Columbia Riverkeeper v. Columbia County

Under OAR 660-004-0020(2)(d), to be approved, a Goal 3 exception must make a showing that “[t]he proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses . . . ” and that “the proposed use is situated in such a manner as to be compatible with surrounding natural resources and resource management or production practices.”

Petitioners appealed a decision by the Columbia County board of commissioners to approve an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3, allowing the Port of Columbia County (the Port) to expand industrial development into land zoned Primary Agriculture. Petitioners made three key assignments of error: 1) the county’s failure to adequately identify the impacts of the potential industrial uses on the surrounding area as well as adjacent uses as required under OAR 660-004-0020(2)(d), 2) the county’s failure to provide adequate findings that detailed the scale and differences of proposed uses as part of the compatibility assessment, and 3) the county impermissibly deferred a detailed compatibility assessment of the proposed uses to later unspecified permit proceedings. In response, the Port argued 1) the language of ORS 197.732(2)(c)(D) constrained the compatibility assessment to “adjacent uses” and not the surrounding area, 2) that the county’s findings of impacts on adjacent uses were adequate, and 3) that relying on later permit processes in addition to the county’s findings did not create an impermissible deferral of a compatibility assessment.

Under OAR 660-004-0020(2)(d), to be approved, a Goal 3 exception must make a showing that “[t]he proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses . . . ” and that “the proposed use is situated in such a manner as to be compatible with surrounding natural resources and resource management or production practices.” The Board found the county’s compatibility assessment findings inadequate to support its decision to approve a goal exception because the “surrounding” language of OAR 660-004-0020(2)(d) added to the “adjacent” language of ORS 197.732(2)(c)(D). The Board determined that the compatibility assessment must address the scale and specific types of impacts of each different potential use on the specific surrounding and adjacent areas. The Board also found that, while subsequent permit proceedings can address aspects of the goal exception analysis in finer detail, they cannot substitute for “adequate findings and substantial evidence” to approve a goal exception. Where the county’s compatibility assessment was deficient, the Board concluded the later permit requirements could not support the county’s decision. Reversed and remanded.