Gutoski v. Lane County
Decision Date | 05 August 1998 |
Docket Number | No. 97-194,97-194 |
Citation | 963 P.2d 145,155 Or.App. 369 |
Parties | Peter GUTOSKI and Judy Gutoski, Petitioners, v. LANE COUNTY and Don Stapleton, Respondents. LUBA; CA A101684. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Bill Kloos, Eugene, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief was Johnson, Kloos & Sherton, P.C.
Stephen L. Vorhes, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent Lane County. With him on the brief was Lane County Office of Legal Counsel.
Laurence E. Thorp, Springfield, argued the cause for respondent Don Stapleton. With him on the brief was Thorp, Purdy, Jewett, Urness & Wilkinson, P.C.
Before De MUNIZ, P.J., and HASELTON and LINDER, JJ.
De MUNIZ, Presiding Judge.
On remand, a county hearings official conducted an evidentiary hearing and subsequently entered an order that again granted the application. As explained by LUBA, the hearings official's order "interpreted Policy 8 to permit a conflicting residential use as long as it did not force a significant change in or significantly increase the cost of accepted farming practices on petitioners' farm." Petitioners appealed to the county's governing body, which "affirmed and adopted" the hearings official's interpretation "as its own." Petitioners then appealed to LUBA, which affirmed, and they now again seek our review. We also affirm.
Petitioners make four assignments of error. One, their fourth, requires no discussion. In their first assignment, they argue that the county's interpretation of policy 8 was contrary to our interpretation of it in the prior review and is, therefore, precluded under the "law of the case" doctrine. We disagree. Our discussion and holding in Gutoski went only to the question of whether the policy is applicable. We did not foreclose the county from interpreting the provision on remand with respect to how it applies generally or to the present application. We find nothing in the county's interpretation that is inconsistent with our earlier opinion. Petitioners also assert, in their second assignment, that the county's interpretation is contrary to the express language of policy 8 and related plan provisions and is therefore subject to reversal under ORS 197.829(1)(a). We again disagree. The interpretation is not "clearly wrong." 1 See, e.g., Goose Hollow Foothills League v. City of Portland, 117 Or.App. 211, 843 P.2d 992 (1992).
The assignment that calls for more extensive discussion is petitioners' third. They contend in it that LUBA was incorrect in holding that the hearings official did not err by refusing to reopen the evidentiary hearing after he announced his interpretation of policy 8 to enable petitioners to present "evidence and argument relevant to the standard as interpreted." Petitioners' essential premise is that they could not have known before the hearings official's interpretation what the county would treat policy 8 as meaning and therefore could not have presented evidence responsive to the interpreted standard at the hearing that preceded the issuance of the hearings official's interpretation.
LUBA rejected that argument. It explained:
Generally, as in the trial court and the agency setting, interrelated questions of fact and law are "tried" and decided simultaneously in the local land use hearing process. From the standpoint of both litigants and decisionmakers, questions of fact and of law can have reciprocal effects on the answers to one another, and the ability to deal with the two as part of the same exercise is an essential tool of the advocate's craft. Hence, what petitioners appear to perceive as a chicken-and-egg problem that is somehow unique to this case is, in our view, simply a variation of a standard practice in which lawyers and judges have been engaging for centuries.
We nevertheless agree with LUBA that, in certain limited situations, the parties to a local land use proceeding should be afforded an opportunity to present additional evidence and/or argument responsive to the decisionmaker's interpretations of local legislation and that the local body's failure to provide such an opportunity when it is called for can be reversible error. See Martini v. OLCC, 110 Or.App. 508, 823 P.2d 1015 (1992). We also agree with LUBA, however, that at least two conditions must exist before it or we may consider reversing a land use decision on that basis. First, the interpretation that is made after the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing must either significantly change an existing interpretation or, for other reasons, be beyond the range of interpretations that the parties could reasonably have anticipated at the time of their evidentiary presentations. 2 Second, the party seeking reversal must demonstrate to LUBA that it can...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Botts Marsh LLC v. City of Wheeler
... ... at 39) (Botts Marsh I ) (quoting Commonwealth ... Properties, Inc. v. Washington County, 35 Or.App. 387, ... 399, 582 P.2d 1384 (1978) (Commonwealth ) (first ... brackets added)) ... that purpose is inconsistent with Gutoski v. Lane ... County, 155 Or.App. 369, 963 P.3d 145 (1998) ... This ... case ... ...
-
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. CITY OF PORTLAND, LUBA No. 2001-099 (Or. LUBA 12/17/2001)
...addressed by the parties before the opportunities for evidentiary presentations and legal argument concluded. In Gutoski v. Lane County, 155 Or App 369, 963 P2d 145 (1998), the Court of Appeals held that in such circumstances local governments may be obligated to allow additional opportunit......
-
BEMIS v. CITY OF ASHLAND, LUBA No. 2004-029 (Or. LUBA 10/13/2004)
...present new evidence with respect to whether the application complies with applicable approval standards, as reinterpreted. Gutoski v. Lane County, 155 Or App 369; Wicks v. City of Reedsport, 29 Or LUBA 8 In the present case we understand petitioners to argue, not for the above-described br......
-
DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT v. CROOK COUNTY, LUBA No. 98-202 (Or. LUBA 10/8/1999), LUBA No. 98-202.
...not be obligated to conduct an evidentiary hearing or allow the parties an opportunity to present legal argument. Gutoski v. Lane County, 155 Or App 369, 963 P2d 145 (1998). However, where the county elects to provide the opportunity for a hearing at which it accepts additional evidence and......