- Court: Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Municipal Law
- Date Filed: 01-04-2018
- Case #: 2017-080
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Opinion by Ryan
- Full Text Opinion
Interventors-respondents submitted an application for a short-term rental (STR) permit to use their 5.42-acre parcel zoned Rural Residential (RR) for short-term rental purposes. On July 11, 2017, intervenors were notified that their application was denied. Subsequently, on July 18, 2017, intervenors submitted a letter to that planner arguing that their application had met all the applicable requirements, and provided the re-application fee. The county assigned a new application number to the new application, and on August 3, 2017, the county approved the new application.
In its fourth assignment of error, petitioner argues that the county did not have the authority to accept the intervenor’s second application because, according to petitioner, “HRCZO 60.12 prohibits the county from accepting a second application for the same use for at least one year from [the original application.]” LUBA agreed with this argument, because HRZO 60.12 provides: “[i]f the application is denied, either initially or upon review by the Board or action by the courts affirming denial, no new application for the same or substantially similar action shall be filed for at least one year from the date of final order on the action denying the application.” Thus, although intervenor argued that the July 18, 2017 letter was merely them making an addition to the original July 11 application, the record shows that they were assigned a new application number and a re-application fee was paid. Thus, petitioner’s argument that the county erred in accepting intervenor’s new application because of HRCZO 60.12 is correct, and the county exceeded its jurisdiction in making a decision on that application. REVERSED.