Delmonico v. Washington County
1) Where an assignment of error is raised solely in the footnotes of a petition for review, LUBA will not address it. 2) Where an on-site delineation of a significant natural resource (SNR) is determined to be different from the general location on the SNR inventory map, LUBA will hold that a local government does not err in concluding the on-site delineation is the proper location of the resource. 3) Where a development activity is excepted from a restriction under local ordinance, LUBA will hold that a condition on the approval of the development activity need not also be separately excepted.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Red Grapes, LLC et al v. Clackamas County
Where a building is to be “constructed resembling a house,” but to “function as a clinic,” LUBA will find that the building is not an accessory building normally associated with the primary uses in a zone which allows only one single-family dwelling, duplex, or manufactured dwelling per lot unless an accessory dwelling unit or temporary permit is received. Where a local ordinance limits accessory buildings or uses to those “the function of which is clearly incidental to that of the main building or use on the same lot,” LUBA will construe “subordinate” and “clearly incidental” to require more than a tangential relationship to the dwelling.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Botts Marsh, LLC v. City of Wheeler
Where a local government denies an application for a conditional use permit after evidentiary review, and where evidence offered by the applicant would have required the local government to infer alleged facts, LUBA will hold on appeal that the applicant’s evidence was not such that no reasonable trier of fact could not have believed it and, accordingly, there are no grounds for reversal.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
House v. City of Bend
Where a petitioner does not develop a response to local government’s argument that its decision was not a “land use decision” pursuant to ORS 197.015(10)(a)(A) because it applied a design standard rather than a land use regulation, LUBA will hold that the petitioner has failed to meet their burden of establishing that the challenged decision is a "land use decision" under Billington v. Polk County, 703 P2d 232 (Or. 1985). Accordingly, LUBA will deny jurisdiction.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Marick v. City of Lake Oswego
Where a city approves a Residential Infill Design (RID) and a building official later determines that a portion of the nonconforming home built prior to the current zoning requirements is unsafe and requires reconstruction, LUBA will hold that the project, even if amounting a completely new structure, still satisfies the requirements of a local ordinance which permits “reconstruction of a damaged nonconforming structure and exempts that reconstruction from contrary . . . provisions to the extent that the damaged portions of the structure failed to conform.” Accordingly, LUBA will hold that the project does not require a new or modified RID application.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Marick v. City of Lake Oswego
Under ORS 197.015(10)(b)(B), a local government’s actions that only implement or rely on a previous land use decision and do not apply land use standards are outside LUBA’s jurisdiction.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use