Tamara Palmer

Land Use Board of Appeals (10 summaries)

Wachal v. Linn County

Under ORS 197.015(10)(b)(A), where a local government, in reaching a decision, is not required to evaluate anything by discerning or comparing, and where the evidentiary support for the existence facts on which the decision relies is clear and unambiguous and does not require the application of any legal principles, such a decision does not require the exercise of “legal judgment.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Eagle-Eye v. City of Veneta

Under ORS 197.835(4)(a), while a petitioner may raise new issues to LUBA if the local government failed to list applicable approval criteria, LUBA will refuse to allow such issues where petitioners argue the local government failed to identify the definitions section of its code as an applicable criterion but where petitioners do not establish that the local government was in fact required to do so.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Simons Investment Properties, LLC v. City of Eugene

If a city ordinance repeals the standards of a particular designation, that designation no longer applies in the city, even if the ordinance does not expressly repeal the prior ordinance applying the designation in the first place.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Lundeen v. City of Waldport

Under WDC 16.60.030(C)(4), construction activities, including those associated with constructing a road to the subject property, are part of a development and must be evaluated to determine whether they will create a drainage or pollution problem outside the planned area.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Klein v. Lane County

A special use permit that explicitly does not address a prior verified nonconforming use does not require application of nonconforming use criteria.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County

(1) The county, having previously determined that a property is not agricultural land by not including the property in inventory maps of agricultural lands is not required to revisit that original determination. (2) Under OAR 660-023-0030, while local government are prohibited from applying Goal 5 processes to non-significant resource sites, they may still regulate surface mining of those sites in other ways.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County

(1) Uses that are allowed conditionally in resource zones under state law may only be allowed conditionally in local ordinances, notwithstanding any DLCD model ordinance provisions to the contrary. (2) Where an entire decision is appealed to LUBA, and LUBA sustains assignments of error, it is inappropriate for LUBA to affirm in part and remand in part.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Eng v. Wallowa County

(1) Under ORS 197.763(6)(b), neither the hearing at which the governing body deliberates nor the period between the hearing and the governing body's final decision provide petitioners with a meaningful opportunity to object to the admission of evidence with final legal argument. (2) Where specific issues are raised concerning the compliance with applicable criteria, the findings must address those issues. (3) When several methods for calculating the center point of a property for purposes of a forest template dwelling are identified, the county must explain the basis for its selection. (4) The fact that some applicable approval criteria in a public proceeding do not require the exercise of interpretation or judgment does not mean the county may defer its review to a non-public proceeding.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Vannatta v. City of St. Helens

(1) Under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B), in order to establish a procedural error, petitioners must identify the procedure allegedly violated, show that the cited procedures are applicable to the local government’s proceedings, and establish that the local government’s actions violated the cited procedures. (2) Under ORS 197.829(1)(a), LUBA must affirm a city council’s interpretation of its land use regulation unless the interpretation is inconsistent with the express language of the comprehensive plan or land use regulation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Hunt v. City of The Dalles

(1) Under the City of The Dalles LUDO 10.3.080.020(B)(6), the city’s findings must explain why an adjustment will not allow an increase in density “in the RL zone,” not whether it will increase the density “associated with the use of the development site.” (2) Under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(C), a typographical error in a few places in the decision does not amount to reversible error or mean that the decision is not supported by substantial evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Back to Top