Willamette Oaks, LLC v. City of Eugene

The Land Use Board of Appeals did not err in determining that certain modifications to a tentative planned unit development would only result in insignificant changes and were therefore permissible. Also, the petitioner must have preserved the issue of reversing instead of remanding to argue that the case should have been remanded, if it was not plain error.

Willamette Oaks Willamette sought review of the Land Use Board of Appeals’ (LUBA) decision modifying a tentative planned unit development. The proposed changes involved building four stories, not three, removing a bicycle area, and changing the purpose of the structure to include memory care, assisted living options, and other physical changes. Willamette Oaks claimed that LUBA erred in affirming the modifications and in remanding, instead of reversing. Willamette Oaks relied on Eugene Code 9.8335, which stated that modifications were only allowed if they were “consistent with the conditions of the original approval” and only “result in insignificant changes.” The hearing official found that these requirements were met, but Willamette Oaks claimed they were not. The Court of Appeals held that LUBA did not err when it found the changes insignificant. As for Willamette Oak’s claim that LUBA erred in remanding, the Court determined that Willamette Oaks did not preserve the issue and that it was not plain error. Affirmed.