Land Use Board of Appeals (22 summaries)
Coopman v. City of Eugene
Where a local government fails to consider and explain that an ordinance is consistent with a planning goal, LUBA will remand.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Winters, et. al. v. Tillamook County
Where a petitioner fails to show that a local government’s decision is a final decision subject to LUBA’s jurisdiction, LUBA will dismiss.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Zip-O-Laminators LLC v. City of Eugene
Where a petitioner fails to show that a decision is a land use decision (ORS 197.825(10(a)(A) and fails to show that a decision significantly impacts present or future land uses, LUBA will dismiss.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
City of Roseburg v. Douglas County
Where a local government does not adequately explain its approval or denial of a land use decision (ORS 215.416(9); Sunnyside Neighborhood v. Clackamas Co. Comm., 280 Or 3, 21 (1977)), LUBA will remand. Under LUDO 2.120(1)(a), the standard of review is a preponderance of the evidence. When a petitioner assigns error after failing to object to a procedural error below when it had the opportunity to do so, LUBA will deny the assignment of error. Torgeson v. City of Canby, 19 Or LUBA 511, 519 (1990); Dobaj v. City of Beaverton, 1 Or LUBA 237, 241 (1980). When a petitioner assigns error to statements made by the local government below instead of to the final written decision, LUBA will deny the assignment of error. Gray v. Clatsop County, 22 Or LUBA 270, 293 (1991); Gruber v. Lincoln County, 16 Or LUBA 456, 460 (1988); Bruck v. Clackamas County, 15 Or LUBA 540, 542 (1987); Oatfield Ridge Residents Rights v. Clackamas County, 14 Or LUBA 766, 768-69 (1986); Citadel Corporation v. Tillamook County, 9 Or LUBA 61, 67 (1983).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Silver Creek Solar, LLC v. Marion County
Under OAR 660-006-0050(2), where both farm and forest standards apply to an application, a local government must apply all applicable standards to the application.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Dean v. Lincoln County
Where a decision by a local government lacks a clear connection to the comprehensive plan or zoning regulations, LUBA will hold that decision is not a land use decision. Ramsey v. City of Portland, 30 Or LUBA 212, 213, 217-18 (1995); Oregon Aviation Watch v. City of Hillsboro, 67 Or LUBA 252, 253, 256 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Central Oregon Landwatch v. Jefferson County
Where a reasonable person would not be able to identify the findings of fact and statements of reasons supporting the exceptions from a local government’s decision, LUBA will remand. Under OAR 660-004-0015(1), an amendment must be more than a list of amendments on the code’s face page with the ordinance number and ordinance date, and must indicate the subject of the amendment, including exceptions. LUBA will not affirm a local government’s decision under ORS 197.829(1) if the local government’s interpretation is not plausible. When a local government does not address the applicable criteria or fails to adopt findings of fact or statements of reasons, LUBA will remand.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County
Where a local government determines, pursuant to ORS 197.307(4), that it could only apply clear and objective standards to an application for a relative farm help dwelling on EFU property and located outside the UGB, LUBA will remand.
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
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
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
Manchester Solar v. Yamhill County
Where an extension of a conditional use permit expires and applicable criteria to the original application changes before a request for another extension is made, LUBA will affirm a county’s denial of the request for an extension.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Icon Construction and Development v. City of Oregon City
Where a local government does not apply clear and objective standards to an application that includes a needed housing argument under ORS 197.307(4), LUBA will remand the matter.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Phillips v. Polk County
Where a local government decision merely touches land uses in the area, LUBA will hold that the decision is not a statutory land use decision under ORS 197.015(10). Billington v. Polk County, 703 P2d 232 (1985). Where a local government decision is not a statutory land use decision and does not significantly impact current or future land uses in the area, LUBA will hold that the decision is not within LUBA’s jurisdiction. City of Pendleton v. Kerns, 653 P2d 992 (1982).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Luther v. City of Albany
LUBA has jurisdiction over "any land use decision or limited land use decision of a local government." A local government decision that does does not concern the adoption of a comprehensive plan is not a "land use decision" under ORS 197.015(10)(a)(A).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Beath v. Douglas County
Where a local government does not consider all uses within the impact area and all predicted conflicts for an application under OAR 660-023-0180(5)(a) and (5)(b), LUBA will remand.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Schaefer v. Marion County
Where a county’s approval of a Statewide Planning Goal 3 exception is based solely on proximity to a transportation facility, LUBA will reverse the county’s decision.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County
Where a parcel is wholly transferred but later divided into separate lots because of a lien foreclosure on part of the parcel, LUBA will validate the division.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Gould v. Deschutes County
Under ORS 197.829(1), where a local government’s interpretation of a statute is plausible, LUBA must give deference to that interpretation.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Poppleton v. Wallowa County
Where a decision is issued after the close of record but an appealable issue was raised below, LUBA will not waive the issue. LUBA will not hold for a finding that is only supported by the record – a finding must be supported by standards for approval and relevant facts.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County
(1) Where nothing in the local code provides otherwise, LUBA will hold that determination of initiation of a conditional use, as opposed to initiation itself, need not occur before the relevant permit expires. ORS 174.010. (2) Where a petitioner raises the issue of abandonment of use in proceedings below, LUBA will hold that a local government's findings are inadequate if they do not sufficiently address it. Norvell v. Portland Area LGBC, 604 P.2d 896 (1979). (3) Where local code provisions separately provide that (a) the owner of a property and (b) the holder of the land use permit may initiate a declaratory ruling, LUBA will give effect to both provisions and hold that either party may file an application to do so. ORS 174.010.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Gould v. Deschutes County
Where a local government correctly identifies land uses associated with a state agency action and correctly identifies one or more exclusions to LUBA’s exclusive jurisdiction over land use decisions under ORS 197.015(10)(b)(H), LUBA will hold it does not have jurisdiction over the matter.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use