Brian Reverman

Land Use Board of Appeals (20 summaries)

Grahn v. City of Yamhill

ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B) provides that LUBA is to reverse or remand a land use decision if a local government failed to follow applicable procedures to the matter before it, and that failure prejudiced the substantial rights of petitioner.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County

While OAR 660-033-0130(2)(c) authorizes expansion of existing structures on non-high-value farmland within three miles of a UGB, (2)(c) says the expansions cannot go above a 100-person capacity for the place of assembly.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Hagan v. City of Grants Pass

GPDC 25.035(2) requires off street parking for uses not specified in the GPDC 25.042 schedule is to be “based upon the requirements for the most comparable building or use specified” in the GPDC 25.042 schedule.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Glenwood 2006, LLC v. City of Beaverton

OAR 660-031-0026 provides that state agency permits must be compatible with acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations. Because OLCC decisions regarding redemption centers are not listed in the statute, OLCC forms are not land use compatibility statements.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Glenwood 2006, LLC v. City of Beaverton

ORS 197.825 limits LUBA’s jurisdiction to land use decisions. ORS 197.015(10)(a) defines a land use decision as a final decision that concerns the application of a comprehensive plan or land use regulation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Department of Land Conservation and Development v. City of Klamath Falls

Under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(D), LUBA may reverse or remand a decision that misconstrues applicable law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Oral Hull Foundation for the Blind v. Clackamas County

Under ORS 197.830(2)(b), in order for a person to petition the board for review of a land use decision, the person must appear before the local government, special district or state agency orally or in writing.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Upper Midhill Estates LLC v. City of West Linn

Under OAR 661-010-0021(5)(e), an appeal will be dismissed if no amended notice of intent to appeal is filed or no original notice of intent to appeal is refiled.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Deumling v. City of Salem

ORS 197.835 (9)(a)(C) states that LUBA shall remand decisions not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record. OAR 664-004-0018(4) provides that when local governments adopt a reasons exception to a goal, “plan and zone designations must limit uses, density, public facilities and activities to only those justified in the exception.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

McLaughlin v. Douglas County

Under Douglas County Land Use Development Ordinance 2.800.2, a permit extension approval is an administrative decision not subject to appeal as a land use decision.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

McMonagle v. City of Ashland

Ashland Municipal Code 18.6.1.030 requires a corner lot’s one street line to be the front lot line; the narrower street frontage of a lot must be the front lot line except when topographical or access problems make such a designation impractical. Historical site plans and orientation of the existing house cannot be used in making this determination.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Hood River Valley Residents Committee v. Hood River County

OAR 660-004-0018 requires a new reasons exception when a site plan proposes a change in either the type or intensity of the use allowed by a previous reasons exception.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Landwatch Lane County v Lane County

Lane County Code 13.020 authorizes the county to make a determination that a unit of land was created in conformance with the Lane Code and other applicable law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Levy v. Jackson County

ORS 197.825(2)(a) requires petitioners to exhaust all remedies available by right before petitioning LUBA for review. Regardless of whether Jackson County Land Development Ordinance 2.7.5 (D)(1) includes provisions that are permissive or mandatory, they are remedies that must be exhausted before LUBA has jurisdiction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Long v. City of Tigard

Tigard Community Development Code 18.380.030(b)(3) requires sufficient evidence of a change in the neighborhood, community, or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map in order to approve or deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Whittemore v. City of Gearhart

Under Gearhart Zoning Ordinance 11.040, the City of Gearhart may amend the Gearhart Zoning Ordinance only if it reports findings to establish that the offered amendment is consistent with the Gearhart Comprehensive Plan policies.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Rockbridge Capital v. City of Eugene

Under EC 9.7655(3), an appeal must include a statement of issues on appeal, be based on the record, and be limited to issues raised in the record that are set out in the filed statement of issues.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Robson v. Polk County

Under ORS 197.015(10), a final decision does not include a preliminary decision that is not binding on the parties.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County

In order to comply with the “gross income” test established in ORS 197.247(1)(a), “objective criteria” is not required; if it were required, affidavits from an affiant that has an interest in the subject of the affidavit are sufficient “objective criteria.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Long v. City of Sumpter

ORS 197.830(11) requires petitions for review to be filed within the guidelines established by the Board. Under OAR 661-010-0030(1) petitions for review must be filed within 21 days after the date the record is received or settled by the Board.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use