Oregon Department of Transportation v. Grant County

Under OAR 660-023-0040, while the county may consider a broad scope of ESEE consequences, it may not fail to consider the impacts of the conflicting use on the Goal 5 resource site.

Petitioner appeals a plan amendment that adds its quarry property to the county’s inventory of significant aggregate sites and adopts an economic, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE) analysis for the site. Under OAR 660-023-0250(3), local governments must apply Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces) and its implementing regulations whenever they consider plan amendments allowing new uses that could conflict with a Goal 5 resource site. Under OAR 660-023-0040, once conflicting uses are identified, local governments must analyze the ESEE consequences of those conflicting uses and determine whether to allow, limit, or prohibit them. Decisions to fully allow conflicting uses must be based on legitimate consequences of protecting the resource site.

Through its ESEE analysis, the county determined that residential uses in a 1,500-foot impact area would conflict with the quarry. Petitioner therefore requested that the county limit residential use in the impact area by requiring a waiver of remonstrance against the quarry from new residential development. Considering petitioner’s request for a waiver of remonstrance to be negative consequence, the county instead decided to fully allow residential uses. In the first assignment of error, petitioner argues the ESEE analysis is inadequate because it evaluates only the impacts of protecting the quarry on the residential use. LUBA agrees with petitioners that, while the county may consider a broad scope of ESEE consequences, it may not fail to consider the impacts of the conflicting use on the Goal 5 resource site. The first subassignment of error is therefore sustained, in part.

In the second subassignment of error, petitioner argues the county’s finding that requiring a waiver of remonstrance would be a negative consequence is not a legitimate consequence because such waivers are already required under the Grant County Zoning and Development Ordinance (GCZDO). LUBA agrees with the county that, while the GCZDO could be amended to remove that requirement, embedding it in the comprehensive plan would cause it to apply even without a GZLDO provision. Thus, the waiver requirement is a legitimate consequence that the county could consider, the second sub-assignment of error is denied, and the county’s decision is REMANDED.