Friends of Marion County v. Marion County
When an applicant has entered into a contract to raise trees to maturity as farm products, and has accepted payment for that contract along with its contractual duties to raise and deliver the trees to the buyer, the applicants may be considered as having earned their income from the sale of farm products under the criteria of OAR 660-033-0135(4), even though the trees have not yet been harvested and delivered to the buyer.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Lenhardt v. City of Newberg
Where a local government’s decision is supported with substantial evidence and complies with applicable regulations, LUBA will not reverse or remand under ORS 197.828(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
1000 Friends of Oregon v. City of Hillsboro
When a local government prepares an economic opportunity analysis (EOA) as an update to its comprehensive plan under OAR 660-009-0015, the local government must consider vacant land as well as developed land that may be developed during the EOA’s planning period when evaluating whether there is enough land available to meet the local government’s forecasted economic development.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Thrive Hood River v. Hood River County
Where a petitioner does not dismiss a suspended precautionary LUBA appeal when their right to a local appeal is affirmed, LUBA will dismiss the precautionary appeal. Broderson v. City of Ashland, 66 Or LUBA 369, 376 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Thrive Hood River v. Hood River County
Whether a use, such as a home occupation, may be considered “incidental and subordinate” to the predominant existing use depends on “any relevant circumstances, including the nature, intensity, and economic value of the respective uses,” including frequency, “but frequency is only one factor.” Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County, 31 Or. App. 726, 739 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Jenkinson v. Lane County
Prior to adopting a home rule charter, where the legislature has provided the local government with the authority to adopt standards "necessary to carry out development patterns or plans... to promote the public health, safety and general welfare", LUBA will construe such power broadly and determine that the county has adequate authority to regulate the division of land more stringently than state law.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Tylka v. Clackamas County
When a local government interprets its own code, LUBA will apply the "plausible" test under Siporen v. City ofMedford, 349 Or 247, 4 243 P3d 776 (2010), and give deference to the governing body's interpretation.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use