Cerelli v. City of Manzanita
Where a local government does not incorporate portions of their comprehensive plan into their land use provisions, under ORS 197.195(1), in a limited land use decision, an applicant’s failure to demonstrate compatibility with the comprehensive plan cannot be used as a reason to deny their application.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Gould v. Deschutes County
Under ORS 197.829(1), where a local government’s interpretation of a statute is plausible, LUBA must give deference to that interpretation.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Old Hazeldell Quarry v. Lane County
Under OAR 660-023-0180, if, after thoroughly evaluating the economic, social, environmental, energy (ESEE) factors, a local government finds the factors are evenly split for and against allowing a proposed mine, LUBA will uphold the local government’s “highly subjective” decision to approve or deny the application if the findings adequately explain that decision.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Poppleton v. Wallowa County
Where a decision is issued after the close of record but an appealable issue was raised below, LUBA will not waive the issue. LUBA will not hold for a finding that is only supported by the record – a finding must be supported by standards for approval and relevant facts.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Marion County
While hosting events may be a permissible home occupation on EFU-zoned property under ORS 215.448 and ORS 215.283(2)(i), ORS 215.448(1)(b) limits the number of employees allowed on the property at any time to five. This five-employee limit is an “indirect limit on the size and scope of the home occupation activities” allowed in an EFU zone.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Graser-Lindsey v. Clackamas County
Under OAR 660-023-0200(9)(b), a local government may remove a property from its list of protected historical landmarks if a property deteriorates to the point that it loses the qualities which had led it to be protected, regardless of whether that loss is due to natural causes, neglect, or deliberate damage.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Johnson v. Lane County
Under the policy of finality expressed in ORS 197.805, a local government may not adopt provisions that allow it to revoke final decisions indefinitely, even when it later discovers it made a mistake in its original decision due to fraud by the applicant.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Claus v. City of Sherwood
A local government does not err in concluding ORS 92.040 applies to all local government laws rather than only those pertaining to the implementation of a comprehensive plan.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County
(1) Where nothing in the local code provides otherwise, LUBA will hold that determination of initiation of a conditional use, as opposed to initiation itself, need not occur before the relevant permit expires. ORS 174.010. (2) Where a petitioner raises the issue of abandonment of use in proceedings below, LUBA will hold that a local government's findings are inadequate if they do not sufficiently address it. Norvell v. Portland Area LGBC, 604 P.2d 896 (1979). (3) Where local code provisions separately provide that (a) the owner of a property and (b) the holder of the land use permit may initiate a declaratory ruling, LUBA will give effect to both provisions and hold that either party may file an application to do so. ORS 174.010.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Community Participation Organization 4M v. City of Tigard
Under the Nollan and Dolan “rough proportionality” test, where a local government’s code requires a through-street for a residential development but the development will likely generate very few additional vehicle trips in the area and the cost of constructing such a road would be “devastating” for the project, the local government does not err in concluding the required street is not roughly proportional. In that instance, the local government is not forced to require the street be built and pay just compensation, and it may a) decline to apply the street requirement at issue to the application, b) consider only the project as proposed and not any alternatives, and c) find that designating the required street as “private” instead of “public” is still an exaction because the public will be required to use the street regardless of its designation.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use