Sikora v. Lane County

An applicant carries the burden of proof to establish that applicable criteria are satisfied, regardless of whether the criteria require the applicant to prove a positive or negative. York v. Clackamas County, __ Or. LUBA __, __ (LUBA No. 2019-081, Jan. 9, 2020) (slip op at 12).

Petitioner appealed the County’s denial of their request for legal verification of their lot. After reviewing the evidence presented by Petitioner, the planning director concluded their lot was a subdivision that was not conveyed in compliance with the County’s Subdivision Ordinance and was not a legal lot. The county hearings officer affirmed. On appeal to LUBA, Petitioner argued that the hearings officer improperly placed the burden of proof on Petitioner to establish the plot was a legal line adjustment, and that the conclusion that the lot was an impermissible subdivision was not supported by substantial evidence.

An applicant carries the burden of proof to establish that applicable criteria are satisfied, regardless of whether the criteria require the applicant to prove a positive or negative. York v. Clackamas County, __ Or. LUBA __, __ (LUBA No. 2019-081, Jan. 9, 2020) (slip op at 12).

LUBA found that presuming Petitioner’s lot was a legal lot until proven otherwise would impermissibly shift the burden of proof from the applicant to the opponents, and under this standard Petitioner failed to meet their burden of proof. LUBA noted that while the evidence did not establish that this was not a legal property line adjustment, neither did it establish that it was. As LUBA is not permitted to second-guess the local decision-maker’s evaluation of the evidence, LUBA concluded the hearings officer could reasonably reach the conclusion they did. LUBA determined the hearings officer correctly found that Petitioner’s plot was not exempt from the Ordinance. Affirmed.