Martin v. City of Tigard
City council interpretations of their own land use laws are subject to a highly deferential standard of review by LUBA, under which it must affirm a governing body’s interpretation of local land use legislation unless that interpretation is implausible.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Hill v. City of Portland
The width of the local street right-of-way must be sufficient to accommodate expected users, taking into consideration the characteristics of the site and vicinity, such as the existing street and pedestrian system improvements, existing structures, and natural features.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Seits vs. Yamhill County
LUBA did not have jurisdiction to reverse and remand a decision to approve a conditional use permit when the decision was made based on the county’s building code which has not been adopted as part of the county’s land use code.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Aboud vs. City of Stayton
LUBA has the authority to reverse or remand a local government decision if the local government failed to follow the procedures applicable to the matter before it in a manner that prejudiced the substantial rights of the petitioner.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Feetham v. Jackson County
In determining the scope or extent of a nonconforming use right, the relevant legal question is the extent of the activity that is actually occurring on the date when the use becomes nonconforming, with an allowance for changes in the volume or intensity of the use if they are attributable to growth or fluctuations in business conditions.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use