safety. “If a public entity enacts one or more land use regulations that restrict the residential use of private real property or a farming or forest practice and that reduce the fair market value of the property, then the owner of the property shall be entitled to just compensation from the public entity that enacted the land use regulation or regulations as provided in ORS 195.310 to 195. 314”. ORS 195.305(1). “Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply in land use regulations: … (b) that restrict or prohibit activities for the protection of public health and safety”. ORS 195.305(3)(b). The Court reasoned that because ORS 195.305(3)(b) applies to land use regulation in general, not a particular property, the circuit court had sufficient evidence to uphold the county’s decision that the ordinance was adopted for the purpose of protecting health and safety. Therefore, the judgement is affirmed.