Norman v. Washington County

(1) Under ORS 174.010, multiple code provisions should be construed so as to give effect to each. (2) Under WCDC 501-8.5(E), the time limit applicable to interim arterial access may be determined by the occurrence of an event, such as the availability of alternate access, rather than a specific date.

Intervenor applied to subdivide their property into 10 lots accessible via private access to a nearby arterial. The county approved the private access as an interim access, with the condition that it be abandoned when alternate access becomes available. This appeal followed.

Under WCDC 501-8.5(B), direct access to arterials is generally limited to collectors or other arterials. Under WCDC 408-5.1(C), “permanent” dead-end streets are generally prohibited. In the third assignment of error, petitioner argues the county erred in approving the private access, which is a dead-end. LUBA agrees with respondents that, because the private access is an interim access and therefore not permanent, WCDC 408-5.1(C) does not apply. Petitioner also argues that the county erred in approving the private access because, when alternate access becomes available and the private access is separated from the arterial, it will still be a dead-end. LUBA agrees with respondents that, under WCDC 408-5.1(D), the county may modify the dead-end prohibition if it becomes impracticable due to, among other things, arterial access restrictions. Thus, the third assignment of error is denied.

Under WCDC 501-8.5(C), private access to arterials is permissible if the county approves an access management plan. In the second assignment of error, petitioner argues the county erred in approving the private access here since intervenor did not submit an access management plan. Respondents argue that, under WCDC 501-8.5(E), private access to arterials is also permissible as an interim access. Given the language of WCDC 501-8.5(E), petitioner responds that interim access is only allowed when the subject property cannot physically accommodate arterial access spacing requirements. Under ORS 174.010, multiple code provisions should be construed so as to give effect to each. Because other WCDC provisions requiring signage for interim access points would have no purpose if interim access were only available to address spacing deficiencies, LUBA agrees with respondents that WCDC 501-8.5(E) is not so limited.

Also in the second assignment of error, petitioner argues that, because the private access is not confined to a certain timeframe, it is not actually interim access. LUBA agrees with the county that the time limit applicable to interim access may be determined by the occurrence of an event rather than a specific date. Petitioner also argues that the private street is not interim access since the county cannot require petitioner to dedicate their own property to create the alternate access without it being a taking. LUBA agrees with respondents that a takings claim is not ripe until the county actually imposes such a condition on petitioner.

Finally, petitioner argues the county’s conditions of approval are inadequate to ensure that operational and sight distance requirements will be met, and that findings that certain criteria can be satisfied, without an explanation or requirement to ensure that they will be satisfied, are insufficient. Although the county did incorporate responsive findings from the staff report and impose relevant conditions, LUBA agrees with respondents that the county’s decision need not include a resolution of all the technical details. The second assignment of error is therefore denied and the county’s decision is AFFIRMED.