Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County

Under ORS 215.417, any permits for residential development on resource land that received unlawful extensions prior to the effective date of the 2019 amendments to that statute have expired and may not be revived by virtue of those amendments.

In 2017, under ORS 215.417 and OAR 660-033-0140(5), permits for residential development on resource land were valid for 4 years with one 2-year extension. In 2018, the county codified its existing practice of granting unlimited 1-year extensions in addition to the initial 2-year extension. In a prior decision, LUBA concluded that practice was inconsistent with ORS 215.417 and OAR 660-033-0140(5). In 2019, the legislature amended ORS 215.417 to expressly allow five 1-year extensions in addition to the initial 2-year extension. In response, the county amended Lane Code (LC) 14.090(6) to allow 1-year extensions in addition to the initial 2-year extension, “provided that the sum of all additional one-year timeline extensions issued prior to or after this date does not exceed the five year maximum period.” This appeal followed. 

In the first assignment of error, petitioner argues that, because LC 14.090(6) allows extensions of permits that were granted 1-year extensions “prior to” when the legislature amended ORS 215.417, the local code provision is facially inconsistent with state law. LUBA agrees with petitioner that, because no statutory or rule basis existed for 1-year extensions prior to when the legislature amended ORS 215.417, any permits that received 1-year extensions during that time period have expired and, because nothing in the text, context, or legislative history indicates the legislature intended to retroactively legalize 1-year extensions that were granted before the amendments, LC 14.090(6) is facially inconsistent with ORS 215.417. The first assignment of error is therefore sustained, and the county’s decision is REMANDED.