Van Dyke v. Yamhill County

Whether a land use matter is quasi-judicial or legislative depends on (1) whether the process is bound to result in a decision, (2) whether the making of the decision is bound to apply preexisting criteria to concrete facts, and (3) whether the matter is directed at a closely circumscribed factual situation or a small number of persons.

Petitioners appeal a county ordinance amending the county transportation system plan (TSP) to (1) acknowledge county ownership of a segment of a railroad corridor, and (2) authorize development of a recreational trail within a portion of the corridor that is largely zoned exclusive farm use (EFU). The proceedings were conducted pursuant to county procedures governing legislative decisions. In approving the ordinance, the county included findings and conditions intended to ensure compliance with ORS 215.296, which requires findings that non-farm uses allowed in the EFU zone do not force a significant change in accepted farm practices.

In their fifth assignment of error, petitioners argue and LUBA agrees that the county erred in failing to process the application under quasi-judicial procedures. Under Yamhill County Zoning Ordinance (YCZO) 402, the proposed recreational path in the EFU zone requires a conditional use permit which must be processed under quasi-judicial procedures. Furthermore, under state law, whether a land use matter is quasi-judicial or legislative depends on (1) whether the process is bound to result in a decision, (2) whether the making of the decision is bound to apply preexisting criteria to concrete facts, and (3) whether the matter is directed at a closely circumscribed factual situation or a small number of persons. Because nothing authorizes the county to refuse to make a decision on a land use application, because the county was required to apply discretionary approval standards that implement ORS 215.296, and because the land use consequences of the ordinance are disproportionately concentrated on a relatively small pool of persons, the county’s action is quasi-judicial in nature. The county therefore erred in processing the application under its legislative procedures and the fifth assignment of error is sustained.

In their third assignment of error, petitioners argue the county erred in failing to address whether the application was subject to the conditional use standards under YCZO 402 and 1202. The county responds that no conditional use permit is needed because an earlier ordinance designated the railroad corridor as a future rails-to-trails project in the TSP. LUBA disagrees, stating that just because the TSP recommends development does not mean that whatever land use permits are required to construct the facility are thereby waived. The county also argues that a decision which determines “final engineering design, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, or preservation of a transportation facility which is authorized by and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land use regulations” is excluded from the definitions of both “permit” and “land use decision” subject to LUBA’s review. LUBA disagrees, stating that that exception does not include land use decisions subject to discretionary conditional use standards. Because the county did not, in adopting the ordinance or at any other prior time, apply the conditional use standards governing development of transportation facilities in the EFU zone, the third assignment of error is sustained and the county’s decision is REMANDED.