Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals

Opinions Filed in February 2019

Lee v. Marion County

LUBA is not authorized to second guess local decision makers’ judgment regarding the credibility of evidence presented in land use hearings.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Estroff v. City of Dundee

(1) Under ORS 197.829(1), LUBA must affirm a governing body’s interpretation of a land use regulation unless the interpretation is implausible, or inconsistent with the express language or purpose of the regulation, and (2) the existence of a stronger or more logical interpretation does not render a weaker or less logical interpretation implausible.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Richards v. Jefferson County

Under OAR 660-033-0130(9), while counties have some discretion to determine the thresholds of a “commercial farming operation” for purposes of approving relative farm help dwellings, this requires sufficient scale and intensity to induce and require a reasonable farmer to devote the majority of his or her working hours to operating the farm.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Armstrong v. Jackson County

LUBA may remand a decision to the local government to provide an essential interpretation that the decision omits.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Leyden v. City of Eugene

Under 197.830(5)(b), the 21-day appeal period for zone verification decisions begins either on the date the petitioner is placed on inquiry notice or, if petitioner makes timely inquiries and discovers the decision, on the date the decision is discovered.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

McNichols v. City of Canby

Generally, a final and authoritative determination regarding the intent and scope of deeds, easements, and similar real estate documents can be obtained only in circuit court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Roten v. City of Turner

Under ORS 197.835(4)(a), a petitioner may raise a local government’s failure to cite applicable criteria in its notices, staff report, or decision for the first time on appeal to LUBA.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County

Under ORS 92.017, the illegal division of a parcel by conveyance does not destroy the legal status of the parcel for purposes of approving a forest template dwelling under ORS 215.750(1)(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Back to Top