1000 Friends of Oregon v. Clackamas County
(1) Where an applicant for a conditional use permit to host events as a home occupation on land zoned exclusive farm use plans to be on-site during events to assist with general coordination, parking, and other activities, and where conditions of approval make the applicant responsible for operational matters such as maintaining the event calendar to comply with limits on the number of events as well as monitoring noise and sign removal, substantial evidence exists to support the conclusion that the applicant will “operate[]” the home occupation under ORS 215.448(1)(a), even where they plan to have no full-time employees and to allow customers to hire their own contractors as necessary. (2) Where an applicant for a conditional use permit to host events as a home occupation on land zoned exclusive farm use explains how events can be conducted with no more than 5 employees on site at one time by scheduling activities, preparing food off site, utilizing buffet style service, and planning and making arrangements in advance, and where a condition of approval limits the home occupation to no more than 5 employees on site, substantial evidence exists to support the conclusion that the applicant will “employ on site no more than five full-time or part-time persons” under ORS 215.448(1)(b), even given the complex planning and implementation that a 300-guest wedding entails. (3) Where an applicant for a conditional use permit to host events as a home occupation on land zoned exclusive farm use plans to renovate two existing barns by adding a dance floor, sound proofing, and a catering preparation area to one barn, and adding restrooms and “Brides and Grooms rooms” and eliminating horse stalls in the other barn, and where the applicant plans to construct a new building containing restrooms with septic system capacity to serve 300 people per event, such home occupation violates the requirement at ORS 215.448(3) that counties may not “permit construction of any structure that would not otherwise be allowed in the zone.” (4) Under ORS 197.763(1), raising concerns about traffic safety impacts is not sufficient to preserve an argument that the guests-per-vehicle assumption on which the local government relied is not supported by substantial evidence, where opponents did not specifically challenge that assumption in the applicant’s traffic impact analysis below.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Columbia Pacific Building Trades Council v. City of Portland
(1) Where a comprehensive plan provision requires a local government to “[l]imit development in or near areas prone to natural hazards,” a local government’s conclusion that a prohibition on establishing new fossil fuel terminals (FFTs) and expanding existing FFTs is consistent with that provision is supported by an adequate factual base where most of the local government’s industrial zoning is in areas with high levels of liquefaction susceptibility and where the prior ability to expand storage capacity had not yielded many seismic upgrades. (2) Where a comprehensive plan provision requires a local government to “[l]imit fossil fuels distribution and storage facilities to those necessary to serve the regional market,” a local government’s conclusion that a prohibition on establishing new fossil fuel terminals (FFTs) and expanding existing FFTs is consistent with that provision is not supported by an adequate factual base where state, regional, and local policies exist to shift from petroleum to electricity and natural gas, where natural gas falls under the city’s definition of fossil fuels, and where the local government does not explain how the natural gas needed to meet any increased demand will be available if fossil fuel storage may not be increased. (3) Although balancing competing comprehensive plan policies is only permissible in the quasi-judicial context when the standards themselves are incompatible, local governments have more flexibility to balance policies in the legislative context. (4) Where comprehensive plan provisions require a local government to “[m]aintain and strengthen [its] comparative economic advantages including access to a high-quality workforce” and “[m]aintain, protect, and enhance the public and private multimodal transportation investments,” the local government errs in concluding that a prohibition on establishing new fossil fuel terminals (FFTs) and expanding existing FFTs is consistent with those provisions because it applies to only one sector, without addressing the relationship between FFTs and other businesses in the area.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County
(1) Where a property was created by an “illegal partition,” and where that property is later transferred to the owners of contiguous property, a county’s reliance on an uncodified, “fact-dependent,” “longstanding county policy” to conclude that that transfer constituted a “de facto property line adjustment,” eliminating the illegally partitioned property as a separate unit of land, violates the codification requirement at ORS 215.416(8)(a). (2) Even where a transfer of property met the definition of a property line adjustment under ORS 92.010(11) (1999), such transfer did not effectuate a property line adjustment where the deed did not contain the information required by ORS 92.190(4) (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use