- Court: Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Land Use
- Date Filed: 06-23-2022
- Case #: 2021-099/100
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Opinion by Ryan
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner appealed a county hearings officer’s denial of their request for legal verification of their two plots of land divided by a public road. The planning director concluded both were legal plots under a longstanding “roads divide land” county policy that allows for the creation of two legal plots of land where one plot is divided by a public road. Landwatch Lane County, as Intervenor, appealed the decision to the county hearings officer, who reviewed the history of the county codes and found that subsequent revisions had rendered the “roads divide land” policy inconsistent with the County’s implementation of ORS 92.010(3)(a). In light of that language, the county hearings officer did not find Petitioner’s interpretation plausible and denied legal verification of both plots. On appeal to LUBA, Petitioner argued that the County misconstrued the county code implementing ORS 92.010(3)(a) to conclude neither was a legal plot.
Under ORS 92.010(3)(a), a lawfully established unit of land is “(i) [a] lot or parcel created by filing a final plat for subdivision or partition; or (ii) [a]nother unit of land created[] (aa) [i]n compliance with all applicable planning, zoning and subdivision or partition ordinances and regulations; or (bb) [b]y deed or land sales contract, if there were no applicable planning, zoning or subdivision or partition ordinances or regulations.”
LUBA denied Petitioner’s assignment of error, finding the County's evaluation well-reasoned and adopting it as their own. Affirmed.