Land Use Board of Appeals (45 summaries)
Armstrong v. Jackson County
LUBA may remand a decision to the local government to provide an essential interpretation that the decision omits.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
McNichols v. City of Canby
Generally, a final and authoritative determination regarding the intent and scope of deeds, easements, and similar real estate documents can be obtained only in circuit court.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Crowley v. City of Hood River
Under OAR 661-010-0071(2)(d), when the Court of Appeals rejects a local government’s interpretation of its comprehensive plan, but does not adopt its own interpretation or express any opinion regarding petitioner’s interpretation, the appropriate disposition for LUBA is to remand the decision to the local government for further proceedings.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Riverview Abbey Mausoleum Company v. City of Portland
(1) The PCC allows a local appellant to submit fee waiver and appeal requests concurrently and requires neither that a fee waiver decision be signed nor noticed, and (2) an organization’s failure to follow its bylaws in voting to file a local appeal provides no basis for reversal or remand.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Hunt v. City of the Dalles
LUBA must affirm a city’s interpretation of its own comprehensive plan and land use regulations if the interpretation is plausible and not inconsistent with their express language, purpose, or policy, even if petitioner presents or LUBA conceives a stronger interpretation.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Elenes v. Deschutes County
Under ORS 197.829(2), in the absence of a reviewable interpretation, LUBA has discretion to determine whether a decision is correct or to allow local governments to interpret ambiguous code language in the first instance.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Nicita v. City of Oregon City
Under ORS 227.180(1)(c), nothing prohibits a city from adopting local appeal fee enabling legislation by ordinance and setting its fee schedule by resolution, the fact that a city’s appeal fee is based on an estimate of average costs instead of an arithmetic average of prior costs provides no basis for reversal or remand, and local governments are afforded broad discretion in calculating and assessing local appeal fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
A Walk on the Wild Side v. Washington County
The fact that an owner of property, zoned exclusive farm use, uses the property for permitted farm uses does not shield concurrent unpermitted uses from code enforcement action.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Richardi v. City of Eugene
A final legal determination on a land use matter shall stand in later proceedings if not successfully challenged in prior proceedings.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County
Under OAR 660-006-0035(3), a county may not rely upon an applicant’s bare assertion that a proposed structure complies with applicable fire siting standards if other evidence in the record indicates to the contrary that it does not.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Friends of Douglas County v. Douglas County
In determining whether the subject property is “agricultural land” under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(b), a county must address whether it is “adjacent to or intermingled with lands in capability classes I-IV/I-VI within a farm unit.”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Meyer v. Jackson County
While a county may impose a more expansive definition of “floodway” than that offered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the county has declined to do so in this case.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County
If the record establishes that the land in question does not possess soil suitable for farm use, petitioner cannot claim that this conclusion is erroneous based on surrounding land’s suitability.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
McAndrew v. Washington County
In order to bring assignments of error to LUBA, petitioners must raise their issues during the initial proceedings, otherwise, they are waived, under ORS 197.835(3) and ORS 197.763(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Reed v. Jackson County
Because Jackson County neglected to determine whether sections of the Jackson County Land Development Ordinance required loading spaces, but applied other areas of the statute, "the county must address whether the section applies and if it does, whether it is met."
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Friends of Canemah v. City of Oregon City
ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B) allows LUBA to reverse or remand a land use decision of a local government if the local government made a procedural error and that error prejudiced the substantial rights of the petitioner.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County
Only when a property’s soil type does not meet the definition of “agricultural land” is the local government to look to other factors in determining whether to classify land as “agricultural land.”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Central Oregon Landwatch v. Crook County
OAR 660-033-0130(4)(c)(B)(i) states that “a lot, parcel, or portion of a lot or parcel, shall not be considered unsuitable solely because of size or location. . . .” A county must consider factors other than size or location when determining suitability.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Oregon Coast Reliance v. Tillamook County
The LUO 11.030 code definition of the term ‘recreational vehicle’ makes it clear that under the LUO as currently written the use category ‘recreation vehicle’ at LUO 3.008(3)(r) is limited to nonresidential vacation, emergency or recreational use, and that a recreational vehicle can be used for a permanent residence only within a mobile/manufactured home park or similar facility.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Wolcott v. Lane County
ORS 197.830(6) does not necessarily prohibit counties from considering the finality, nature, and effect of the decision in resolving the issues raised by a petitioner’s application.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Holmberg v. Deschutes County
The term “in conjunction with” located in ORS 215.283 means that temporary hardship dwellings must be in close proximity to the existing dwelling on the property.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Holmberg v. Deschutes County
The term “in conjunction with” located in ORS 215.283 means that temporary hardship dwellings must be in close proximity to the existing dwelling on the property.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Bishop v. Deschutes County
