Williams v. Coos County
(1) Under ORS 197.829(1)(a), LUBA is required to affirm a board of county commissioners’ interpretation of its land use regulation unless the interpretation is inconsistent with the express language of the comprehensive plan or land use regulation. (2) OAR 660-033-0140(1)(c) does not prohibit a local government from adopting new criteria and exempting existing issued permits from those new criteria.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Shaff v. City of Medford
(1) Under OAR 660-012-0020(3), just because a local government’s inventory of bicycle facilities includes a variety of facilities, some of which may be viewed as substandard, does not mean that the inventory fails to include all existing and committed bicycle facilities. (2) Under Goal 2, the requirement that decision be supported by an adequate factual base is met by evidence a reasonable person would rely upon to reach a decision.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Niederer v. City of Albany
(1) Under ORS197.835(9)(a)(B), while political predispositions do not require recusal, statements which demonstrate that an elected official has prejudged a matter such that they are incapable of making a decision based on the evidence and argument before them during the local proceeding may be sufficient to establish bias. (2) While findings need not take a particular form and “no magic words need be employed” in order to be reviewable, they must “establish the factual and legal basis for the particular conclusions drawn in a challenged decision.”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
York v. Clackamas County
Under ZDO 406.05(A)(1) and OAR 660-006-0025(5)(b), the proper comparison for purposes of assessing whether there is significantly increased risk of fire hazard is not between the proposed solar facility and other solar facilities, but between the proposed facility and the preexisting farm or forest conditions.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Vannatta v. City of St. Helens
(1) Under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B), in order to establish a procedural error, petitioners must identify the procedure allegedly violated, show that the cited procedures are applicable to the local government’s proceedings, and establish that the local government’s actions violated the cited procedures. (2) Under ORS 197.829(1)(a), LUBA must affirm a city council’s interpretation of its land use regulation unless the interpretation is inconsistent with the express language of the comprehensive plan or land use regulation.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Hunt v. City of The Dalles
(1) Under the City of The Dalles LUDO 10.3.080.020(B)(6), the city’s findings must explain why an adjustment will not allow an increase in density “in the RL zone,” not whether it will increase the density “associated with the use of the development site.” (2) Under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(C), a typographical error in a few places in the decision does not amount to reversible error or mean that the decision is not supported by substantial evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use