Laurel Hill Valley Citizens v. City of Eugene

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Land Use
  • Date Filed: 03-11-2016
  • Case #: 2015-091/092
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Opinion by Bassham
  • Full Text Opinion

Pursuant to the "exhaustion-waiver" principles articulated in Miles v. City of Florence, 190 Or App 500 (2003), where local appeal regulations require specification of the issues on appeal, a petitioner must first specify an issue on local appeal in order to preserve that issue before LUBA, and where a petitioner fails to do so the issue will be deemed waived.

In two consolidated appeals of a city planning commission’s decision approving a zoning map amendment to conform the zoning of a 121-acre property to be developed by owner-applicant Environ-Metal Properties, LLC (Environ-Metal) for residential use, petitioners Laurel Hill Valley Citizens (LHVC) and Environ-Metal both moved to intervene in the other’s respective appeal. The central issue in both appeals was whether the proposed zoning of the subject property was consistent with city’s Metro Plan diagram. LHVC and Enviro-Metal submitted several different “overlaid diagrams” comprising: (1) a survey map depicting the subject property lines, the urban growth boundary, city limits, and an adjacent street; and (2) either the digital version of the Metro Plan diagram or the 2004 official paper version of the diagram. In reaching its decision, the city chose to rely on one of Environ-Metal’s overlaid diagrams reflecting navigational “grid north” (rather than “true north”) through a two-degree tilt of the north arrow to the right, as represented on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram.

Environ-Metal appealed, in part, the city’s decision rejecting its argument that the two-degree tilt on the Metro Plan diagram was a scrivener’s error. LHVC also appealed the city’s decision, which rejected LHVC’s overlaid diagrams and additional maps as supplemental sources of information and determined that the zoning boundary between the two applicable zones should be based on Environ-Metal’s approach. LUBA denied Environ-Metal’s assignment of error, reasoning that Environ-Metal “relie[d] upon the questionable premise that [. . .] the north arrow was accidentally rotated two degrees to grid north,” and holding that Environ-Metal failed to demonstrate that the city erred in requiring the overlays to match the Metro Plan diagram. LUBA sustained LHVC’s assignment of error in part, holding that the city must consider LHVC’s overlay diagrams and supplemental “referents” used to produce overlay diagrams. REMANDED.