Narrative Opinion Summary
The case centers on the owners of a 21.35-acre EFU-zoned parcel seeking to partition their land under Measure 37 and later Measure 49, following legislative changes. Initially granted a Measure 37 waiver to develop 23 home sites, the owners sought supplemental review under Measure 49 for additional parcels, resulting in the DLCD approving one new dwelling. Opposition arose, leading to a county hearings officer approving the partition, which was subsequently appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). LUBA dismissed the appeal, citing lack of jurisdiction as the county's decision was not a land use decision under Measure 49. The court affirmed LUBA's dismissal, emphasizing Measure 49's provisions that such determinations do not qualify as land use decisions. The petitioner unsuccessfully sought to transfer the appeal to circuit court, failing to comply with procedural requirements for timely transfer motions. The ruling underscores the procedural intricacies and jurisdictional boundaries established by Measure 49, with LUBA's decision being upheld by the court.
Legal Issues Addressed
Clustering Requirements under Measure 49subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The clustering requirement for new lots in exclusive farm use zones under Measure 49 was deemed non-mandatory for this particular case, allowing the creation of one new parcel on high-value farmland.
Reasoning: Under Measure 49, section 11(4)(b), new lots in exclusive farm use zones must be clustered to enhance the remnant lot's suitability for farming.
Jurisdiction of LUBA under Measure 49subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed that LUBA correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction over the county's decision because Measure 49 stipulates that such determinations are not land use decisions.
Reasoning: The court affirmed LUBA's dismissal, noting that Measure 49, section 16, stipulates that determinations under Measure 49 are not land use decisions and thus fall outside LUBA's jurisdiction.
Measure 49 and Land Use Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision to partition land under Measure 49 was not considered a land use decision, consistent with historical precedent under Measure 37.
Reasoning: Citing DLCD v. Klamath County, LUBA concluded that decisions to waive land use regulations in response to Measure 37 claims do not qualify as land use decisions, thus are not subject to review.
Procedural Requirements for Transfer to Circuit Courtsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: LUBA requires a timely motion to transfer any case it dismisses for lack of jurisdiction to the circuit court, which the petitioner in this case failed to file.
Reasoning: After dismissing an appeal due to the absence of a timely motion to transfer to circuit court, LUBA rejected a subsequent motion filed by the petitioner, citing two reasons: 1) the petitioner failed to comply with the procedural timeline mandated by ORS 661-010-0075(11)(a)...