Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon; June 27, 2007; Oregon; State Appellate Court
The case involves a judicial review of Polk County's decision to approve property line adjustments for parcels owned by the Moores, which LUBA reversed. The Moores own three parcels in an exclusive farm use zone, where the minimum parcel size is 80 acres. The proposed adjustments would reduce two parcels below this minimum, violating state statute ORS 215.780(1)(a), which mandates adherence to minimum parcel sizes post-adjustment. LUBA ruled that any parcel affected by a property line adjustment must meet the minimum requirements, regardless of its prior size. Consequently, LUBA reversed the county’s approvals for the adjustments to parcels 1 and 2 and for a farm dwelling on the reconfigured parcel 3, as the dwelling did not comply with land use requirements without the adjustments. The county and Moores challenged LUBA’s decision, arguing that the county's historical interpretation allowed for such adjustments. However, the ruling emphasized that accepting the county’s argument would create an unwritten exception to ORS 215.780, contrary to statutory mandates. The decision reinforces that specific conditions outlined in ORS 215.780(2) govern any exceptions to the minimum parcel size requirement.
ORS 215.780 does not permit the creation of new parcels smaller than 80 acres in an Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone through lot line adjustments if the original parcels were also under that size. The legislature addressed parcel size legality in ORS 215.780(5), which allows counties with a minimum acknowledged lot size to approve smaller parcels without adhering to subsection (2). However, the county did not follow this procedure for the Moores’ property. Therefore, when the Moores sought adjustments, the county was obligated to adhere to ORS 215.780(1). Despite the county's historical practices, the current adjustment lacks legislative authorization.
The Moores argue that the county complied with ORS 215.780(2)(a), an exception to the minimum size requirement, due to acknowledgment of the county’s comprehensive plan by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). However, the Moores conceded that the county failed to comply with LCDC's implementation rules for this section. They maintain that ORS 215.780(1) does not categorically prohibit property line adjustments, citing existing exceptions in the statute. While acknowledging that ORS 215.780(2) and (5) provide alternative methods for establishing minimum parcel sizes, there is no evidence the county has satisfied the requirements for these exceptions, and the Moores do not claim that ORS 215.780(5) is applicable.
Any assertion of additional exceptions outside the provisions of ORS 215.780 is deemed inconsistent with Oregon's land use planning laws, which are governed by ORS 197.005 to 197.022 and ORS 197.610. These statutes establish a statewide policy for land use, while ORS 215.780 specifically addresses minimum lot sizes for dwellings and their exceptions.
ORS 215.780 establishes a framework that limits counties' authority to override its provisions through unauthorized methods, emphasizing adherence to statewide land use policies. The document clarifies that the legislature did not intend for counties or the Moores to suggest otherwise. Consequently, the county's approval of lot line adjustments was prohibited by ORS 215.780, and the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) acted correctly in affirming this prohibition. The Moores, while cross-petitioners, also supported Polk County's challenge to LUBA’s order. ORS 174.010 highlights that judges must interpret statutes as written, without adding or omitting content. A referenced case, Dorvinen v. Crook County, confirms that the 80-acre minimum parcel size in Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zones applies uniformly unless specific conditions under ORS 215.780(2) are met. Acknowledgment review processes and exceptions to the minimum sizes are governed by specific administrative rules, indicating that counties cannot independently create exceptions to the minimum sizes set by the legislature, as doing so would render the exceptions in ORS 215.780(2) unnecessary.
