Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals

Opinions Filed in June 2018

Gu v. City of Bandon

Under BMC 17.92.040(G), the city council must determine whether the conditions and limitations that an applicant has agreed to in its conditional use permit application will “alter the character of the surrounding area in a manner which substantially limits, impairs, or precludes the use of surrounding properties.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Reed v. Jackson County

Because Jackson County neglected to determine whether sections of the Jackson County Land Development Ordinance required loading spaces, but applied other areas of the statute, "the county must address whether the section applies and if it does, whether it is met."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County

Where local governments choose to provide an alternative procedure for property line adjustments, the alternative procedure must include local government approval of some kind. Accordingly, a post-hoc approval process is permissible.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County

(1) A county ordinance identifying a parcel designated for forest uses in its Statewide Planning Goal 5 inventory of significant mineral and aggregate sites is sufficient evidence to support a county’s conclusion that an inconsistency exists between an ordinance and a plan or zoning map for purposes of making conformity determination amendments. (2) LUBA generally does not consider arguments in footnotes that set out different legal theories than those presented in the assignments of error themselves.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Friends of Canemah v. City of Oregon City

ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B) allows LUBA to reverse or remand a land use decision of a local government if the local government made a procedural error and that error prejudiced the substantial rights of the petitioner.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County

The mere threat of potential litigation against the county is an insufficient basis, under OAR 660-023-0040(4) and (5), and the definition of the ESEE for the county to abandon or disavow a portion of its acknowledged Goal 5 program.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Back to Top