Christian Futures v. Lane County
Under ORS 92.010(3)(a), a lawfully established unit of land is “(i) [a] lot or parcel created by filing a final plat for subdivision or partition; or (ii) [a]nother unit of land created[] (aa) [i]n compliance with all applicable planning, zoning and subdivision or partition ordinances and regulations; or (bb) [b]y deed or land sales contract, if there were no applicable planning, zoning or subdivision or partition ordinances or regulations.”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Gould v. Deschutes County
1) Where a final master plan places a limitation on an aspect of a development, that limitation will be held to have effect following modifications to other areas of the master plan. 2) Where an interpretation of two applicable provisions harmonizes and gives them both effect, that construction will be upheld.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Joy v. City of Ashland
1) The location of a particular issue within a set of findings is not dispositive, nor is the manner in which it is framed, so long as the issue is present and adequately addressed. 2) "[LUBA] will affirm a local government decision where a petitioner fails to acknowledge or challenge the findings adopted to address the issues petitioner attempted to raise below, Dion v. Baker County, 72 Or LUBA 18 307, 314-15 (2015), even where the findings adopted are that a particular issue is irrelevant. 3) Where a conclusion as to a broad array of circumstances is supported by substantial evidence, a conclusion as to a particular circumstance within that array is also supported by substantial evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Gould v. Deschutes County
Generally, parties in quasi-judicial land use proceedings have a right to present and rebut evidence. Fasano v. Washington Co. Comm., 507 P2d 23 (1973). However, "there is no unlimited right to rebut rebuttal evidence, and Fasano does not require endless opportunities to rebut rebuttal evidence." Rice v. City of Monmouth, 53 Or LUBA 55, 60 (2006), aff’d, 154 P3d 786 (2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Water Rights
Anunziata Gould v. Deschutes County
“[T]he plain meaning of [DCC 18.16.040(A)(3)] requires that the proposed conditional use be located on the single site on the subject property that is least suitable.” Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, 78 Or LUBA 136, 147 (2018). An option to apply for an incidental take permit does not substitute determining compatibility with surrounding properties under DCC 18.128.015(B).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Kretzer v. City of Shady Cove
Under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(C), LUBA will remand a local government decision if it is “not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record.” Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable person would rely upon to reach a decision. Dodd v. Hood River County, 855 P.2d 608 (1993).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
1000 Friends of Oregon et al v. Josephine Cnty.
1) Where a plan amendment is proposed, OAR 660-006-0010 requires hierarchal analysis of specified data sources before proceeding to alternative means of determining forest land productivity. 2) OAR 660-004-0040 does not apply to nonresource land; findings as to a Goal 14 exception must “identify the relevant criteria, the evidence relied upon, and why the evidence supports the conclusion that the criteria are or are not met,” Heiller v. Josephine County, 23 Or LUBA 551 (1992); and if a plan amendment could result in residential densities inconsistent with Goal 14 an exception must be taken, Wood v. Crook County, 49 Or LUBA 682 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Gould v. Deschutes County
Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable person would rely upon to reach a decision. Dodd v. Hood River County, 855 P.2d 608 (Or. 1993). When reviewing the evidence, LUBA cannot substitute its judgement for that of the local decision-maker but must determine whether a reasonable local decision-maker could reach the decision it did based on the evidence presented. Younger v. City of Portland, 752 P.2d 262 (Or. 1988).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use