Tom Vogt

Land Use Board of Appeals (15 summaries)

Allott v. Multnomah County

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

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Beddow v. Clackamas Count

An extension to the deadline for submitting a petition for review requires the written consent of all parties.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Martin v. City of Tigard

Under CDC 18.810.030.H.1, if development is approved without an extension, that particular development cannot prevent future extension; an extension that runs through a pre-existing development (existing prior to May 1, 1995) is considered extension prevention.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County

Determining whether lockable bed/bath rooms in a larger house qualify as “overnight lodging units” under ORS 197.435(5)(b) depends on factual determinations, analysis of Goal 8 history, and the underlying policy of relevant statutes.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County

Under Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 3.4, the Rural Industrial map designation, and corresponding RI zone, applies only to the enumerated “exception areas,” rather than any rural land in an unincorporated community that lacks Goal 3 or 4 resource protection.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

George v. Lincoln County

ORS 475B.063(3) provides that “[a] city or county action concerning a land use compatibility statement [LUCS] . . . is not a land use decision for purposes of ORS chapter 195, 196, 197 or 215.” While ORS 197.825(1) grants LUBA jurisdiction over any “land use decision,” under ORS 475B.063(3), LUBA lacks jurisdiction to review city or county actions concerning a LUCS.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Kine and Kine Properties v. Deschutes County

Deschutes board of county commissioners’ interpretation that land “developed as a golf course,” under DCP Policy 4.8.2, refers to all land developed and used for golf in 2001, is not inconsistent with the express language or purpose of Policy 4.8.2.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Shepherd v. Yamhill County

Under ORS 197.830(9) and OAR 661-010-0015(1)(a), the deadline to file an appeal with LUBA is 21 days after the appealed decision becomes final. In order to satisfy this requirement, notice must be filed at the correct LUBA address.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Burgermeister v. Tillamook County

Under TCLUO 6.040(4), conditional uses must not “substantially” limit, impair, or prevent use of surrounding property for permitted uses. This standard may be satisfied notwithstanding minor limitations or impairments.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County

Under the Deschutes County Code, a deed conveying multiple units of land using a single boundary description does not have the effect of consolidating previously separate units into a single, newly-created unit of land. Under DCC 18.04.030(A)(5), the term “partitioning” embraces partitions that occurred prior to the establishment of official ORS 92 partition procedure.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County

Under ORS 197.763(6), a potential second open record period for “cross-review” is expressly limited to responses to new evidence submitted during a continued hearing or a first extended open record period.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County

Under DDC 18.88.040(B), where a WA Zone overlays an underlying EFU zone, the uses “conditionally permitted” in the WA Zone are those uses conditionally permitted in the underlying EFU zone. The uses “conditionally permitted” in the EFU zone include any use conditionally permitted, subject to discretionary review, or not “permitted outright.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Oregon Coast Alliance v. Clatsop County

ORS 215.060 requires that, prior to action regarding the county’s comprehensive plan, a county’s governing body must conduct hearings after at least 10 days’ advance notice of “each of the hearings” is published in a newspaper. Hearings for which no published notice was given may comply with ORS 215.060 when such hearings are continuations of prior hearings held pursuant to published notice.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Lowell v. Jackson County

Jackson County Land Development Ordinance (LDO) 3.4.3(F) provides that if a parcel cannot meet all minimum setback requirements for structures, wells and on-site septic disposal systems before a property line adjustment, a requested property line adjustment cannot modify the parcel boundaries to comply with those setbacks; an applicant has the obligation to provide substantial evidence showing compliance.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

McGrew v. Yamhill County

Under ORS 197.830(9), the 21-day deadline for filing notice of intent to appeal begins when the appealed decision becomes final. OAR 661-010-0010(3) provides that an appealed decision becomes final when it is reduced to writing and signed, unless a local rule or ordinance specifies a later date.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use