Chang v. Clackamas County
(1) Under OAR 660-006-0025(5)(b), in determining whether a proposed solar facility will not significantly increase risks to fire suppression personnel, the decision-maker must compare the fire hazard risks posed by the existing use to those posed by the proposal. (2) Ineffective conditions may result in remand where the condition is necessary to ensure compliance with relevant approval criteria.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Carroll v. City of Malin
The mere fact that a decision-maker is related to individuals who own property close to an applicant and who oppose the applicant’s project does not establish that the decision-maker is motivated by improper bias.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
WKL Investments Airport LLC v. City of Lake Oswego
Under ORS 222.750(2), the determination of whether the territory is partially or entirely encompassed by the city’s boundaries is made when the annexation is authorized by the governing body, not when the annexation becomes effective. Thus, different effective dates in one annexation ordinance do not result in an impermissible incremental annexation.Petitioners appeal the city’s annexation of 1.5 acres of property pursuant to ORS 222.750(2). ORS 220.750(2), also known as the island annexation statute, authorizes a city to annex territory that is completely encompassed by a city’s boundaries without the affected property owners’ consent.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Klein v. Lane County
A special use permit that explicitly does not address a prior verified nonconforming use does not require application of nonconforming use criteria.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Northwest District Neighborhood Association v. City of Portland
(1) LUBA must affirm a local governing body's interpretation of its own land use regulations if the interpretation is not inconsistent with the express language, purpose, or policy of that regulation, even when presented with a stronger or more logical interpretation. (2) Under ORS 187.828(2)(a), the existence of evidence in the record supporting a decision different from that which the local government made shall not be grounds for reversal or remand if there is evidence in the record to support the decision which the local government actually made.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use