Land Use Board of Appeals (16 summaries)
Nicita v. City of Oregon City
Under OAR 660-023-0250(3)(b), a local government is not limited to considering regulations specifically adopted to implement Goal 5 in determining whether new uses could conflict with acknowledged Goal 5 resources.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Van Dyke v. Yamhill County
Whether a land use matter is quasi-judicial or legislative depends on (1) whether the process is bound to result in a decision, (2) whether the making of the decision is bound to apply preexisting criteria to concrete facts, and (3) whether the matter is directed at a closely circumscribed factual situation or a small number of persons.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Home Builders Association v. City of Eugene
Under ORS 197.312(5), when a city applies existing ADU standards for the first time to zones in which ADUs were not previously allowed, those existing standards are subject to review for compliance with the statute.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Kamps-Hughes v. City of Eugene
ORS 197.312(5) is not limited to only applications for statutory permits. Zone verification decisions must also comply with the statute’s requirement that limitations on accessory dwelling units be “reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design.”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
American Tower Corp. v. City of Tualatin
A finding that a city council adopted that is not challenged by a petitioner is dispositive, and that finding renders any other errors in other findings that are responsive to the petitioner’s arguments below harmless.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Vannett Properties LLC v. Lane County
A decision regarding “the establishment of a dwelling” authorized under section 6 of Measure 49, or a determination of whether a petitioner has a right to construct a Measure 49 dwelling made “under” sections 6 and 11 of Measure 49, is not a land use decision and is therefore not subject to LUBA’s jurisdiction.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Hood River Valley Residents Comm. v. Hood River County
While ORS 215.416(11)(a)(C) reflects that a county’s land use regulations may provide the manner in which a written appeal of a permit decision made without a hearing shall be filed, it does not allow the county to place additional restrictions on who can appeal such a decision.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Johnson v. City of Portland
Nothing in PCC 33.33.030.D or PCC 33.855.070A.2 evidences an intent by the city to delegate ultimate responsibility for deciding map error correction applications to BDS or to make a BDS decision the city’s final decision on such an application.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Oregon Coast Alliance v. Curry County
Under ORS. 215.246(3), the scope of the phrase “alternatives” may be interpreted broadly enough to include alternative sources and methods for obtaining irrigation water, in addition to means and routes of transporting it, however, any written explanation by an applicant rejecting identified alternatives will satisfy the statute’s burden.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Newbrook v. City of Portland
To determine whether the local decision maker’s conclusion is supported by substantial evidence, the evidence must be what a reasonable person would rely on in reaching a decision.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
VanSickle v. Klamath County
Adequate findings are required to support quasi-judicial land use decisions and such findings must identify the relevant approval standards, set out facts which are believed and relied upon, and must include explanations of how those facts lead to the decision on compliance with the approval standards.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Gu v. City of Bandon
Under BMC 17.92.040(G), the city council must determine whether the conditions and limitations that an applicant has agreed to in its conditional use permit application will “alter the character of the surrounding area in a manner which substantially limits, impairs, or precludes the use of surrounding properties.”
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Patel vs. City of Portland
Under PCC 33.430.280, “site-related” development standards include height and setback standards as being consistent with the purposes of environmental zones and review.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Seits vs. Yamhill County
LUBA did not have jurisdiction to reverse and remand a decision to approve a conditional use permit when the decision was made based on the county’s building code which has not been adopted as part of the county’s land use code.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Aboud vs. City of Stayton
LUBA has the authority to reverse or remand a local government decision if the local government failed to follow the procedures applicable to the matter before it in a manner that prejudiced the substantial rights of the petitioner.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Catherine Caudle vs. City of Dunes City
LUBA does not have jurisdiction to review a city ordinance appeal when a local government acts pursuant to its authority to prohibit marijuana businesses within its jurisdictional boundaries.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use