Court Opinion

ID: 9608360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:11:03.898214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:45.752981
License: Public Domain

DURHAM, J.,
dissenting.
I am unable to agree with the majority’s conclusion that this case differs materially from Yamhill County v. Ludwick, 294 Or 778, 663 P2d 398 (1983). It is true that the approval criterion in the ordinance in Ludwick expressly used the word “legal,” and that the one here does not. However, the Washington County ordinance requires the dwellings to be located on “lots” or “parcels.” Those terms are defined in the ordinance, and the definition refers to other provisions that specify how lots or parcels may be created. I agree with petitioner that, given that context, the limitation on the permissible sites of dwellings can only be read to mean lots or parcels that were lawfully created.
I respectfully dissent.