Leyden v. City of Eugene
Under ORS 197.015(10)(b)(B), LUBA’s jurisdiction depends on applicable land use standards and does not turn on comments or arguments in the record that led to the decision. Just because a decision is wrong, erroneous, or unauthorized does not mean that it qualifies as a land use decision subject to LUBA’s jurisdiction.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County
Under ORS 215.790(2)(e)(A), in determining whether a forest-zoned parcel is exempt from the 80-acre minimum parcel size, the county must consider the parcel that is the subject of the application for a partition, not the unit of land of which the subject parcel was considered a part on November 4, 1993.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Madrona Park, LLC v. City of Portland
Under ORS 197.015(10)(b)(B), LUBA lacks jurisdiction to review building permit decisions made under clear and objective standards. Standards are not clear and objective if they are ambiguous—that is, if they can plausibly be interpreted in more than one way—or if they impose subjective, value-laden analyses.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Vaccher v. City of Eugene
Under ORS 197.825(1) and EC 9.1070(3), LUBA lacks jurisdiction to review utility public way use permit decisions concerning areas that are not designated on the zoning map.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Velasquez v. Jackson County
Fact finders have discretion to weigh evidence and choose what evidence to rely on in making decisions. A petitioner’s desire that a decision maker rely on different evidence does not provide a basis for reversal or remand of the challenged decision.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use