Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals

2019

January 6 summaries

Neighbors for Smart Growth v. Washington County

(1) Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding and (2) any error in accepting “new evidence” during a non-evidentiary remand proceeding could provide a basis for reversal or remand only if the error prejudiced petitioners’ substantial rights.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Nicita v. City of Oregon City

Under OAR 660-023-0250(3)(b), a local government is not limited to considering regulations specifically adopted to implement Goal 5 in determining whether new uses could conflict with acknowledged Goal 5 resources.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Riverview Abbey Mausoleum Company v. City of Portland

(1) The PCC allows a local appellant to submit fee waiver and appeal requests concurrently and requires neither that a fee waiver decision be signed nor noticed, and (2) an organization’s failure to follow its bylaws in voting to file a local appeal provides no basis for reversal or remand.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County

In challenging a development approval that depends upon a prior, unappealed government approval, LUBA will not review arguments that a prior decision was procedurally or substantively incorrect because such a challenge would constitute an impermissible collateral attack on a decision not before LUBA.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Crowley v. City of Hood River

Under OAR 661-010-0071(2)(d), when the Court of Appeals rejects a local government’s interpretation of its comprehensive plan, but does not adopt its own interpretation or express any opinion regarding petitioner’s interpretation, the appropriate disposition for LUBA is to remand the decision to the local government for further proceedings.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Renken v. City of Oregon City

(1) Under OCMC 14.04.060, the city is not limited to considering existing infrastructure at the time of annexation but may also consider future availability of infrastructure improvements to support the development of annexed territory, and (2) the OCMC does not require the city to identify exactly how infrastructure will be paid for as part of annexation decisions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

February 8 summaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 0 summaries