Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County

An amendment to a county’s acknowledged comprehensive plan, which did not directly or indirectly influence the misclassification of a land, cannot be a basis for requiring review of the amendment in a goal noncompliance claim. Urquhart v. Lane Council of Governments, 80 Or App 176, 180-82, 721 P2d 870 (1986).

Petitioner appealed from an order by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) approving Respondent’s Amendment to Deschutes County’s (“the County’s”) acknowledged comprehensive plan (“the plan”). Petitioner assigned error to LUBA’s holding that the County was not required to review the land’s agricultural classification status prior to amending the plan. On appeal, Petitioner argued that, because the land meets Class III-IV requirements, the land should be re-classed "agricultural" as a matter of law, therefore, subjecting the land to Goal 3. In response, Respondent argued that, because in the three prior land inventories over the past forty years it was never classified as "agricultural," the land should not now be subject to re-classification as a matter of law. An amendment to a county’s acknowledged comprehensive plan, which did not directly or indirectly influence the misclassification of a land, cannot be a basis for requiring review of the amendment in a goal noncompliance claim. Urquhart v. Lane Council of Governments, 80 Or App 176, 180-82, 721 P2d 870 (1986). The Court held that the County was not required to view the prior classification of the land because the amendment did not influence the land’s classification. Affirmed.