Wachal v. Linn County
(1) Where a local code provision prevents a local government from receiving or considering any “evidence, argument, or testimony that would substantially change the application,” an interpretation of that provision as allowing additional supporting evidence that approval criteria are satisfied, as long as the proposed use, its location, and the approval criteria have not changed, is not inconsistent with the provision’s express language and is plausible. (2) Where an administrative rule requires that a farm operator “continue to play the predominant role” in the management of the farm, a reasonable person could rely on the farm operator’s testimony regarding their own management activities, and their status as the state license holder for the crop, to conclude that they play a predominant role, even where they have hired another company to perform certain tasks and provide consultation. (3) Where a local government relies on the past issuance of permits to conclude that an approval criterion is satisfied, a challenge to the local government’s procedure in issuing the permits provides no basis for reversal or remand where the permits are not the subject of the appeal.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition v. City of North Bend
(1) Where a comprehensive plan provision allows “minor navigational improvements” in a particular zone, which it defines as “alterations necessary to provide water access to existing or permitted uses in conservation management units,” an interpretation of that provision as not requiring that the use for which the alteration is needed and the alteration itself be located in the same zone is consistent with the provision’s express language; however, an interpretation of that provision as allowing alterations that are needed for a use that is not in a “conservation management unit” is inconsistent the provision’s express language. (2) Where a comprehensive plan management objective allows “a limited boat dock for transient recreation craft tie-up” in a particular zone, and the uses and activities matrix allows “docks” without limitation, but where a different comprehensive plan provision states that uses and activities matrixes are “subordinate” to management objectives, and that allowed uses and activities must be “consistent” with the management objectives, a local government errs by allowing non-limited boat docks in the zone. (3) Where a local code provision requires that a “declaration of anticipated noise levels” be attached to certain land use approvals and that applicants incorporate noise abatement strategies where noise levels are anticipated to exceed a certain threshold, the word “declaration” anticipates more than a statement from the applicant’s attorney, without supporting documents or studies, and a reasonable person would not rely on such statements alone to conclude that the noise threshold is not exceeded. (4) Where a local code provision prohibits development, including fill, in certain special flood hazard areas unless the cumulative effect of the development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the base flood elevation (BFE) more than one foot, a reasonable person would not rely on a letter from a professional engineer, which provides that the “minimal amounts of fill placed below the BFE” would have no measurable effect on the BFE, to conclude that the provision is satisfied, where the letter does not quantify the amount of fill associated with the development, or address the cumulative effects of all other existing and anticipated development.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Mattson v. Lane County
Where a local code provides that (1) all applications must be submitted on “a form provided by the [Planning] Department”; (2) that certain applications must be reviewed pursuant to Type II procedures, but that those applications “may be reviewed” pursuant to Type I procedures in certain circumstances; and (3) that applications “shall not be considered accepted solely because of having been received,” the local government has discretion to reject an application filed on an incorrect form.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Morrow County
(1) LUBA will remand a county’s conclusion that an exception site provides a locational advantage under OAR 660-004-0022(3)(c) where that conclusion is based on an alternatives analysis which is inadequate to comply with OAR 660-004-0020(2)(b). (2) In the context of a reasons exception to redesignate property from Agricultural to Industrial, while speculation that the exception will hasten future rezonings in the area does not establish that the exception will not “cause only minimal loss of reproductive resource lands” under OAR 660-004-0022(3)(c), the fact that that an equal amount of land elsewhere in the county will be redesignated from Industrial to Agricultural also has no bearing on compliance with that criterion. (3) A county’s alternatives analysis is inadequate to comply with OAR 660-004-0020(2)(b) where the analysis rejects some alternatives based on existing use, contractual obligation, an unknown ownership transfer timeline, the mere presence of wetlands, undefined issues of facility proximity and interdependence, and the applicant’s objective of extending services in a particular direction.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Crowley v. City of Hood River
(1) Where LUBA seemingly addresses an issue in its opinion, but where the petitioner only raised that issue before the local government, in their reply brief, and at oral argument, and did not raise the issue in their petition for review, such petitioner has not “raised” and LUBA has not “decided” that issue for purposes of the law of the case doctrine. (2) A local government need not interpret the term “protect” the same way in the context of a statewide planning goal which does not protect a specific unique natural resource or area that it does in the context of a goal that does protect a specific unique natural resource or area, even where the definitions of “protect” in the relevant goal or comprehensive plan are identical.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Simons Investment Properties, LLC v. City of Eugene
Where a local government determines, in applying a particular zone to property, that that property meets certain applicable criteria for the zone, it need not revisit that determination in considering subsequent applications to remove that zone from the property.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use