H2D2 Properties LLC v. Deschutes County
(1) A petitioner errs by requiring the reviewing body to comb the record to determine if an issue is preserved. (2) A local government is not required to condition an approval, rather than deny a noncompliant application.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Underwood v. Clackamas County
Under ORS 215.130(9), in determining whether a proposed alteration to a nonconforming use will have any “greater adverse impact on the neighborhood,” the county must compare the proposed alteration with the originally verified nonconforming use.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Fairmount Neighborhood Association v. City of Eugene
LUBA will not second guess a decision maker’s choice between conflicting evidence, including expert testimony, so long as a reasonable person could decide as the decision maker did.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Friends of French Prairie v. Oregon State Board of Aviation
Under ORS 197.015(10)(a)(B), a letter from a state agency which merely conveys facts about events that have already occurred is not a final decision and, therefore, not a land use decision for purposes of establishing LUBA’s jurisdiction.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Jackson County
(1) A use need not be located on rural land outside a UGB in order to support an exception under OAR 660-004-0022(3)(c). (2) An exception may not be taken under OAR 660-004-0022(3)(c) to authorize an 80-acre photovoltaic solar power generation facility on high-value farmland because such a facility is not “industrial development” and because such an exception does not relate to “siting.”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use