Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/03/1996

Home

Z.B. August 1996 -- Page 7 ~ An environmental group, 1000 Friends of Oregon, asked a court to review the commission's decision. It argued the county's 40-acre lots violated the state minimum-lot-size requirements, and the commission was wrong to find other- Wise. Friends said the county should not have been allowed to create smaller i0ts based on only tax-lot data. In a past case, the court ruled such data was not enough to prove land was being used appropriately. : The commission explained that in this case the tax-lot data did prove appro- Priate land use. Before landowners could get a tax break, a county assessor had to determine the land was being used "for the predominant purpose of growing Or harvesting trees of marketable species." The property also had to meet stock- ing and acreage requirements set by the State Board of Forestry. ~ Friends next pointed to specific language in the state statute: "economi- Cally efficient forest operations." It said even if the land was being used for forestry, the county had to first determine the operations were economically :efficient; then it could allow the smaller tot size. ~ The-commission, which created the rule, said the important language in the rule was not "economically efficient," but "typically occurring in the area." According to the commission, the rule was intended to preserve existing for- estry patterns, not to make sure forestry operations continued efficiently. Since the smaller lots preserved the forestry operations that typically occurred in the area, they should be allowed. The commission also noted it based its decision about the county's legislation on an interpretation of its own rule, so it was entitled to deference. DECISION: Affirmed. The commission properly found the county's land-use legislation complied with state minimum-lot-size requirements. The county was allowed to base its creation of the smaller lots on tax-lot ::data. There was a direct correlation between the owners' tax breaks and their iappropriate use of the property; the county could reasonably assume the smaller (lots were large enough to ensure "the opportunity for economically efficient forest operations typically occurring in the area." ~ Interpretation of the rule could have gone either way; that is, neither :"economically efficient" nor "typically occurring" was given more emphasis. ~:But since the commission wrote the rule, it was entitled to apply its own :interpretation. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Lane Co.), 752 P.2d 271 (1988). Garcia v. Boise Cascade Corl2., 787 P. 2d 884 (1990). :Moratorium -- City postpones deciding on permits for wireless- communications facilities Sprint Spectrum L.P v. City of Medina, 924 F. Sut2p. 1036 (Washington) 1996 Last February, Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996, designed to increase competition in the telecommunications industry. The Act stated it did not limit state or local governments' authority over placement of