COLUMBIA RIVERKEEPER and N.W. PROPERTY RIGHTS COALITION, Respondents,
CLATSOP COUNTY, Respondent, and OREGON PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC, Petitioner. OREGON PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC, Petitioner Cross-Respondent,
CLATSOP COUNTY, Respondent Cross-Petitioner, and COLUMBIA RIVERKEEPER and N.W. PROPERTY RIGHTS COALITION, Respondents
Argued and Submitted September 17, 2014.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Land Use Board of Appeals. 2010109. Land Use Board of Appeals. 201310.
In LUBA No. 2010-109, affirmed on petition. In LUBA No. 2013-16, affirmed on petition; on cross-petition, reversed and remanded as to that portion of the final order determining Commissioner Huhtala to be biased.
E. Michael Connors argued the cause for petitioner-cross-respondent. With him on the briefs was Hathaway Koback Connors LLP.
Jeff Bennet argued the cause for respondent-cross-petitioner. With him on the brief were Timothy V. Ramis and Jordan Ramis PC.
Lauren R. Goldberg and Brett VandenHeuvel filed the brief for respondents.
Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and Haselton, Chief Judge, and Garrett, Judge.
[267 Or.App. 581] DEVORE, P. J.
Oregon Pipeline Company, LLC (OPC) petitions for review of two decisions of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) that relate to OPC's application for land-use approvals from Clatsop County for a 41-mile segment of a natural gas pipeline. In November 2010, the Clatsop County Board of Commissioners (the board) approved the application, and parties that opposed the application appealed that decision to LUBA. Before the county provided the record to LUBA, the board--with three newly elected commissioners--voted to withdraw its approval and reconsider its decision. OPC challenged the board's withdrawal through a mandamus action in the circuit court. The circuit court dismissed the mandamus action, and we affirmed that dismissal on appeal. State ex rel Oregon Pipeline v. Clatsop County, 253 Or.App. 138, 288 P.3d 1024 (2012), rev den, 353 Or. 428, 299 P.3d 889 (2013). Thereafter, on reconsideration, the board denied OPC's application.
OPC appealed to LUBA, challenging the board's decisions to withdraw the approval and to deny the application. On appeal, LUBA rejected some of OPC's procedural challenges, but determined that Commissioner Huhtala, of the newly elected commissioners who had participated in the board's decisions to withdraw the approval and to deny the application on reconsideration, had demonstrated disqualifying bias against OPC's application. LUBA remanded the board's denial of OPC's application for a new ...