Saige Timber v. Linn County

The subject property is comprised of three units of land that are zoned Farm/Forest (F/F). The petitioner appeals a board of county commissioners decision affirming a planning commission decision approving two property line adjustments (PLAs). The board adopted the planning commission decision without holding a hearing. Affirmed.

The subject property is comprised of three units of land that are zoned Farm/Forest (F/F). The petitioner appeals a board of county commissioners decision affirming a planning commission decision approving two property line adjustments (PLAs). The board adopted the planning commission decision without holding a hearing. Petitioner appealed again.

In the first assignment of error, the petitioner argues that LCC 921.220(C) entitled them to a de novo hearing, and in denying this, their substantial rights were prejudiced. The court stated that they will reverse or remand if “ the local government * * * [failed to follow the procedures applicable to the matter before it in a manner that prejudiced the substantial rights of the petitioner”. Respondents argue that they did not commit procedural error, but if they did, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief because they did not establish any prejudice. The court agrees that the Petitioners did not establish any prejudice. The first assignment of error is denied.

 In the second assignment of error, petitioner argues that the county misconstrued ORS 215.750(5)(g) and made inadequate findings not based on substantial evidence regarding the requirements of that statute. “ORS 215.750(5)(g) prohibits a county from allowing an AFD if after January 1, 2019, any PLA to the lot or parcel had the effect of qualifying the lot or parcel for a dwelling under ORS 215.750.” Petitioners argue that approving the PLAs makes the AFD out of compliance. The planning commission concluded that ORS 215.750(5)(g) does not apply to the PLA requests, and this court agrees. The terms of the statute demonstrate that the legislature the restrictions to apply to dwelling applications, and not mere property lines. The court observes that the petitioner’s construction of the statute would make it impossible for an applicant to adjust their property lines after receiving AFD approval. The second assignment of error is denied.

The third assignment of error refers to ORS 92.192(4)(c) which states that, “A PLA may not be used to ‘[a]llow an area of land used to qualify a lawfully established unit of land for a dwelling based on an acreage standard to be used to qualify another lawfully established unit of land for a dwelling if the land use approval would be based on an acreage standard.’” The petitioner argues that that the 2021 AFD was approved based on an acreage standard. The court reasons that “It is not evident to us that the challenged PLAs qualify another lawfully established unit of land for a dwelling under approval criteria based on an acreage standard.” The court held that, “Accordingly, even assuming without deciding that the 2021 AFD Is "based on an acreage standard," and the county erred in concluding otherwise, absent argument and evidence that the PLAs allow the area of land used for the 2021 AFD approval to be used to qualify another lawfully established unit of land for a dwelling based upon an acreage standard, petitioner has failed to establish that the county erred in failing to apply ORS 92.192(4)(c).” The third assignment of error is denied.

 In the fourth assignment of error the petitioner argues that the county exceeded its authority and misconstrued applicable law by approving PLAs that decrease the size of units of land that were already smaller than the minimum size for the F/F zone. Furthermore, Petitioner argued that LCC 925.320(B)(4) prohibits county approval of the PLAs because the subject units of land are within a resource zoning district. The court agrees with the respondents that the petitioner has not cited anything that would require the county to enact a local provision to allow a PLA that the county may approve under ORS 92.192(3)(b). The fourth assignment of error is denied.

 The fifth assignment of error interprets LCC 925.320(B)(5)(c) to deny the petitioners argument that the county misconstrued the statute by concluding that the criterion only applies to structures currently on the property. The court held that “the county did not interpret LCC 925.320(B)(5)(c) to apply only to existing structures. Instead, the county expressly stated that future construction must meet setback requirements or obtain a variance.” The fifth assignment of error was denied.

 In the sixth assignment of error the petitioner claims that the Property Line Adjustment (PLA) approvals invalidate the 2021 Alternative Forestland Dwelling (AFD) approval, which allowed a dwelling on a 38.50-acre property. The petitioner argues that the 2021 AFD approval was contingent on the property remaining 38.50 acres, and that the county should have voided the AFD approval when approving the PLA. However, the county determined that the 2021 AFD condition merely identified the property and that no law requires compliance with AFD permit conditions before approving a PLA. The petitioner does not contest this finding, and the respondents argue, with agreement from the court, that the petitioner's argument lacks grounds for reversal or remand. Therefore, the sixth assignment of error is denied.

 In the seventh assignment of error, the petitioner argues that the county's decision to approve the PLAs is not supported by substantial evidence and violates LCC 925.350(B)(7). This regulation requires that reducing a property’s size beyond the 10% ministerial allowance for forested properties must not alter the area's land use stability. The PLAs reduce Tax Lot 200 from 38.50 acres to 31.65 acres, exceeding the 10% limit. However, the county concluded that this reduction would not disrupt the area's land use pattern, noting that the size of surrounding properties varies widely, and Tax Lot 200 would still be close to the average size of properties over 10 acres. The petitioner contends that the PLAs would create a 6.85-acre "orphan lot" approved for an AFD, potentially altering land use stability and affecting forest management and tax incentives. However, respondents argue, and the court agrees, that the petitioner's claims do not justify a remand under the substantial evidence standard of review. The county's evaluation of property sizes and land use patterns was reasonable, and LUBA cannot override the county's judgment. The petitioner’s disagreement with the county's findings does not prove them inadequate. Therefore, the seventh assignment of error is denied, and the county's decision is affirmed.