Hood River Valley Residents v. Hood River County

Under HRCZO 53.30(A) determining whether an application is a “resident of the property” for the purposes of HRCZO 53.30(A) requires the exercise of discretion. Additionally, the determination of whether a “STR will not unreasonably interfere with other uses permitted in the zone and whether the STR is a secondary use, incidental, accessory or subordinate to the residential uses or the existing building” is highly discretionary.

Petitioner appeals a decision by the county approving an application for a short-term rental permit. A property management company submitted an application for approval to use a 4.82-acre property zoned Rural Residential (RR) for short-term rental (STR) use. The county planning department approved the application, but with 23 conditions.

In its second assignment of error, petitioner argues that the county committed a procedural error that prejudiced the substantial rights of petitioner when the county did not process the application as a “Non-Ministerial Action (Type II or III)” as defined in HRCZO 1.170, because the county was required to, but did not apply the discretionary standards of HRCZO Article 53, governing home occupations in general and STRs in particular.” The county does not dispute that HRCZO 53.30(A) applies to the application, which creates a requirement that the county exercise discretion in determining whether to approve a proposed STR permit. LUBA agreed with petitioner that the county’s decision is a decision on a “Land use permit” as defined at ORS 215.402(4), and therefore, “the county erred in failing to process it according to the procedures for permits in HRCZO Articles 60 and 72.” REMANDED.