Brannon v. Multnomah County
Under MCC 33.2256(B), no reduction of the required Primary Fire Safety Zone is permitted for a nonconforming adjustment or variance.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Cossins v. Josephine County
Under ORS 215.503, counties must provide property owners with advance, individual, written notice by mail of the first hearing on an ordinance that proposes to rezone their property. Such notice must include specific information and be sent within a specified time frame. Failure to provide sufficient notice may prejudice property owners’ substantial rights even if they participated in one or more of the hearings held below.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Catherine Caudle vs. City of Dunes City
LUBA does not have jurisdiction to review a city ordinance appeal when a local government acts pursuant to its authority to prohibit marijuana businesses within its jurisdictional boundaries.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County
Continual use of parcel as a school satisfies the requirements of ORS 215.130(5) and LC 16.251(5), establishing a “vested right” to continue previously conforming use which is presently nonconforming.
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
Hudson v. Jackson County
Under ORS 197.015(10)(a), a floodplain development permit decision requires a determination of whether existing structures serve uses that are allowed or authorized in the RR-5 zone and is therefore not an exception to the statute.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law