Background
Lincoln County property owners who had operated short-term residential rentals challenged the county’s licensing program. The program, codified as a business regulation, limits the number and geographic concentration of licenses, imposes occupancy and operating standards, prohibits certain events, and establishes an administrative complaint process.
The owners sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the ordinances, temporary licensing resolutions, and related order violated or were preempted by provisions of ORS chapter 215 governing zoning and land use. They also asserted that the prohibition on events and portions of the complaint process were unconstitutionally vague or improperly delegated governmental authority. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the circuit court rejected the statutory claims but invalidated the events provision and two complaint-procedure provisions. The owners appealed, and the county cross-appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the county on the owners’ statutory claims. The challenged licensing measures were not land use decisions or zoning regulations, so ORS 215.503’s rezoning provisions and ORS 215.130(5)’s protections for lawful nonconforming uses did not apply. The circuit court had exercised jurisdiction and resolved the claims on their merits, leaving no jurisdictional dispute to refer under ORS 34.102. Issue preclusion also did not apply because the earlier LUBA proceeding concerning a voter-approved ballot measure did not actually and necessarily decide the issues presented here.
On the county’s cross-appeal, the court reversed the invalidation of the challenged provisions. Read in context, the events provision prohibits weddings, rehearsal dinners, and similar gatherings that exceed an STR’s maximum occupancy, and therefore is not vague in all possible applications. Assuming without deciding that Article I, section 21, applies to a county’s delegation of authority, the court also held that the complaint process contains sufficient policy standards and procedural safeguards. Delegating implementation duties to the licensing authority, a county-designated hearings officer, and the County Counsel’s Office was neither an unconstitutional delegation nor impermissibly vague.
Key Takeaways
- A county short-term rental licensing program does not trigger ORS chapter 215 merely because it limits activity that occurs on residential property; the challenged action must be a land use decision or zoning regulation.
- A facial vagueness challenge fails when the provision clearly applies to at least some conduct, and courts evaluate the challenged language in the context of the regulatory scheme as a whole.
- An administrative complaint process may delegate implementation authority when the governing enactment supplies legislative policy, standards, and safeguards such as a hearing, a written decision, and judicial review.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Oregon counties may regulate short-term rentals through business licensing without necessarily converting those rules into land use regulations subject to ORS chapter 215. It also illustrates the demanding standard for facial vagueness challenges under the Oregon Constitution.
For local governments, the opinion supports using administrative actors to implement detailed licensing programs when the ordinance states the governing policy and provides meaningful procedural protections. For property owners, it underscores that restrictions imposed through licensing and restrictions imposed through zoning may follow different statutory review paths.