Long v. City of Tigard

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Municipal Law
  • Date Filed: 06-07-2017
  • Case #: 2017-015
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Opinion by Holstun
  • Full Text Opinion

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.

The property in question is made up of three parcels in Tigard, Oregon. The property is currently designated a Professional Commercial (C-P) property on both the city comprehensive plan map and zoning map. Petitioner challenges the decision that amends the comprehensive plan map and zoning map designations to Medium Density Residential and Residential R-12 respectively.

In his first assignment of error, petitioner argued that respondent did not comply with Tigard Community Development Code (TCDC) 18.380.030(b), which sets out the procedures and standard for quasi-judicial zoning map amendments. In particular, TCDC 18.380.030(b)(3) requires evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map. Petitioner claimed that the challenged amendments are not based on any change in the neighborhood other than a general increase in the population. Intervenor Stafford Development Company argued that respondent’s findings prove a shortage of affordable housing, an increase in demand for smaller lots to construct affordable housing, an increase in traffic that could be mitigated by the requested change from commercial to residential zoning, and an increase in demand for open space that could be accomplished with the proposed changes.

Petitioner disagreed as to the significance and public benefit from the open space that could be provided by the proposed changes. However, petitioner failed to sufficiently challenge all of respondent’s findings and arguments. Because petitioner failed to acknowledge or challenge the findings and LUBA found the findings sufficient enough to meet the standard of TCDC 18.380.030(b)(3), LUBA denied petitioner’s assignment of error. AFFIRMED.