East Park, LLC v. City of Salem
1. Local criteria utilizing subjective and value-laden judgments do not satisfy the requirement of clear and objective procedures under ORS 197.307(4). 2. Even if an alternative approval process is available under ORS 197.307(6), it may not be utilized in a local government decision unless the applicant has an option to pursue their application under ORS 197.307(4) with clear and objective criteria.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Nelson v. City of Hillsboro
Under ORS 174.010, errors in figures used for city planning are not within LUBA’s authority to correct. An assignment of error that collaterally attacks a city ordinance implicated in the decision on appeal provides no basis for LUBA to reverse or remand. Turner v. Jackson County, 62 Or. LUBA 199, 201 (2010), aff’d, 249 P.3d 564 (2011); Butte Conservancy v. City of Gresham, 47 Or. LUBA 282, 296, aff’d, 100 P.3d 218 (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Briggs et al v. Lincoln County
ORS 215.130(5) provides: "The lawful use of any building, structure or land at the time of the enactment or amendment of any zoning ordinance or regulation may be continued,” and “[a] change of ownership or occupancy shall be permitted." “[W]hen a local enactment is found incompatible with state law in an area of substantive policy, the state law will displace the local rule.” La Grande/Astoria v. PERB, 576 P2d 1204, aff’d on reh’g, 586 P2d 765 (1978).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Landwatch Lane Cnty. v. Lane Cnty.
ORS 215.780 “authorizes [a] county to allow the partition of a property to create a five acre parcel to house a qualified dwelling and that both of the resulting parcels may be less than 80 acres, so long as the parcel without the dwelling is constrained in its ability to house a dwelling in the future.” Russell v. Lane County, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No 2020-072, Jan 8, 12 2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Monroe v. City of Corvallis
Under ORS 197.015(10)(b)(H),“a proposed state agency action . . . is compatible with the acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations implementing the plan,” and excluded from LUBA’s jurisdiction, “if: (i) [t]he local government has already made a land use decision authorizing a use or activity that encompasses the proposed state agency action; . . . or (iii) [t]he use or activity that would be authorized . . . by the proposed state agency action requires a future land use review under the acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations implementing the plan[.]”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Phillips v. City of Corvallis
Under ORS 197.825(2)(a), LUBA’s jurisdiction is limited to “those cases in which petitioner has exhausted all remedies available by right before petitioning the board for review[.]” However, under ORS 197.830(3), “[i]f a local government makes a land use decision without providing a hearing . . . a person adversely affected by the decision may appeal the decision to the board[.]” These appeals are not subject to the exhaustion requirement under ORS 197.825(2)(a) unless the local government voluntarily grants a local appeal, then the local remedy must be exhausted before appealing to LUBA. Comrie v. City of Pendleton, 45 Or. LUBA 758, 772 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use