Oregon Coast Reliance v. Tillamook County

The LUO 11.030 code definition of the term ‘recreational vehicle’ makes it clear that under the LUO as currently written the use category ‘recreation vehicle’ at LUO 3.008(3)(r) is limited to nonresidential vacation, emergency or recreational use, and that a recreational vehicle can be used for a permanent residence only within a mobile/manufactured home park or similar facility.

Subject property is a 6.4-acre parcel zoned Small Farm Woodlot 10-Acre within Tillamook County. The property owner filed a CUP application to site a recreational vehicle on the subject property as a permanent dwelling, including water and septic facilities. Neighbors submitted to the county arguments that the recreational vehicle cannot be used for permanent residential use. On June 22, 2017, the planning staff approved the application in an administrative decision. This approval of the application was appealed to the planning commission, which issued three reports explaining the staff’s position that a recreational vehicle was authorized to be used as a permanent residential dwelling. Therefore, the appeal was denied. This appeal followed.

On the first assignment of error, petitioner argues that the planning commission misconstrued the applicable law interpreting LUO 3.008(3)(r) to authorize a recreational vehicle to be used as a permanent dwelling. More specifically, petitioner argues that LUO 3.008(3)(r) authorizes a recreational vehicle as a conditional use, but does not state or imply that the vehicle can be used as a permanent dwelling. The county argues that because LUO 3.008(3)(r) allows the use of a recreational vehicle without any express limitation on duration in a SFW-10 zone, context of the statute suggests that the county did not intend to impose any durational limitation on the use of a recreational vehicle. LUBA Finds this argument unpersuasive. LUBA determines that LUO 3.008(2)(f) and LUO 3.008(3)(w) include express durational limitations on recreational vehicles. Because the statute is dispositive, LUBA need not resort to canons of construction. Thus, LUBA agrees with petitioner that the county erred in interpreting LUO 3.008(3)(r) to authorize use of a recreational vehicle as a permanent dwelling. Because the county erred in applying and interpreting applicable law, LUBA sustains the first assignment of error. LUBA did not reach the second, third and fourth assignments of error. REVERSED.