- Court: Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Municipal Law
- Date Filed: 01-13-2015
- Case #: 2014-084
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Opinion by Ryan
- Full Text Opinion
Michael LaBare applied to the county for an interpretation of whether a property line adjustment would be approved under ZDO 1107.04(B)(2)(b). The planning director and the hearings officer rejected LaBare’s interpretation. LaBare appealed to LUBA, arguing that the county had misconstrued the ordinance. LaBare contended that under ZDO 1107.04(B)(2)(b), property line adjustments on EFU properties under the EFU minimum 80-acre requirement should allow: Parcel 1 to increase from 60 acres to 78 acres while Parcel 2 decreased from 20 acres to 2 acres. Parcel 1 would retain the commercial agricultural enterprise and Parcel 2 would retain a dwelling only. LaBare argued that because Parcel 1 would contain the physical area of the existing agricultural enterprise of “each property”, it is therefore in compliance with the ordinance. LUBA agreed with the county’s interpretation, holding that the phrase “each property” in ZDO 1107.04(B)(2)(b) refers to each property after the property line adjustment has been applied and requires each property to remain at an appropriate size to continue the existing agricultural enterprise. LUBA also stated that even if the term “property” is imprecise and undefined in a specific ordinance, context provided in the definition of “property line adjustment” and “property line” found in the same section of the ZDO allows “property” to generally mean the units of land (parcel, lots, or lots of record) subject to the application of ZDO 1107.04(B)(2)(b). AFFIRMED.