January 4 summaries
Doe v. Webgroup Czech Republic
Ninth Circuit Expands Jurisdiction Over Foreign Websites Hosting Exploitative Content Under Rule 4(k)(2)
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Plankton Holdings, LLC v. Lane County
LUBA will remand where a local government does not adopt findings under ORS 92.176 on whether the creation of a property could have complied with applicable criteria.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Plankton Holdings v. Lane County
LUBA will remand where a local government does not adopt findings under ORS 92.176 on whether the creation of a property could have complied with applicable criteria.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Burton v. City of Cannon Beach
A petition for review must set forth each assignment of error, demonstrate preservation of error, and state the applicable standard of review. OAR 661-010-0030(4)(d).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
February 6 summaries
Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County
LUBA does not have jurisdiction over an application that the circuit court has reviewed for a petition for a writ of mandamus.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County
LUBA does not have jurisdiction over an application that the circuit court has reviewed for a petition for a writ of mandamus.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Saige Timber v. Linn County
The subject property is comprised of three units of land that are zoned Farm/Forest (F/F). The petitioner appeals a board of county commissioners decision affirming a planning commission decision approving two property line adjustments (PLAs). The board adopted the planning commission decision without holding a hearing. Affirmed.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Widmer v. City of Troutdale
Where a petitioner does not meet their burden to show a local government’s decision was not based on the subjective “reasonable person” standard under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(C) as a matter of law nor show the evidence the local government relied on did not meet the reasonable person standard, LUBA will affirm.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Akiyama v. Tillamook County
Where petitioners do not file a conditional motion to transfer, and LUBA concludes it lacks jurisdiction, it will dismiss the appeal.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Marquart v. City of Shaniko
Under ORS 227.178(2), if a local government does not provide adequate notice for its denial of an application, LUBA will remand.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
March 1 summary
Panabaker v. City of Hood River
It is the second sentence of ORS 197.830(9) that specifies the deadline for appealing a PAPA decision such as the Ordinance to LUBA, requiring that the appeal "shall be filed not later than 21 days after notice of the decision sought to be reviewed is mailed or otherwise submitted to parties entitled to notice under ORS 197.615.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
April 4 summaries
Meyer v. City of King City
"We do not find anything in this discussion that requires interpreting ‘protecting’ to the maximum extent possible to mean that the easement must be avoided at all costs, or that any impacts be de minimis.”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Ferguson Creek Investment v. Lane County
Petitioner appeals a hearing official’s decision denying an application for nonconforming use verification of a dwelling on an 82-acre property zoned Exclusive Farm Use.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Haugen v. City of Scappoose
Under ORS 197.797(9)(b), "evidence" is defined as facts, documents, or other information used to demonstrate compliance or noncompliance with relevant standards. Approval criteria for planned developments require the proposal to align with the comprehensive land use plan and be compatible with the surrounding area. Conditional use permits consider the site's suitability based on size, location, and natural features. Information on engineering issues, lot size feasibility, and project amenities relates to these criteria and is considered evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
May 2 summaries
North Hideaway Hills Neighbors v. Lane County
According to ORS 215.448, a home occupation must be operated substantially in the dwelling or in buildings typically associated with uses allowed in the zone. This implies that the primary business activities should occur on-site in a way that aligns with the character of other local permissible uses.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
DLCD v. Clackamas County
“When the language in the [Draft] is compared to the language that LCDC ultimately adopted, and what is at issue in this appeal, it is clear that all Upzoning requires an exception to Goal 14 and that petitioner's construction of the rule is the correct one because It comports with LCDC's Intent…”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
July 3 summaries
Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County
Because the 2012 Decision was not issued under ORS 92.176, it does not fall under HB 3362’s appeal provisions.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Kupillas v. Clackamas County
"ORS 215.760(2) reflects the legislature policy choice to require agricultural buildings in forest and mixed farm and forest zones to be used only for the purposes listed in ORS 455.315."
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife v. Jackson County
Merely referencing ASC 90-1 and wildlife impacts is insufficient to give the county fair notice of a specific issue.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
September 4 summaries
Neice v. Prosper Portland
LUBA lacks common law jurisdiction under ORS 197.850(9)(a) without a significant impact on land use.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Oregon Coast Alliance v. City of Bandon
"We agree with intervenors that the city's findings adequately address the raw water storage issue and the city's finding that adequate water is available to serve Gravel Point is supported by substantial evidence."
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Klemp v. Andrach
Under ORS 107.106 and ORS 107.820, a trial court must address life insurance as security for child support but has discretion not to order it.
Child support obligations are a rebuttable presumption if the obligated parent presents probative evidence that the guideline amount is unjust or inappropriate. ORS 25.280.
- Family Law
Schulke v. City of Salem
"The city council's interpretation of SRC 702.020(b)(2)(A)'s purpose of providing buffering between multi-family and single-family development through a combination of increased distance, landscaping, and screening, without regard to the purpose of a different provision in the SRC that also addresses landscaping, is plausible and consistent with the express language of SRC 250.005, which requires consideration of the 'purpose underlying the specific development standard proposed for adjustment.'"
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
November 2 summaries
Jack Scott Farms, Inc. v. Dept. of State Lands
A jurisdictional determination by a state agency must be supported by substantial evidence and substantial reason under ORS 183.482(8).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Columbia River Keeper v. Columbia County
“[Respondents] respond, and we agree, that nothing in the term "branchline" requires that the county consider the proposed facility in the RIPD zone as part of the proposed facility in the PA-80 zone. Any branchline will ultimately connect with another type of rail facility and thus be ‘functionally interdependent.’”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
December 4 summaries
Sane Orderly Development v. City of Roseburg
"Because the decisions have been submitted to DLCD for 8 acknowledgement under ORS 197.626(l)(b), LUBA ceases to have jurisdiction 9 over those submitted decisions or over matters arising out of those submitted 10 decisions unless the director of DLCD transfers matters to LUBA pursuant to OAR 661-025-0250(2)."
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Kipp v. City of Astoria
"Petitioner has not established that the hearings officer's vested rights decision "violates a provision of applicable law and is prohibited as a matter of law." For reasons explained above, we remand the vested rights determination."
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Save Stafford Road v. Clackamas County
Under ORS 197.015, a Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) that is issued by a local government is not considered a “land use decision” subject to LUBA review if the project is deemed compatible with local regulations and will require further land use review.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
CAF Partners Properties, LLC, v. City of Jacksonville
Incorporating historic standards is inconsistent with the text and purpose of of JUDC 16.32.20(2), and therefore implausible.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use