Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County
Where a post-acknowledgement plan amendment (PAPA) proposes a zone change on property that contains an identified Goal 5 resource, and the new zone allows for development that was not previously considered in the original economic, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE) analysis, a local government errs in concluding that the original ESEE had already considered all development possible and a new ESEE is not necessary.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Shaw v. Jackson County
Where an application for a short-term rental is shown to be an accessory use of a primary residential use, and the local government does not forbid short-term rentals as a “home occupation,” LUBA cannot say as a matter of law that the local government erred in approving a short-term rental as a home occupation.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Phillips v. Polk County
Where a local government decision merely touches land uses in the area, LUBA will hold that the decision is not a statutory land use decision under ORS 197.015(10). Billington v. Polk County, 703 P2d 232 (1985). Where a local government decision is not a statutory land use decision and does not significantly impact current or future land uses in the area, LUBA will hold that the decision is not within LUBA’s jurisdiction. City of Pendleton v. Kerns, 653 P2d 992 (1982).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Luther v. City of Albany
LUBA has jurisdiction over "any land use decision or limited land use decision of a local government." A local government decision that does does not concern the adoption of a comprehensive plan is not a "land use decision" under ORS 197.015(10)(a)(A).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use