Case Name: BENTON COUNTY, Petitioner - Cross-Respondent, v. VINCENT et al, Respondents - Cross-Petitioners
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1982-11-17
Citations: 60 Or. App. 324
Docket Number: No. 81-126, CA A24487
Parties: BENTON COUNTY, Petitioner - Cross-Respondent, v. VINCENT et al, Respondents - Cross-Petitioners.
Judges: Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Thornton and Van Hoomissen, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 60
Pages: 324–325

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted September 13,
affirmed November 17, 1982
BENTON COUNTY, Petitioner - Cross-Respondent, v. VINCENT et al, Respondents - Cross-Petitioners.
(No. 81-126, CA A24487)
653 P2d 279
Richard T. Ligón, 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.

Opinion:
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.