Bohan v. City of Portland
Under PCC 33.110.235.C.2, a covered deck that it attached to a dwelling, but not enclosed, can satisfy the minimum outdoor area requirement.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County
(1) The county, having previously determined that a property is not agricultural land by not including the property in inventory maps of agricultural lands is not required to revisit that original determination. (2) Under OAR 660-023-0030, while local government are prohibited from applying Goal 5 processes to non-significant resource sites, they may still regulate surface mining of those sites in other ways.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
VanSickle v. Klamath County
(1) Under ORS 197.829(1), LUBA must affirm a county’s interpretation of its own regulations if it is not inconsistent with its express language or underlying purpose or policies, and not contrary to state law. (2) Where a party does not challenge responsive findings, that party does not establish a basis for reversal or remand.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County
(1) Uses that are allowed conditionally in resource zones under state law may only be allowed conditionally in local ordinances, notwithstanding any DLCD model ordinance provisions to the contrary. (2) Where an entire decision is appealed to LUBA, and LUBA sustains assignments of error, it is inappropriate for LUBA to affirm in part and remand in part.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
M & T Partners, Inc. v. City of Salem
Voluntary descriptions, statements, or representations made during rezoning proceedings are not binding on subsequent proposals unless they are memorialized in conditions of approval.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County
(1) While the focus under ORS 197.247(1)(b)(A) is on the number of lots or parcels, and not land area, there is only one test area, not two. (2) Where adverse expert testimony is submitted, some level of expertise may be required to establish the sufficiency of a response to the adverse expert testimony.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Oregon Department of Transportation v. Grant County
Under OAR 660-023-0040, while the county may consider a broad scope of ESEE consequences, it may not fail to consider the impacts of the conflicting use on the Goal 5 resource site.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Wetherell v. Douglas County
ORS 214.441 does not provide an independent basis to approve dwellings on EFU-zoned property.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
DLCD v. City of Klamath Falls
In order to amend a UGB, there must be a demonstrated need for land under both of the Goal 14 land-need subsections.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Restore Oregon v. City of Portland
ESEE analyses that use more conservative assumptions for petitioner’s property than for other properties, resulting in a higher estimate of economic impact to petitioner’s property, provide no basis for reversal or remand.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
DLCD v. Douglas County
(1) Under ORS 197.835(6), LUBA must reverse or remand a plan amendment if it is not in compliance with the statewide planning goals. However, appellate review of plan amendments is limited if the challenged decision either demonstrates compliance with all implicated goals or affirmatively establishes that the local government will review future decisions applying the new designations for goal compliance. (2) Goal 2 requires that decisions be coordinated and supported by an adequate factual basis. In coordinating planning actions within their jurisdictions, although counties need not follow the requests of commenting parties, they must adopt findings responding to legitimate concerns. To have an adequate factual base, the county’s decision must include findings based on substantial evidence in the record, or provide argument with citations to the record.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County
Under ORS 215.283(4)(d), (1) determining whether commercial events are “incidental and subordinate” to an existing farm use does not require a comparison of revenue between the activities and, (2) in order for such events to be considered “necessary to support” the farm uses on the subject property or the agricultural enterprises in the area, the events must be “essential in order to maintain the existence” of either the uses or the enterprises.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Morgan v. Jackson County
(1) An applicant need not submit physical or visible evidence in order to demonstrate the establishment of a nonconforming use, nor may a county reject verification of a nonconforming use simply because the county deems the size or scope of the use to be too small. (2) In determining the nature and extent of a nonconforming use, a county must be careful to describe it in a manner that does not inadvertently allow unauthorized expansions or alterations.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use