Hinkle v. City of Bend
If an issue is brought up as “general opposition” to a proposal in the proceedings before the local government, and on appeal to LUBA the issue is raised while challenging the proposed action’s compliance with specific criteria or the operative language of a provision for the first time, LUBA will find the issue has not been raised with sufficient specificity and is waived under the “raise it or waive it” rule of ORS 197.835(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Oregon Coast Alliance v. Clatsop County
Where, on remand from LUBA, a local government is instructed to interpret a subsection of its code, it is not a procedural error for the local government to also interpret the surrounding provisions without opening the record. Where a term is sufficiently limited by a local government’s interpretation of adjacent or related terms that its interpretation can be implied, that interpretation is adequate for review. LUBA will evaluate a local government’s interpretations of terms within its own code under the deferential Siporen standard.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Woodburn Petroleum v. City of Woodburn
Where an applicant for a conditional use permit consolidates their submission with other land use applications for the subject property and treats all applications as one project, a local government does not err in applying conditional use permit criteria to the other applications or in denying the other applications if the conditional use permit is denied.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Gould v. Deschutes County
If, on a land use compatibility statement (LUCS) form, a local government summarizes the status of multiple permit decisions rather than listing each decision and its specific approval status, or fails to mention potential future changes to an approved master plan, LUBA will conclude the local government’s decision as to the LUCS may still be excepted from its review under ORS 197.015(10)(b)(H).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Gould v. Deschutes County
Where a local government correctly identifies land uses associated with a state agency action and correctly identifies one or more exclusions to LUBA’s exclusive jurisdiction over land use decisions under ORS 197.015(10)(b)(H), LUBA will hold it does not have jurisdiction over the matter.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Gould v. Deschutes County
Where a local government's decision is excluded from the definition of a "land use decision" under ORS 197.015(10)(b)(H)(i-iii), LUBA will hold that they lack jurisdiction.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Vanderburg v. City of Albany
On appeal to LUBA, a petitioner must establish that a particular issue was raised in the proceedings below. If a petitioner fails to do so, LUBA will hold that the issue has been waived or that there is insufficient information for LUBA to adequately review the local government’s decision.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Botts Marsh, LLC v. City of Wheeler
Generally, LUBA will affirm a local government’s interpretation of its own provisions as long as those interpretations are “plausible.” Siporen v. City of Medford, 349 Or. 247, 259 (2010). If LUBA remands local provisions for interpretation and the local government makes new interpretations, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing that those interpretations are so different as to constitute an impermissible standard change under ORS 227.178(3)(a). However, in a limited land use decision, LUBA will find the local government erred and remand its decision if the local government adopts new interpretations in their final decision denying an application without allowing the applicant a meaningful opportunity to address those new interpretations, however plausible.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use