Crowley v. City of Hood River
Under OAR 661-010-0071(2)(d), when the Court of Appeals rejects a local government’s interpretation of its comprehensive plan, but does not adopt its own interpretation or express any opinion regarding petitioner’s interpretation, the appropriate disposition for LUBA is to remand the decision to the local government for further proceedings.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Renken v. City of Oregon City
(1) Under OCMC 14.04.060, the city is not limited to considering existing infrastructure at the time of annexation but may also consider future availability of infrastructure improvements to support the development of annexed territory, and (2) the OCMC does not require the city to identify exactly how infrastructure will be paid for as part of annexation decisions.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County
In challenging a development approval that depends upon a prior, unappealed government approval, LUBA will not review arguments that a prior decision was procedurally or substantively incorrect because such a challenge would constitute an impermissible collateral attack on a decision not before LUBA.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Riverview Abbey Mausoleum Company v. City of Portland
(1) The PCC allows a local appellant to submit fee waiver and appeal requests concurrently and requires neither that a fee waiver decision be signed nor noticed, and (2) an organization’s failure to follow its bylaws in voting to file a local appeal provides no basis for reversal or remand.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Nicita v. City of Oregon City
Under OAR 660-023-0250(3)(b), a local government is not limited to considering regulations specifically adopted to implement Goal 5 in determining whether new uses could conflict with acknowledged Goal 5 resources.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Neighbors for Smart Growth v. Washington County
(1) Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding and (2) any error in accepting “new evidence” during a non-evidentiary remand proceeding could provide a basis for reversal or remand only if the error prejudiced petitioners’ substantial rights.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use