Stop the Dump Coalition v. Yamhill County
Oregon Supreme Court
364 Or. 432, 435 P.3d 698 (2019)
- Written by Galina Abdel Aziz , JD
Facts
Riverbend Landfill Co. (the landfill) sought to expand its solid-waste landfill in Yamhill County (the county) (defendant) onto land zoned for exclusive farm use. To obtain a permit for the expansion, the landfill had to satisfy the farm-impacts test in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) § 215.296. Under that test, proposed nonfarm use could not be approved if it would significantly change accepted farm practices or significantly increase the cost of such practices on surrounding land. The statute provided that the farm-impacts test could be satisfied if the applicant met the local government’s conditions of approval. The county determined that if the landfill met certain conditions, the expansion would not significantly change accepted farm practices or significantly increase the price of farm practices on surrounding land. The conditions imposed by the county addressed impacts from nuisance birds and litter and required the landfill to pay for the entire crop of berries and cherries on a neighboring farm each year and to install a litter fence and pay for increased cleanup costs on another nearby farm. Stop the Dump Coalition and other individuals and entities (plaintiffs) appealed the decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), alleging that the landfill’s use did not meet the farm-impacts test because the landfill’s use imposed significant changes to farm practices. Specifically, the berry farm had to stop its U-pick cherry and berry harvest, and the other nearby farm was forced to significantly change its farming practices for growing, harvesting, and baling hay due to the necessary litter cleanup. The LUBA rejected the challenge and determined that the landfill would meet the farm-impacts test by satisfying the county’s conditions. The appellate court affirmed the LUBA’s order. Stop the Dump and the other entities sought review in the Oregon Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nakamoto, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.