Land Use Board of Appeals (33 summaries)
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
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
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
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
Gould et al v. Deschutes County
When an application form, burden-of-proof statement, and county processing all reflect an extension as opposed to an initiation-of-use request, and no statute or code provision required the county to reclassify it, ORS 215.416 does not apply and the county should treated the application solely as an extension request.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
The Home Depot, Inc. v. City of Wilsonville
The city plausibly interpreted its code in concluding that 2019 is the reference point for determining the nature and extent of the nonconforming use.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Leckie v. Lane County
Subsequently approved partitions may combine and redivide land, vacating original lot lines.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Gould et al v. Deschutes County
"First, petitioners have not demonstrated that the county improperly construed any applicable DCC provision in concluding that no right of local appeal was available to petitioners where CLCC's application sought an extension, not an initiation of use determination. Second, petitioners have not established that ORS 215.416(2) is a procedure that applies to CLCC’s application."
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
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
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
Hastings et al. v. Malheur County
“A reasonable person could make that connection based on the evidence in the record, as the county court did, relying on Miller's statement and the fact that Strata combined the samples for quality testing in accordance with their understanding and application of accepted aggregate quality testing methodology. The county's findings regarding the quality of the aggregate deposit are supported by substantial evidence.”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Hastings et al v. Malheur County
“The county's findings regarding the quality of the aggregate deposit are supported by substantial evidence.”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Hale v. Washington County
“Absent any citations from petitioner in their petition for review identifying where this issue was raised before the hearings officer, we agree with intervenor that the second assignment of error was not preserved as required by our rule. We also agree with intervenor that petitioner does not develop an argument that any restrictions the OC zoning places on restaurant operating hours are relevant to the hearings officer's decision.”
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
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
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
Windlinx Ranch Trust v. Deschutes County
“The hearings officer concluded that the project could be classified as either a multi-use path or a road or street project, but that its qualification as a multi use path did not preclude its qualification as a Class III road and street project” … and the court agrees.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County
"The county's findings that the events are "necessary to support the commercial farm uses," that is, 'essential in order to maintain the existence of * * * the commercial farm' are not supported by substantial evidence In the record."
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use