Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals

Opinions Filed in November 2019

Norman v. Washington County

(1) Under ORS 174.010, multiple code provisions should be construed so as to give effect to each. (2) Under WCDC 501-8.5(E), the time limit applicable to interim arterial access may be determined by the occurrence of an event, such as the availability of alternate access, rather than a specific date.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Piculell v. City of Eugene

Under ORS 197.307(4), (1) the fact that different decision makers rely on different rationales in reaching similar conclusions does not mean that a standard is unclear; (2) failing to address future hypothetical changes to land use regulations does not render a condition unclear; and (3) a standard is more likely to be “clear and objective” where its purpose is clear from its text.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Hulme v. City of Eugene

Under EC 9.2751(1)(b), for purposes of calculating net density, areas that are “reserved for the exclusive use of the residents” means areas that residents have the power to exclude nonresidents from using or that nonresidents use only incidentally by invitation (i.e., guests) or for the benefit of the residents (i.e., employees).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Back to Top