Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves a dispute over the vacation of a portion of County Road 804 within the City of Yachats. Lincoln County and petitioners sought to vacate this road, a decision concurred by the city and finalized by the county board. However, respondents contested this decision, arguing it was a 'land use decision' subject to LUBA's review under applicable planning and zoning requirements. LUBA agreed, asserting that the county's decision was subject to state planning goals and county land use regulations, particularly IR 6, which necessitates maintaining access within coastal shorelands. The county and petitioners contended that LUBA misapplied IR 6, arguing that local city legislation should govern the decision. The court found that LUBA erred in applying IR 6 directly, as the city's acknowledged legislation suffices. Additionally, the court clarified that the county's actions must align with the city's comprehensive plan per ORS 368.361(3) and Goal 2. The case was remanded to LUBA for further analysis on specific city ordinances and policies, particularly the interpretation of policy 6 related to public access in coastal areas. The decision was reversed on the petition and remanded on the cross-petition for further consideration.
Legal Issues Addressed
Applicable Land Use Regulations and Statewide Planning Goalssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: LUBA found IR 6 directly applicable due to its non-implementation in the county’s comprehensive plan, requiring access to be maintained in coastal shorelands.
Reasoning: LUBA concluded that the county had misinterpreted IR 6, which requires maintaining access across the affected site, specifically within coastal shorelands.
Consistency Requirement under Goal 2subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The county's decisions must align with the city’s comprehensive plan and regulations, as mandated by ORS 368.361(3) and Goal 2.
Reasoning: The county's decisions regarding land entirely within the city must align with the city’s comprehensive plan and regulations, as mandated by ORS 368.361(3) and Goal 2, which requires consistency in land use actions by all governmental bodies.
County Road Vacation Authority under ORS 368.361(3)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The county's authority to vacate a road within city limits requires city concurrence through a resolution or order, which was obtained in this case.
Reasoning: The county’s authority to vacate a road within city limits is governed by ORS 368.361(3), which necessitates concurrence from the city through a resolution or order.
Definition of 'Land Use Decision' under ORS 197.015(10)(a)(A)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A land use decision is determined by local government actions regarding land use regulations, and does not require a significant impact test.
Reasoning: The court clarified that a decision qualifying as a 'land use decision' does not need to meet a 'significant impact test' to fall within LUBA’s jurisdiction, as established in prior case law.
Jurisdiction of Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: LUBA determined it had jurisdiction over the vacation decision as it constituted a 'land use decision' subject to review under applicable planning and zoning provisions.
Reasoning: Respondents appealed the vacation decision, arguing it constituted a 'land use decision' subject to LUBA's review, asserting violations of various planning and zoning requirements.