The Oregon Court of Appeals has affirmed a decision by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), siding with Jackson County regarding conditions placed on a Temporary Forest Labor Camp (TFLC) permit sought by Mark and Andrea Hutto. The court found that the county acted appropriately in setting an expiration date tied to the logging operation and imposing existing wildfire mitigation standards.
This nonprecedential memorandum opinion, issued late in December 2025, resolves several key disputes raised by the Hutto petitioners against Jackson County’s approval of their TFLC permit. The core of the appeal centered on whether the county improperly exercised discretion in what the petitioners argued should have been a straightforward, ministerial approval process.
The Temporary Camp and the Ministerial Process
The dispute originated on the Hutto’s 40-acre parcel, zoned Woodland Resource (WR) and located in a mapped wildfire hazard area. After a code enforcement investigation stemming from a complaint about structures on the property, county staff suggested the Hutto’s apply for a TFLC permit to legitimize using existing structures for temporary worker housing during a salvage logging operation.
The petitioners filed the application, referencing a Notification of Operations Permit (NOAP) from the Oregon Department of Forestry that indicated the logging activity would run from August 8, 2024, until December 31, 2024. Crucially, they stated all structures would be removed upon project completion, referencing a state administrative rule (OAR 660-006-0025(2)(b)) concerning temporary structures auxiliary to forest operations.
Jackson County initially denied the application, but following a stipulated remand from LUBA, the county reconsidered. The county processed the application under its “Type 1” procedure, which is reserved for uses “authorized by right, requiring only non-discretionary staff review.” This contrasted with a “Type 2” process, which involves discretionary decisions requiring hearings.
The Hutts argued that the county’s actions—specifically setting an expiration date and later inquiring about additional information—showed they were actually applying Type 2 discretion, thus violating their right to a ministerial review.
Expiration Date Tied to Operation Duration
The first major issue addressed by the Court of Appeals was the permit’s expiration date of December 31, 2024. The petitioners claimed this date was arbitrary and that the county failed to provide “clear, upfront criteria” for obtaining a different date, suggesting discretion was used.
Judge Hellman, writing for the appellate panel, disagreed. The court noted that Jackson County’s Land Development Ordinance (LDO) defines a TFLC as one that “must cease once the operation or activity is concluded.” Since the county was processing this as a Type 1 use, it was bound to apply the standards in the LDO.
The court found that the county simply relied on the evidence provided by the Hutts themselves—the NOAP stating the logging operation ended December 31, 2024. “Thus, the county did not exercise discretion in imposing the expiration date; rather, it imposed the expiration date based on the only evidence in the record about when petitioners’ logging operation would end,” the opinion stated. The court also dismissed the argument that the county needed to publish an exhaustive list of evidence types to prove an operation’s end date, noting that such a list could limit an applicant’s ability to show compliance.
Other Procedural Challenges Rejected
The appellate court swiftly dismissed the petitioners’ three other arguments related to the Type 1 review process:
1. Inquiry After Remand: The county’s email asking if the Hutts had additional information after the remand was deemed separate from the core decision-making process and did not constitute discretionary review.
2. Use of the Term “Tentative”: The county’s use of the word “tentative” in a staff decision was deemed a minor misstatement that did not prejudice the Hutts’ substantial rights or violate due process.
3. Alleged Staff Misconduct: Allegations regarding unauthorized property entries and erroneous compliance statements were ruled irrelevant to the current appeal, as they pertained to a separate, preceding enforcement proceeding.
Wildfire Mitigation Requirements
The second primary assignment of error concerned the wildfire mitigation standards imposed by the county. The Hutts argued that these conditions violated the “goalpost rule” (ORS 215.427(3)), which requires applications to be processed based on standards applicable when the application was first submitted.
The court confirmed that the structures were located in a mapped wildfire hazard area. The relevant LDO standards (LDO 8.7) mandated these mitigation measures for all new and existing structures in such areas unless specifically exempted. Since these standards had been part of Jackson County’s code since 2011—long before the Hutts applied—the county was obligated to apply them. The court found no violation of the goalpost rule.
Motions to Supplement Record Denied
Finally, the court addressed the Hutts’ complaint that LUBA improperly denied their motions to supplement the record with evidence allegedly showing staff misconduct and an affidavit detailing private conversations with Department of Forestry employees.
LUBA had determined this evidence related to prior proceedings and could not affect the current appeal’s outcome. The Court of Appeals concluded that LUBA acted within its discretion in denying these additions, as the evidence did not meet the criteria for taking evidence outside the established record.
In summary, the Court of Appeals affirmed LUBA’s decision, upholding Jackson County’s conditional approval of the Temporary Forest Labor Camp permit.