Opinion · Orlaw Oregon

BENTON COUNTY v. VINCENT, 60 Or. App. 324 (1982)

BENTON COUNTY, Petitioner — Cross-Respondent, v. VINCENT et al, Respondents— Cross-Petitioners., 653 P.2d 279 (Or. Ct. App. 1982)

Type
Opinion
Court
Oregon
Jurisdiction
Oregon
Date
1982-11-17
Topic
general

BENTON COUNTY v. VINCENT, 60 Or. App. 324 (1982) 653 P.2d 279 BENTON COUNTY, Petitioner — Cross-Respondent, v. VINCENT et al, Respondents— Cross-Petitioners. No. 81-126, CA A24487Oregon Court of Appeals.Argued and submitted September 13, 1982.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed BENTON COUNTY v. VINCENT, 60 Or. App. 324 (1982). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

BENTON COUNTY v. VINCENT,60 Or. App. 324(1982)
653 P.2d 279
BENTON COUNTY,Petitioner — Cross-Respondent,v. VINCENT et al,Respondents
— Cross-Petitioners.
No. 81-126, CA A24487
Oregon Court of Appeals.
Argued and submitted September 13, 1982.
Affirmed November 17, 1982.
Judicial Review from Land Use Board of Appeals.
Richard T. Ligon, Benton County County Counsel, Corvallis, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner — cross-respondent.

Roderick L. Johnson, Thomas Johnson, and Johnson Johnson, Corvallis, filed the brief for respondents — cross-petitioners.
Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Thornton and Van Hoomissen, Judges.
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.Page 325
PER CURIAM.
Benton County granted a conditional use permit to Newmans to operate a rock quarry. Respondents, who live near the rock quarry, appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), contending,inter alia,that the county had misinterpreted the relevant ordinance in granting the permit. LUBA agreed and remanded to the county for reconsideration in light of LUBA's interpretation of the ordinance. The county appeals, contending that its interpretation of the ordinance is correct. Respondents cross-appeal, contending LUBA should have simply reversed and not allowed further consideration.

After LUBA's decision, the county amended the relevant ordinance. Both parties agree that the issues addressed by LUBA will not arise on remand under the new ordinance. It is unnecessary therefore to address either of the parties contentions.

Affirmed.Page 326