Court Opinion

ID: 9575104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:11:36.380207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:58.365540
License: Public Domain

LEAVY, J.,
Pro Tempore, dissenting.
I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. Cities are authorized to pass zoning ordinances under OPS 227.220. Until the passage of OPS ch 197 by the 1973 Legislature there was no duty to do so. Under OPS 227.240 the council, in passing zoning regulations, is required to give reasonable consideration, among other things, to the character of the district, its peculiar suitability for particular uses, the conservation of property values, and the direction of building development in accord with a well-considered plan.
According to the petitioner, the council adopted a comprehensive plan by resolution after the passage of its ordinance of 1968. Presumably, the 1968 ordinance was passed after giving reasonable consideration to various factors, including the direction of building development, in accord with a well-considered plan.
I know of no authority, nor has any been cited *516by the majority, which holds that the adoption of a comprehensive plan makes a prior ordinance invalid, nor would I treat adoption of a plan to be of such legislative magnitude that by its very nature it telescopes implementary legislation into planning. The majority reaches today’s result by selective citation from the statutory scheme of ORS ch 197 (which on its face deals only with statewide planning goals and objectives and has its own mechanism of enforcement and redress of private wrongs), and by selective quotation of Professor Haar and citation of rezoning and referendum cases. Today’s holding, depending upon the outcome of a trial, will leave a council with no discretion in enacting zoning ordinances, a result totally unwarranted by the plain language of the zoning-enabling statutes found in ORS ch 227.
I therefore respectfully dissent.