Meyer v. Jackson County
While a county may impose a more expansive definition of “floodway” than that offered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the county has declined to do so in this case.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County
If the record establishes that the land in question does not possess soil suitable for farm use, petitioner cannot claim that this conclusion is erroneous based on surrounding land’s suitability.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Lundeen v. City of Waldport
While the feasibility of a proposed planned development must be shown at the preliminary plan stage—requiring substantial evidence that solutions to certain problems posed by the project are possible, likely, and reasonably certain to succeed—detailed technical matters involved in selecting particular solutions and requiring expert evaluation may be deferred to the final plan stage for administrative review and approval.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Oregon Coast Alliance v. Curry County
Under ORS. 215.246(3), the scope of the phrase “alternatives” may be interpreted broadly enough to include alternative sources and methods for obtaining irrigation water, in addition to means and routes of transporting it, however, any written explanation by an applicant rejecting identified alternatives will satisfy the statute’s burden.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Newbrook v. City of Portland
To determine whether the local decision maker’s conclusion is supported by substantial evidence, the evidence must be what a reasonable person would rely on in reaching a decision.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife v. Lake County
LCZO 18.05(D)(6) mandates 160-acre minimum parcel size for new land division within big game habitat.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
VanSickle v. Klamath County
Adequate findings are required to support quasi-judicial land use decisions and such findings must identify the relevant approval standards, set out facts which are believed and relied upon, and must include explanations of how those facts lead to the decision on compliance with the approval standards.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Rogue Advocates v. Josephine County
Where a county does not address or adopt findings in response to an argument below concerning the interpretation of its own land use laws, it is inappropriate for LUBA to interpret the relevant provisions of the county’s land use laws in the first instance before giving the county an opportunity to address the issue itself on remand.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use