Adin Johnson

Land Use Board of Appeals (11 summaries)

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

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

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

Central Oregon Landwatch v. Crook County

Under OAR 660-023-0040(4), programs implemented to protect Goal 5 resources must be supported by an economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) analysis of the consequences that would result from allowing, limiting, or prohibiting conflicting uses. The ESEE analysis must contain justifications that support such a policy change.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Bora Architects Inc. v. Tillamook County

Under ORS 215.427 the date of the “receipt of [an] application” is the date in which an application is submitted, even if the application fee is not received until a later date. Thus, the 180-day window to complete an application before it is considered “void” under ORS 215.428(3) begins on the date that the initial application is submitted.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Sarett v. Lane County

LC 13.450(4) applies only to a proposal to adjust a single property line, and does not apply to proposals for serial or multiple property line adjustments.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Jackson County

Under OAR 660-004-0022, it is not improper to approve a reasons exception to Goal 3 on two alternative bases, particularly when there is uncertainty regarding the characterization of the proposed use.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Jackson County

Under OAR 660-004-0022, it is not improper to approve a reasons exception to Goal 3 on two alternative bases, particularly when there is uncertainty regarding the characterization of the proposed use.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Willis v. Clackamas County

Under ZDO 1203.03(C), a finding that an application complies with the traffic safety requirements is supported by substantial evidence where there is testimony of a traffic engineer and a traffic study, and there is an absence of a developed challenge to the findings and testimony on that point.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

McLoughlin Neighborhood Association v. City of Oregon City

Under OCMC 17.40.050(A), the Historic Review Board (HRB) has a duty to enquire into and make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the validity and effectiveness of a public official’s refusal to consent to the historical designation of public property. The HRB should adopt findings addressing threshold jurisdictional issues once they are raised before suspending its consideration of an application.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law