Oregon City Leasing, Inc. v. Columbia County
Citation | 854 P.2d 495,121 Or.App. 173 |
Parties | OREGON CITY LEASING, INC., dba Lone Star Northwest, Petitioner, v. COLUMBIA COUNTY, Respondent. 92-193; CA A79199. |
Decision Date | 16 June 1993 |
Court | Court of Appeals of Oregon |
Steven W. Abel, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner. On the brief were Mildred J. Carmack and Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, Portland.
Michael J. Lilly, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Lane, Powell, Spears, Lubersky, Portland.
Before DEITS, P.J., and RIGGS and DURHAM, JJ.
Petitioner appealed to LUBA from Columbia County's 1992 amendment of its 1990 Surface Mining Ordinance. The 1990 ordinance purported to amend the county's 1972 Surface Mining Land Reclamation Ordinance. Petitioner's objective is to invalidate the provision of the 1992 ordinance that assesses certain fees. The principal means by which petitioner seeks to achieve that end is by contending that the 1990 ordinance effectively repealed the 1972 enactment. Therefore, petitioner reasons, there is no permissible predicate for the 1992 assessment of fees that exceed those allowable under ORS 517.780(4) and ORS 517.800. Petitioner relies on ORS 517.780(1), which provides, as material:
"The provisions of ORS 517.700 to 517.951 and the rules and regulations adopted thereunder shall not supersede any zoning laws or ordinances in effect on July 1, 1972; however, if such zoning laws or ordinances are repealed on or after July 1, 1972, the provisions of ORS 517.700 to 517.951 and the rules and regulations adopted thereunder shall be controlling."
Petitioners also argued to LUBA that the 1992 ordinance is invalid, because the county failed to provide the director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) with the notices of its consideration and adoption that petitioner asserts are required by ORS 197.610(1) and ORS 197.615(1). 1 LUBA rejected the assignments raising both arguments, along with two other assignments that petitioner advanced, and affirmed the city's decision to enact the ordinance. Petitioner seeks review, and we reverse.
Because the second issue we have described could obviate the need for LUBA, the county or us to consider any of the other issues, we turn to it first. It is necessary to set out LUBA's reasoning in some detail:
LUBA added, in a footnote:
(Emphasis in original.)
We do not agree that the failure to comply with ORS 197.610(1) and ORS 197.615(1), if compliance was required, is only a procedural error. We also do not agree that the proper focus of the inquiry is on whether the failure to give notice to the director affected the participatory rights of this petitioner. ORS 197.610 et seq contain procedures for assuring that amendments to acknowledged local land use legislation and enactments of new legislation comply with the statewide planning goals. 2 That is a substantive matter. We remand for LUBA to consider the issue further. Specifically, it should determine whether ORS 197.610 and ORS 197.615 apply to the ordinance, and what disposition follows if the statutes were violated.
We turn to the first issue. It is again necessary to quote LUBA's reasoning at length:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Scappoose Sand and Gravel v. Columbia County
...that body, each of which was reviewed in turn by this court. Oregon City Leasing, Inc. v. Columbia County, 25 Or LUBA 129, rev'd 121 Or.App. 173, 854 P.2d 495, on remand 26 Or LUBA 203 (1993), aff'd 126 Or.App. 314, 868 P.2d 1372, rev. den. 318 Or. 661, 873 P.2d 322 (1994).2 The ultimate re......
-
DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT v. CITY OF ST. HELENS, LUBA No. 94-029 (Or. LUBA 8/7/1995), LUBA No. 94-029.
...Supplemental Record 26.13 The requirements of ORS 197.610 et seq are substantive, not merely procedural. Oregon City Leasing, Inc. v. Columbia County, 121 Or App 173, 854 P2d 495 (1993). The information on the Notice of Adoption suggests it was never mailed by the city to petitioner DLCD. A......
-
HOMEBUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN PORTLAND v. CITY OF PORTLAND, LUBA No. 99-128 (Or. LUBA 3/1/2000)
...prohibits land uses previously allowed in the affected zone." 4. We note that the Court of Appeals in Oregon City Leasing, Inc. v. Columbia County, 121 Or App 173, 177, 854 P2d 495 (1993) held that failure to comply with ORS 197.610(1) and ORS 197.615(1) constitutes a substantive error rath......
-
State ex rel Butler v. City of Bandon, 03CV0276; A124129.
...plan and regulation amendments is to be measured under ORS 197.830(8)" (emphasis in original)); Oregon City Leasing, Inc. v. Columbia County, 121 Or.App. 173, 177, 854 P.2d 495 (1993) (failure to provide notice of adoption to DLCD is not merely a procedural error, because such an precludes ......