Autumn Mills

Land Use Board of Appeals (13 summaries)

Hudson v. Jackson County

Under ORS 197.015(10)(a), a floodplain development permit decision requires a determination of whether existing structures serve uses that are allowed or authorized in the RR-5 zone and is therefore not an exception to the statute.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

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

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

Altamont Homeowners' Association Inc. v. City of Happy Valley

Under ORS 197.805 LUBA decisions must be made consistently with sound principles of judicial review. LUBA has dismissed appeals when it determines the appeal becomes moot.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Locke v. City of Portland

PCC 33.654.120(E)(2) provides the standards and approval for design and configuration of public pedestrian connections which are set by Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT). PCC 17.28.060 provides the width, grade, and materials for construction of a pedestrian connection that is designed by the city engineer.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Forbes v. Linn County

Under ORS 197.825(1) LUBA has exclusive jurisdiction to review land use decisions or limited land use decisions. An appeal of the county decision to issue a new rural address is not within a land use decision or limited land use decision under the statute.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Warren v. Washington County

Under ORS 197.307(4), “buildable land” is not a particular parcel identified in a Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) as environmentally constrained and the CDC’s significant natural resource standards do apply to development of such constrained lands.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County

Under ORS 214.213(1)(q), for a dwelling to be replaced when the former dwelling has not been taxed as a dwelling for five years, the only way to satisfy Section 2(2)(b) of 2013 Act is to establish that the dwelling was destroyed within the five year period or was improperly removed from the tax rolls, pursuant to Section 2(3) of the 2013 Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County

Under ORS 197.015(10)(b)(A), a land use decision includes a decision of a local government that is made under land use standards that do not require interpretation or the exercise of policy or legal judgment. DCC 4.12.030 is a general code and is not part of the county’s zoning ordinance or “land use standard” within the meaning of ORS 197.015(10)(b)(A).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Willamette Oaks LLC v. City of Eugene

Under ORS 197.835, LUBA will remand a decision that improperly construes a PUD condition of approval; this means the decision was not consistent with the text, context and apparent purpose of the PUD condition of approval.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Morgan v. Jackson County

Under ORS 215.130(5), for a structure or land use to be “lawful,” an applicant must be in compliance with federal, state or local regulations or licensing requirements that apply to some aspect of the land use or structure that are integrally related to the zoning or land use regulation requirements.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

McLaughlin v. Douglas County

Under OAR 660-033-0140(3), an appeal of a decision to grant a one-year extension for a conditional use permit for a gas pipeline is not a land use decision recognized by ORS 197.015.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law