- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Land Use
- Date Filed: 02-05-2014
- Case #: A155003
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Armstrong, P.J. for the Court; Nakamoto, J.; and Egan, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Stevens appealed the Land Use Board of Appeals’ (LUBA) decision to uphold the city’s approval of a home-occupation permit, arguing that LUBA erred in finding the home occupation was secondary to the residence. Stevens’ neighbors were granted a home-occupation permit which allowed, but imposed conditions, on a commercial trucking company in a Low Density Residential area. The city granted the permit but with conditions on: the size of the workshop, outdoor storage of materials, one outgoing/incoming trip per day per truck, limited to business hours etc. Stevens appealed to LUBA. Under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(C), LUBA could only reverse the city’s decision if the decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record. LUBA cannot substitute its view if the city satisfies that requirement. The judicial review of the Court of Appeals is to examine if LUBA properly applied the substantial evidence standard of review. The Court of Appeals held that LUBA correctly applied the standard of review. LUBA used evidence in the record to conclude that Stevens had failed to show that no reasonable person could come to the city’s decision to grant the permit, especially with the imposed conditions. This analysis is consistent with the substantial evidence review standard. Affirmed.