Based on ORS 197.805, LUBA has long held that it will decline to exercise jurisdiction over appeals where review would have no practical effect on the rights of properties.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Eng v. Wallowa County
ORS 197.835 authorizes LUBA to reverse or remand a land use decision if the local government failed to follow applicable procedures in deciding a matter, and that failure prejudiced substantial rights of the petitioner.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Neighbors for Smart Growth v. Washington County
ORS 197.835 authorizes LUBA to reverse or remand a land use decision if the local government failed to follow applicable procedures in deciding a matter, and that failure prejudiced substantial rights of the petitioner.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Grahn v. City of Yamhill
ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B) provides that LUBA is to reverse or remand a land use decision if a local government failed to follow applicable procedures to the matter before it, and that failure prejudiced the substantial rights of petitioner.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County
While OAR 660-033-0130(2)(c) authorizes expansion of existing structures on non-high-value farmland within three miles of a UGB, (2)(c) says the expansions cannot go above a 100-person capacity for the place of assembly.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Hagan v. City of Grants Pass
GPDC 25.035(2) requires off street parking for uses not specified in the GPDC 25.042 schedule is to be “based upon the requirements for the most comparable building or use specified” in the GPDC 25.042 schedule.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Glenwood 2006, LLC v. City of Beaverton
OAR 660-031-0026 provides that state agency permits must be compatible with acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations. Because OLCC decisions regarding redemption centers are not listed in the statute, OLCC forms are not land use compatibility statements.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Glenwood 2006, LLC v. City of Beaverton
ORS 197.825 limits LUBA’s jurisdiction to land use decisions. ORS 197.015(10)(a) defines a land use decision as a final decision that concerns the application of a comprehensive plan or land use regulation.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Department of Land Conservation and Development v. City of Klamath Falls
Under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(D), LUBA may reverse or remand a decision that misconstrues applicable law.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Oral Hull Foundation for the Blind v. Clackamas County
Under ORS 197.830(2)(b), in order for a person to petition the board for review of a land use decision, the person must appear before the local government, special district or state agency orally or in writing.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Upper Midhill Estates LLC v. City of West Linn
Under OAR 661-010-0021(5)(e), an appeal will be dismissed if no amended notice of intent to appeal is filed or no original notice of intent to appeal is refiled.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Deumling v. City of Salem
ORS 197.835 (9)(a)(C) states that LUBA shall remand decisions not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record. OAR 664-004-0018(4) provides that when local governments adopt a reasons exception to a goal, “plan and zone designations must limit uses, density, public facilities and activities to only those justified in the exception.”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
McLaughlin v. Douglas County
Under Douglas County Land Use Development Ordinance 2.800.2, a permit extension approval is an administrative decision not subject to appeal as a land use decision.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
McMonagle v. City of Ashland
Ashland Municipal Code 18.6.1.030 requires a corner lot’s one street line to be the front lot line; the narrower street frontage of a lot must be the front lot line except when topographical or access problems make such a designation impractical. Historical site plans and orientation of the existing house cannot be used in making this determination.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Hood River Valley Residents Committee v. Hood River County
OAR 660-004-0018 requires a new reasons exception when a site plan proposes a change in either the type or intensity of the use allowed by a previous reasons exception.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Landwatch Lane County v Lane County
Lane County Code 13.020 authorizes the county to make a determination that a unit of land was created in conformance with the Lane Code and other applicable law.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Levy v. Jackson County
ORS 197.825(2)(a) requires petitioners to exhaust all remedies available by right before petitioning LUBA for review. Regardless of whether Jackson County Land Development Ordinance 2.7.5 (D)(1) includes provisions that are permissive or mandatory, they are remedies that must be exhausted before LUBA has jurisdiction.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Long v. City of Tigard
Tigard Community Development Code 18.380.030(b)(3) requires sufficient evidence of a change in the neighborhood, community, or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map in order to approve or deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Whittemore v. City of Gearhart
Under Gearhart Zoning Ordinance 11.040, the City of Gearhart may amend the Gearhart Zoning Ordinance only if it reports findings to establish that the offered amendment is consistent with the Gearhart Comprehensive Plan policies.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Rockbridge Capital v. City of Eugene
Under EC 9.7655(3), an appeal must include a statement of issues on appeal, be based on the record, and be limited to issues raised in the record that are set out in the filed statement of issues.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Robson v. Polk County
Under ORS 197.015(10), a final decision does not include a preliminary decision that is not binding on the parties.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County
In order to comply with the “gross income” test established in ORS 197.247(1)(a), “objective criteria” is not required; if it were required, affidavits from an affiant that has an interest in the subject of the affidavit are sufficient “objective criteria.”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Long v. City of Sumpter
ORS 197.830(11) requires petitions for review to be filed within the guidelines established by the Board. Under OAR 661-010-0030(1) petitions for review must be filed within 21 days after the date the record is received or settled by the Board.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use