Sky Lakes Medical Center, Inc. v. City of Klamath Falls
LUBA must affirm a governing body’s interpretation of a land use regulation unless the interpretation is inconsistent with the express language or purpose of the regulation—even if petitioner’s interpretation is equally plausible.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
O'Callaghan v. City of Joseph
Under OAR 661-010-0010(3) and ORS 197.015, a local government decision becomes final—and therefore subject to LUBA’s jurisdiction—only when it bears the necessary signatures of the decision maker(s), even if it lists an earlier date as the “date of decision.”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Cattoche v. Lane County
(1) In determining whether new uses will conflict with protected Goal 5 resources under OAR 660-023-0040, local governments must evaluate all uses allowed outright or conditionally in the new zone and may not limit their evaluation based on the uses proposed in the new development or any conditions placed thereon. (2) LUBA will not affirm a decision when the findings fail to identify relevant criteria, even if the parties identify evidence in the record which clearly supports that decision, if there is conflicting evidence in the record.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Stop the Dump Coalition v. Yamhill County
Under ORS 215.296, a condition intended to prevent a nonfarm use from significantly changing or increasing the cost of accepted farm practices on surrounding farmlands may not be sufficient where there is no quantification in the record of how effective that condition would actually be.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Eng v. Wallowa County
(1) Under ORS 197.763(6)(b), neither the hearing at which the governing body deliberates nor the period between the hearing and the governing body's final decision provide petitioners with a meaningful opportunity to object to the admission of evidence with final legal argument. (2) Where specific issues are raised concerning the compliance with applicable criteria, the findings must address those issues. (3) When several methods for calculating the center point of a property for purposes of a forest template dwelling are identified, the county must explain the basis for its selection. (4) The fact that some applicable approval criteria in a public proceeding do not require the exercise of interpretation or judgment does not mean the county may defer its review to a non-public proceeding.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Oster v. City of Silverton
Under ORS 197.195(1), in order to incorporate a comprehensive plan standard as approval criteria for limited land use decisions, a local government must make clear what specific plan provisions apply and may not rely on incorporation by reference of the entirety of plan.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Bishop v. Deschutes County
Under DCC 22.20.015, which is remedial in nature and not punitive, decisions which either determine that an existing use requires land use approval or deny an application to retroactively approve an existing use do not constitute a determination that a “violation” has occurred.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Himmelberger v. City of Portland
LUBA will affirm a decision denying an application as long as there is one valid basis for denial.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use