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 2 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