Bielefeld v. Lane County
(1) The pertinent date for determining local jurisdictional issues is the date of the final decision. (2) Under ORS 215.740(4)(d), even if an approved site plan for a replacement dwelling shows that it will be constructed on a different tract, if the original dwelling is sited on the subject property and the building permit for the replacement dwelling limits its construction to the footprint of the original dwelling, a forest template dwelling cannot be approved on the subject property.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Simons Investment Properties, LLC v. City of Eugene
If a city ordinance repeals the standards of a particular designation, that designation no longer applies in the city, even if the ordinance does not expressly repeal the prior ordinance applying the designation in the first place.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Lundeen v. City of Waldport
Under WDC 16.60.030(C)(4), construction activities, including those associated with constructing a road to the subject property, are part of a development and must be evaluated to determine whether they will create a drainage or pollution problem outside the planned area.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Waveseer of Oregon, LLC v. Deschutes County
Under ORS 215.416(8)(a), permit approval standards and criteria must inform interested parties of the basis on which an application will be approved or denied.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Save TV Butte v. Lane County
Whether a local government’s errors under ORS 197.610 require remand depends not on whether the petitioners can demonstrate prejudice to their own substantial rights, but on whether the errors call into question whether the process performed its function.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County
An unlawful division of land creates two new, undevelopable units rather than an undevelopable unit and a lawful remainder.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Van Dyke v. Yamhill County
(1) The fact that a governing body enters into a design contract for a proposed project in their proprietary capacity as property owner does not necessarily mean that that they are incapable of determining the merits of a related land use application in their representative capacity as decision makers. (2) Under ORS 215.422(3), communications between county staff and the governing body regarding a design contract before land use proceedings commence are not ex parte contacts. (3) Under ORS 215.296(1), when there is evidence that an allowed nonfarm use will have impacts on farm uses, a county may not respond with conclusory findings, unsupported by substantial evidence. (4) While it is permissible for a local government to find compliance with an approval criterion by imposing conditions, but to allow the details of those conditions to be determined during subsequent administrative proceedings, the local government must at least consider different feasible options at a time and with sufficient detail to allow participants an opportunity to evaluate their effectiveness and provide input. (5) Under ORS 215.296(1), in analyzing and responding to the impacts of nonfarm uses on surrounding farmland, counties may not merely determine that it is “feasible” to respond to those impacts in a subsequent planning process without evaluating and responding to specific expert testimony with findings. (6) Under ORS 215.296, spraying and using other peoples’ property without permission are not “accepted farm practices.” In addition, while the impacts of nonfarm uses on surrounding farmland must be evaluated on a farm-by-farm and practice-by-practice basis, an evaluation of the cumulative impacts on all farm practices on all impacted farms is not required. (7) In considering a conditional use permit application, counties must apply all relevant comprehensive plan goals and policies.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Van Dyke v. Yamhill County
LUBA will only exercise its jurisdiction under the judicially created significant impacts test if the petitioner identifies non-land-use standards that apply to the decision and would govern LUBA’s review, and that have some relationship to the use of land.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Dobson v. City of Hines
(1) Under ORS 197.830(9), Notice of Intent to Appeal plan and land use regulation amendments must be filed not later than 21 days after notice of the decision sought to be reviewed is mailed or otherwise submitted to parties entitled to notice under ORS 197.615. (2) Under ORS 197.763, whether the petitioner received notice of a hearing does not affect whether the city mailed it.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Watts v. City of Tualatin
(1) LUBA reviews only the local government’s final written decision and not what individual parties, staff, or members of the decision making body stated during the proceedings. (2) In reviewing a substantial evidence challenge, LUBA's role is not to reweigh the evidence, but rather to determine if a reasonable person, viewing the whole record, could reach the conclusion that the decision maker reached.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use