Riverbend Landfill Co. v. Yamhill County

Petitioner applied for site design review and a floodplain development permit to expand a landfill onto adjacent Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land. Under ORS 215.296(1), counties may allow solid waste disposal facilities on EFU land only if they will neither force a significant change in nor significantly increase the cost of accepted farm practices on surrounding farmland. This is known as the farm impacts test. Under ORS 215.296(2), counties may impose conditions to mitigate impacts and ensure compliance with ORS 215.296(1). Concluding that the impacts of plastic litter escaping the expanded landfill would force a significant change in and significantly increase the cost of growing, harvesting, and baling hay on a neighboring farm, and that petitioner had not demonstrated that those impacts could be mitigated to an insignificant level, the county denied the applications. This appeal followed.

In the first assignment of error, petitioner argued that the county’s findings were inadequate to explain whether the landfill was the source of litter on the neighboring farm and why petitioner’s litter control plan would not mitigate any impacts to an insignificant level. Because 18 pages of findings summarized the testimony and evidence from farmers on which the county relied to reach those conclusions and explained why the county did not find petitioner’s consultants’ testimony persuasive, because the choice between conflicting evidence belongs to the local government, and because a reasonable person could rely on the farmer testimony over the consultant testimony, LUBA concluded that the county’s findings were adequate and supported by substantial evidence. The first assignment of error was therefore denied.

In the third assignment of error, petitioner argued that, assuming that the county’s denial of the site design review was proper, the county erred by failing to explain why it also denied the floodplain development permit. Because approval of a floodplain development permit is contingent on approval of a site plan depicting development in the floodplain, LUBA concluded that the county’s failure to address the floodplain development permit did not provide a basis for reversal or remand. The third assignment of error was therefore denied and the county’s decision was AFFIRMED.