Reinert v. Clackamas County

For purposes of ZDO 1307.16(K), “substantial similarity” between applications depends upon whether there are material differences in the content of both applications with respect to application of the approval criteria. Reinert v. Clackamas County, 286 Or. App. 431, 438 (2017).

Petitioner appealed a Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) decision affirming a county hearings officer’s approval of a subdivision application.  Petitioner assigned error to LUBA’s determination that the county hearings officer properly applied the “substantial similarity” test.  On appeal, petitioner argued that LUBA’s decision is unlawful in substance because its substantial similarity test focuses more on the differences in the applications’ contents than on the similarities between the two proposals.  For purposes of ZDO 1307.16(K), “substantial similarity” between applications depends upon whether there are material differences in the content of both applications with respect to application of the approval criteria.  Reinert v. Clackamas County, 286 Or. App. 431, 438 (2017).  Since “substantial similarity” between applications, for purposes of ZDO 1307.16(K), depends upon whether there are material differences in the content of both applications with respect to application of the approval criteria LUBA did not err in accepting the officer’s interpretation because the material differences (density, public facilities) were the reason for the denial of the first application and the approval of the second.  Reinert v. Clackamas County, 286 Or. App. 431, 438 (2017).  Affirmed.