ATR Services et al v. Lane County
In interpreting LCC 13.150(1) consistently with ORS 192.176, “created by sale” does not include a unit of land reconfigured through a property line adjustment.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Friends of Marion County v. Marion County
“Even if a commercial activity primarily sells to farm uses, that may not be sufficient to allow the commercial activity to qualify as a commercial activity in conjunction with farm use . . . The products and services provided must be ‘essential to the practice of agriculture.’” City of Sandy v. Clackamas County, 28 Or LUBA 316, 322 (1994). The farm impacts test requires (1) the applicant to identify the surrounding lands, the farms on those lands, the accepted farm practices on each farm, and the impacts of the proposed nonfarm use on each farm practice; (2) the local government to determine whether the proposed nonfarm use will force a "significant" change to, or cost increase in, an accepted farm practice, as that term is ordinarily used; and (3) if there is a significant change, the local government to determine whether the applicant has demonstrated that the nonfarm use meets the test with conditions of approval.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Oregon Coast Alliance et al v. Clatsop County
1) Where the hearings officer fails to address adequately suitability issues raised during the petition for review, as required under LAWDUC 2.4030(3)(c), LUBA will remand in order to adopt findings on the issue. 2) Where the local government's interpretation of the purpose of its comprehensive land use regulations is entirely consistent with the regulatory action taken, LUBA shall affirm the regulatory action. ORS 197.829(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Hendrickson v. Lane County
Counties may not subject temporary hardship dwellings to local criteria that are more restrictive than state statute. Brentmar v. Jackson County, 321 Or 481 (1995); Lane County v. LCDC, 325 Or 569 (1997).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Schaefer v. Oregon Aviation Board
Under ORS 197.850(9)(a), the court may reverse or remand LUBA’s decision if it finds the order is “unlawful in substance or procedure, but error in procedure is not cause for reversal or remand unless the court finds that substantial rights of the petitioner were prejudiced” by that error. In the event that the record is missing an item necessary for LUBA to perform its review function, remanding the decision is the appropriate remedy. Andrews v. City of Prineville, 28 Or LUBA 653, 661-62 (1995). When LUBA reverses or remands a land use decision, LUBA must “decide all issues presented to it” when “the findings, order and record are sufficient to allow review[.]” ORS 197.835(11)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Scott v. Josephine County
Where a private campground on EFU land does not provide electrical service hookups for each individual campsite, it is not a violation of OAR 660-033-0130(19)(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County
LUBA will hold that an issue was not raised below with “sufficient specificity” to be preserved, Boldt v. Clackamas County, 21 Or LUBA 40, 46, aff'd, 107 Or App 619 (1991) where, during local proceedings, the issue was: 1) merely referenced in the context of an alternate argument, or 2) expressed in terms of generalized concerns, but raised before LUBA in technical detail.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Maher v. Multnomah County
Where a petitioner fails to raise an issue in an initial evidentiary proceeding, the issue may not be raised for the first time before LUBA. ORS 197.797(1); ORS 197.835(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Jacobus et. al. v. Klamath
Development rights conferred by an authorization under section 6 of Measure 49 are not subject to “a land use regulation enacted by the state or county that has the effect of prohibiting the partition or subdivision, or the dwelling.” Measure 49, § 6(8).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Tadei v. City of Astoria
Under OAR 661-010-0030(4), a petition to LUBA must contain: (a) “the facts that establish petitioner’s standing;” (b) “a clear and concise statement of the facts in the following order[:] (A) The nature of the land use decision . . . and the relief sought by petitioner; (B) A brief summary of the arguments appearing under the assignments of error[;] (C) A summary of the material facts . . . in narrative form with citations to the record where the facts alleged can be found[;]” (c) a statement of “why the challenged decision is a land use decision . . . subject to [LUBA]’s jurisdiction;” (d) “each assignment of error[.]” “Although each of the . . . requirements [for the petition for review] is important, the requirement . . . that the petition for review include assignments of error, supported by argument, is particularly important.” Bjerk v. Deschutes County, 17 Or. LUBA 187, 194 (1988).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use