Southcentral Association of Neighbors v. City of Salem

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Land Use
  • Date Filed: 07-15-2015
  • Case #: A158634
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Hadlock, J.; Sercombe, P.J.; & Tookey, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Adjacent parcels under common ownership are not necessarily one development, and therefore one "lot," simply because they are owned by the same entity for the purposes of applying Salem Revised Code 130.270.

Salem Hospital (the Hospital) applied to the City of Salem (the City) for site plan review and a variance concerning a piece of property (the Church Street property) near the existing hospital, which would allow the Hospital to construct a new medical rehabilitation center along with parking spots that would serve both the new center and the existing hospital. The Hospital argued that the Church Street property was a part of one lot along with the existing hospital; therefore, the Hospital argued, the increased number of parking spaces at the new center would be within the allowable limits under under Salem Revised Code 133.050 and 133.100. Southcentral Association of Neighbors argued that the application was related only to the Church Street property, and so the number of parking spaces should be limited to that allowed for only the new center. A hearings officer agreed with the Hospital, but on appeal the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) found that the Church Street property was not part of the same lot as the existing hospital property. On this appeal, the Hospital argued for the first time that SRC 111.130(g) defined "lot" to include parcels under common ownership, and that definition applied to SRC 133.050 and 133.100. The Hospital also renewed its argument that the Church Street property and the exiting hospital are on separate lots combined under single ownership to accommodate a single development as described under SRC 130.270, and should therefore be considered one "lot" for purposes of calculating parking spaces. The Court held that because the Hospital did not prove LUBA's reasoning was wrong when it rejected the argument that a single development exists whenever one entity owns adjacent, functionally-related buildings, LUBA's decision must be upheld. Affirmed on petition and cross-petition.

Advanced Search