Fred Wilson, Hearings Official <br />July 8, 2016 <br />Page 14 <br />iv. Tuality Lands Coalition v. Washington Count; 22 Or LUBA 319 (1991) <br />In 1988, the property owner submitted an application to develop a parcel of property <br />as an asphalt batch plant. The county approved that application, but indicated that final <br />approval "shall be obtained through the Type I procedure. A development application, <br />accompanied by two sets of final plans, necessary written material and documents, and <br />application fee shall be submitted." Tuality, 22 Or LUBA at 321. The approval also included <br />several steps the applicant had to go through prior to construction and operation of the <br />plant. In October "1990, the parcel was re-zoned from industrial to "future development." <br />The industrial zoning permitted the proposed asphalt plant, but the future development <br />zoning did not. In December 1990, the property owner submitted a second development <br />application, purportedly to meet the requirements of the first application. The second <br />application proposed different features than were approved in the original application. The <br />second application was approved as was a subsequent building permit. The original approval <br />was not appealed, but the second approval and the issuance of the building pern-ut were. <br />LUBA held that the second application was a distinct and subsequent discretionary <br />application and, therefore, was subject to review under the applicable requirements of the <br />new zoning wluch prohibited the proposed batch plant.6 "[T]here is nothing in [the goal <br />post rule] which requires the county to apply the standards in effect at the time one <br />application is submitted to a distinct and subsequent application." Tualily, 22 Or LUBA at <br />329. In detern-iitung that there were in fact two discretionary permit applications, LUBA <br />relied on the following facts: <br />"In addition to separate application forms, the existence of a <br />second application is confirmed by (1) the County's statement in <br />its 1989 staff report and decision of the need for the applicant <br />to file another `application' to follow up on the [1989 <br />development approval decision], (2) [i]nteivenor's own <br />characterization of the material it submitted in December 1990 <br />as an `application,' (3) the fact that two applications were <br />subject to different review procedures (the first [development] <br />application was assigned to be processed under a Type II <br />process, while the second application was assigned to <br />`Procedure Type' I), (4) separate and different findings of fact <br />and conclusions of law, and (5) each application led to a <br />decision which was subject to a separate appeal process and <br />period." Tiraliy, 22 Or LUBA at 329. <br />r, In reversing the county's approval, LUBA held that "applicable requirements of the FD-10 zone, including <br />the list of uses allowed in that zone, are "standards and criteria" as those terms are used bN- ORS 215.428(3)." <br />Tuality, 22 Or LUBA at 329. <br />Acx <br />