Kimberly Jones

Land Use Board of Appeals (5 summaries)

Gould v. Deschutes County

Under Deschutes County Code, 22.36.020(A), the two pronged approach to determine whether development action has been “initiated” under a land use approval to “substantially exercise” all required conditions must be taken as a whole and not individually whereas “fault of the applicant “ does need to be applied to each condition.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Dilley et al v. City of North Bend

Under North Bend City Code, 18.92.020, filling out a sign-in sheet to receive notice of the decision can be considered “requested notice” to satisfy the requirement of establishing “party status” to appeal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

S. St. Helens LLC v. City of St. Helens

Under St, Helens Municipal Code 17.32.140(2)(i), the city’s construction of the term “natural mineral resources development” to characterize “rock” as a “mineral” is acceptable, particularly where the city has adopted the normal dictionary definition as a rule of construction and the proposal at issue seeks to remove an amount of rock one hundred times greater than the quantity considered as “surface mining” under ORS 517.755(15)(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

LaBare v. Clackamas County

Under Clackamas County ZDO 1107.04(B)(2)(b) “each property” refers back to the two units of property that are the subject of the property line adjustment application.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Foland v. Jackson County

A “water system” for the purposes of a Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Utilities) exception only includes water to be used for human consumption; modification of proposal to change the source of landscape irrigation water would not constitute a change of this “system” and thus does not require approval of a new “reasons” exception.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use