Meyer v. Jackson County

While a county may impose a more expansive definition of “floodway” than that offered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the county has declined to do so in this case.

The subject property is a 1.5-acre parcel owned by the State of Oregon, through which Bear Creek runs. The land is zoned for rural residential use and is located within the urban growth boundary of the City of Talent. Intervenor owns a mobile home park adjacent to the subject property. Some years ago, 15 horizontal feet of streambank along Bear Creek washed away, creating a vertical section of streambank 10 to 12 feet high and threatening the welfare of homes on intervenor’s property. Intervenor applied to the county for a floodplain development permit under Jackson County Land Development Ordinance (LDO) chapter 7.2. Because county staff deemed that the project altered a watercourse and was therefore subject to standards at LDO 7.2.7, but because the project did not comply with all of those standards, intervenor’s application was denied. Intervenor appealed, arguing that the project would have taken place entirely within the area of the streambank loss and, therefore, did not involve the “alteration of a watercourse.” The hearings officer agreed with county staff that the project involved the “alteration of a watercourse,” but found that intervenor had demonstrated compliance with all LDO 7.2.7 standards, making the project permissible. Petitioner subsequently appealed.

On the first assignment of error, petitioner argues that the hearings officer erred in finding that the application was not subject to additional standards at LDO 7.2.10 for projects located within the “floodway” of a watercourse. Petitioner reasons that LDO 7.2.10 defines the term “floodway” broadly. Therefore, because the project was located along Bear Creek, which petitioner claims is a “floodway,” the standards at LDO 7.2.10 apply. Intervenor responds that the standards at LDO 7.2.10 only apply to the development of areas designated as floodways by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. LUBA agrees with intervenor. While a county may impose a more expansive definition of “floodway” than that offered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the county has declined to do so in this case. Because petitioner did not demonstrate that the hearings officer erred in interpreting LDO 7.2.10, its first assignment of error is denied and the county’s decision is AFFIRMED.