Advocates v. Jackson Cnty., LUBA No. 2020-077

• Decision Date: 13 May 2021
• Docket Number: LUBA No. 2020-077
• Parties: ROGUE ADVOCATES, Petitioner, v. JACKSON COUNTY, Respondent.
• Court: Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals

ROGUE ADVOCATES, Petitioner, v. JACKSON COUNTY, Respondent.

LUBA No. 2020-077

LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

May 13, 2021

FINAL OPINION AND ORDER

Appeal from Jackson County.

Sean T. Malone filed the petition for review.

No appearance by Jackson County.

ZAMUDIO, Board Member; RYAN, Board Member, participated in the decision.

RYAN, Board Member, concurring.

RUDD, Board Chair, did not participate in the decision.

You are entitled to judicial review of this Order. Judicial review is governed by the provisions of ORS 197.850. Opinion by Zamudio.

NATURE OF THE DECISION

Petitioner challenges an ordinance adopted by the board of county commissioners approving an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 (Urbanization) and rezoning three parcels from Rural Residential 5-acre minimum (RR-5) to Rural Residential 2.5-acre minimum (RR-2.5).

BACKGROUND

The subject property is comprised of three parcels, each of which is approximately five acres in size and developed with a single-family dwelling.¹ The subject property is designated Rural Residential Land on the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan (JCCP) Map and zoned RR-5. Hillside Drive abuts the eastern boundary of the subject property. The subject property is situated west of the city of Medford, roughly between the cities of Jacksonville and Central Point, and is not within an unincorporated community, urban growth boundary, or urban reserve area. The property is within one-half mile of the city of Central Point's urban reserves. Record 111.

The subject property is within a rural residential area that runs roughly north-south and is sandwiched between forest resource zones in the hills to the west and exclusive farm use zones in the valley to the east. See JCCP Map. Properties adjacent to the subject property are zoned RR-2.5 and RR-5 and are developed with dwellings. "The parcelization of this area occurred prior to 1973, and has experienced few changes since." Record 179. Although it is unclear, it appears from the current zoning that an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands), Statewide Planning Goal 4 (Forest Lands), or both, was taken in 1973, when the subject property was first assigned the RR-5 zoning designation. Record 126 (observing that an unspecified exception was taken in 1973, when the properties were first assigned a zoning designation).

Immediately adjacent to Hillside Drive, and across from the northeastern corner of the subject property, is an area that is designated Urban Residential Land on the JCCP Map, zoned Urban Residential (UR-1), and divided into a cluster of 30 to 35 parcels that are each approximately one acre in size and are developed at urban residential density (one dwelling on two or less acres). Record 30, 114. Another UR-1-zoned area lies to the southeast. Record 30.

The applicant sought, and the county approved, a Goal 14 "irrevocably committed" exception to allow a zone change to from RR-5 to RR-2.5, which includes a minimum parcel size of 2.5 acres and allows one dwelling per 2.5 acres, a higher rural residential density than that allowed in the RR-5 zone. To support the exception, the applicant provided maps and a list of the 275 parcels within a one-half-mile study area adjacent to and surrounding the subject property and covering approximately 724 acres. The study identified parcel acreage, ownership, zoning, and development. The average parcel size in the study area is 3.29 acres and the median parcel size is 1.42 acres.

The county adopted the applicant's findings that the typical parcel size in the study area is 1.42 acres, the study area is developed to urban levels of residential density, including 108 parcels that are zoned UR-1 near or adjacent to the subject property, and the area has urban levels of facilities and services. Record 32. This appeal followed.

For reasons explained below, we agree with petitioner that that county's decision must be remanded for the county to adopt adequate findings.

SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Petitioner argues that the decision should be remanded because the county's findings are inconsistent and inadequate. See Heiller v. Josephine County, 23 Or LUBA 551, 556 (1992) (adequate findings must (1) identify the relevant approval standards, (2) set out the facts which are believed and relied upon, and (3) explain how those facts lead to the conclusion that the approval standards are met).

The board of county commissioners' findings adopt and incorporate by reference findings in 449 pages of documents, which includes the entire planning commission record.² In the proceeding before the planning commission, petitioner and planning staff submitted proposed findings supporting denial. The planning commission recommended approval of the application based upon the applicant's proposed findings. The board adopted all of those findings and provided no explanation of how it resolved inconsistences within the 449 pages of documents that it adopted as findings.

"The practice of incorporating other decisions or documents as findings or statements of relied-upon fact frequently presents problems, and local governments that do so run the risk of adopting inconsistent findings." Spiro v. Yamhill County, 38 Or LUBA 133, 140 (2000) (citing Gonzalez v. Lane County, 24 Or LUBA 251, 259 (1992); Wilson Park Neigh. Assoc. v. City of Portland, 24 Or LUBA 98, 106 (1992)).

"We have repeatedly emphasized the importance of findings to [LUBA], the appellate courts and participants in land use proceedings. Final decisions may incorporate findings in other documents prepared by staff or an applicant, but, as petitioner notes, they may not do so in a way that leaves the parties and [LUBA] guessing which documents are made part of the

...