Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals

2018

January 12 summaries

Calef v. City of Seaside

Under OAR 661-010-0021(5)(e), if no amended notice of intent to appeal is filed or no original notice of intent to appeal is refilled, the appeal will be dismissed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Hood River Valley Residents v. Hood River County

Under HRCZO 60.12, if an application for a short-term rental permit is denied, a new application may not be filed for at least one year from the original application date.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Hood River Valley Residents v. Hood River County

Under HRCZO 53.30(A) determining whether an application is a “resident of the property” for the purposes of HRCZO 53.30(A) requires the exercise of discretion. Additionally, the determination of whether a “STR will not unreasonably interfere with other uses permitted in the zone and whether the STR is a secondary use, incidental, accessory or subordinate to the residential uses or the existing building” is highly discretionary.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Bishop v. Deschutes County

Based on ORS 197.805, LUBA has long held that it will decline to exercise jurisdiction over appeals where review would have no practical effect on the rights of properties.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Save TV Butte v. Lane County

Under OAR 660-023-0030, Goal 5 planning for significant mineral and aggregate resource sites begins with the inventory process. The inventory process concludes with a comprehensive plan list or inventory of significant resource sites.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Home Builders Association v. City of Eugene

ORS 197.307(4), sets fourth regulations that may apply to development of needed housing on land included in the urban growth boundary (UGB) and on the Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI), but the regulation does not apply the city’s initial determination of what land is included in a city’s inventory.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Simpson v. City of Brownsville

Under OAR 661-010-0021(5)(e), if no amended notice of intent to appeal is filed or no original notice of intent to appeal is refilled, the appeal will be dismissed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Holmberg v. Deschutes County

The term “in conjunction with” located in ORS 215.283 means that temporary hardship dwellings must be in close proximity to the existing dwelling on the property.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Holmberg v. Deschutes County

The term “in conjunction with” located in ORS 215.283 means that temporary hardship dwellings must be in close proximity to the existing dwelling on the property.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Crowley v. City of Hood River

Under HRCP Goal 8, Policy 1, the city of Hood River must protect existing parks from being impacted by incompatible uses on nearby lands, but the city council may nevertheless elect to rezone existing parks to allow for new uses.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Richards v. Jefferson County

ORS 215.283(1)(d) authorizes the county to approve an accessory dwelling on EFU-zoned land to be occupied by a relative of the farm operator, if “the farm operator does or will require the assistance of the relative in the management of the farm use[.]”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

February 3 summaries

Northwest Alliance Corvallis v. City of Corvallis

Under OAR 661-010-0021(5)(e), if no amended notice of intent to appeal is filed or no original notice of intent to appeal is refilled, the appeal will be dismissed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Wolcott v. Lane County

ORS 197.830(6) does not necessarily prohibit counties from considering the finality, nature, and effect of the decision in resolving the issues raised by a petitioner’s application.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Oregon Coast Reliance v. Tillamook County

The LUO 11.030 code definition of the term ‘recreational vehicle’ makes it clear that under the LUO as currently written the use category ‘recreation vehicle’ at LUO 3.008(3)(r) is limited to nonresidential vacation, emergency or recreational use, and that a recreational vehicle can be used for a permanent residence only within a mobile/manufactured home park or similar facility.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

March 6 summaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 5 summaries

Feetham v. Jackson County

In determining the scope or extent of a nonconforming use right, the relevant legal question is the extent of the activity that is actually occurring on the date when the use becomes nonconforming, with an allowance for changes in the volume or intensity of the use if they are attributable to growth or fluctuations in business conditions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Aboud vs. City of Stayton

LUBA has the authority to reverse or remand a local government decision if the local government failed to follow the procedures applicable to the matter before it in a manner that prejudiced the substantial rights of the petitioner.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Seits vs. Yamhill County

LUBA did not have jurisdiction to reverse and remand a decision to approve a conditional use permit when the decision was made based on the county’s building code which has not been adopted as part of the county’s land use code.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Hill v. City of Portland

The width of the local street right-of-way must be sufficient to accommodate expected users, taking into consideration the characteristics of the site and vicinity, such as the existing street and pedestrian system improvements, existing structures, and natural features.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Martin v. City of Tigard

City council interpretations of their own land use laws are subject to a highly deferential standard of review by LUBA, under which it must affirm a governing body’s interpretation of local land use legislation unless that interpretation is implausible.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

May 0 summaries