January 0 summaries
February 2 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
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
March 0 summaries
April 1 summary
May 1 summary
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
November 1 summary
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