Wood v. Crook County

When a county amends a local zoning ordinance, the county must comply with its planning policies and comprehensive plan provisions, as well as the statewide planning goals, and where a county's zoning amendment complies with all applicable land use planning laws and rules, the county's zoning amendment decision will withstand challenges thereto at LUBA.

     LUBA has reviewed this matter three times. Wood (petitioner) appealed a county decision that repealed previously adopted amendments to the county’s Rural Aviation Community (RAC) zone.

     Petitioner’s first assignment of error alleged that the county erred in finding that in 2015 LUBA affirmed the decision to remove the subject property from Goal 5 big game wildlife habitat inventories. LUBA ruled that while it did not affirm the county’s decision, it specifically rejected this challenge, reasoning that the county acted within OAR 660-023-0040(5)(c) when the county considered the conflicting uses in the RAC zone, and determined the conflicting uses should be allowed. LUBA denied the first assignment of error.

     Petitioner then argued that the county erroneously determined that LUBA affirmed rezoning of the subject property from EFU-1 to RAC and that Goal 5 and Wildlife Policy 2 did not need to be considered in its decision on remand from  ODFW v. Crook County. In that decision LUBA instructed the county to repeal the RAC zone amendments, or, in the alternative, make another attempt to justify the conclusion that the disputed amendments rendered the RAC rezoning consistent with Wildlife Policy 2. The county acted in accordance with the instructions on remand by electing to repeal the amendments. LUBA denied the second assignment of error.

     Finally, the petitioner argued that by refusing certain evidence offered on remand by Central Oregon Land Watch, the county erred. LUBA reasoned that since the county adopted alternative findings, and that the offered evidence would have been irrelevant, as the county did not attempt to show that “the RAC zone amendments were sufficient to make the RAC zone consistent with Wildlife Policy 2”; any error that was made was harmless. AFFIRMED.