Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County
Under ORS 215.283(4)(d)(A), in determining whether commercial events are “incidental and subordinate to existing commercial farm use of the tract,” counties must consider any relevant circumstances bearing on whether the existing commercial farm use remains the predominant use of the tract, including the nature, intensity, and economic value of the respective uses in addition to their relative frequency.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Lincoln Woods Apartments v. City of Lincoln City
(1) ORS 197.830(3) only applies where a petitioner is entitled to notice under state statute as opposed to local ordinance. (2) In order to demonstrate that notice of a proposed action did not reasonably describe a local government’s final actions under ORS 197.830(3), a petitioner must explain how the notice misled them. For such purposes, whether a petitioner was misled by a different notice of a different local proceeding on a different, legislative action is irrelevant, even if the two actions concern similar subjects.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Tarr v. Multnomah County
(1) Where statutory text is ambiguous, but where available legislative history strongly supports one interpretation over another, a local government errs by adopting the unsupported interpretation even if the supported interpretation could be construed as creating meaningless surplusage. (2) Where a local code provision allows conditional uses that are “consistent with the character of the area,” a local government does not err in approving a conditional use which generates greater traffic and noise impacts than uses allowed outright if a majority of the conditional uses generate similarly greater impacts.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Sanga v. City of Eugene
(1) Under ORS 197.825(2)(a), where a petitioner fails to raise issues in their local appeal statement, they have not “exhausted all remedies available by right” and are therefore precluded from raising them at LUBA. (2) In order to demonstrate prejudice from procedural error, thereby warranting reversal or remand of a limited land use decision under ORS 197.828(2)(d), a petitioner must explain with some specificity what would have been different or more complete had the local government followed the correct procedure. (3) In order to raise a procedural error at LUBA, a petitioner must preserve it by objecting below if there is an opportunity to do so.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Beaverton Business Owners, LLC v. City of Beaverton
(1) Where a local code defines one word in two different ways, a local government does not err in relying on one of those definitions where that definition was the only one in effect when the local code provision at issue was enacted and where the other definition was adopted solely to comply with federal law. (2) Where a local code provision is intended to allow “flexibility and originality,” uses the word “should,” and allows for the consideration of a list of factors, a local government does not err by refusing to require strict compliance with its terms.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Dressel v. City of Tigard
Under Dolan v. City of Tigard, if the subject property can be physically developed without further land use review, some level of exactions may be appropriate. In the absence of any ability to physically develop the property without further land use review, no exactions pass constitutional scrutiny.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use