Gould v. Deschutes County
A state agency permit is a means of showing compliance with a water supply requirement, unless it can be demonstrated that the permit cannot be obtained “as a matter of law” Bouman v. Jackson County, 23 Or. LUBA 628, 646-47 (1992). Where a permit has expired and its renewal is subject to pending litigation, LUBA will hold that it is not unattainable as a matter of law.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Sikora v. Lane County
An applicant carries the burden of proof to establish that applicable criteria are satisfied, regardless of whether the criteria require the applicant to prove a positive or negative. York v. Clackamas County, __ Or. LUBA __, __ (LUBA No. 2019-081, Jan. 9, 2020) (slip op at 12).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Old Hazeldell Quarry v. Lane County
Where an applicant seeks to amend a local government’s comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to allow for mining, a local government denying the application need not adopt findings to inform the applicant of the steps necessary to gain approval because the decision is subjective and requires the weighing of local interests.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Sherman v. Deschutes County
Under DCC 215.283(1), placement of a necessary public utility in the public right-of-way constitutes a reconstruction or modification of public roads and highways. DCC 18.84.050(A) does not require a new structure exempt from needing a building permit to obtain site plan approval in accordance with DCC 18.84 prior to construction.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Recht v. City of Depoe Bay
1) Where a local government makes findings based on the assertions of an applicant’s representatives in disregard of evidence to the contrary, and where those findings are based on a record which lacks outcome determinative information, LUBA will hold that they are inadequate. 2) Where local zoning code requires that a variance must be “necessary for the preservation of a property right of the applicant substantially the same as owners of other property in the same zone of vicinity possess,” LUBA will hold that the noncompliance of an existing development alone is not substantial evidence of the existence of a corresponding property right in others to develop in the same manner.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Schaefer v. Marion County
LUBA will interpret OAR 660-004-0020(2)(b) to include land available for lease unless the record demonstrates that the property owner is "categorically unwilling" to lease the land. Columbia Riverkeeper v. Columbia County, 70 Or LUBA 171, 195, aff’d, 267 Or App 637 (2014). Findings must address and respond to specific issues relevant to compliance with applicable approval standards that were raised in the proceedings below. Norvell v. Portland Area LGBC, 43 Or App 849, 853 (1979). Statewide planning goals are the foundation of Oregon’s land use system, exceptions are exceptional, 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 69 Or App 717, 731 (1984), and a reasons exception is the most limited type. Riverkeeper I, 70 Or LUBA at 181-82.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Windlinx Ranch Trust v. Deschutes County
1) LUBA will generally not second guess a land use decision-maker's choice between conflicting expert testimony, so long as it appears to LUBA that a reasonable person could decide as the decision-maker did, based on all of the evidence in the record. Westside Rock v. Clackamas County, 51 Or LUBA 264, 294 (2006); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Bend, 52 Or LUBA 261, 276 (2006). 2) A petitioner's arguments must give a county "fair notice" of an issue. Boldt v. Clackamas County, 107 Or App 619, 623 (1991). 3) Only parcels that are lawfully created may be counted in determining whether the requirements of the forest template dwelling statute have been met. Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County, 229 Or App 188, 198 (2009). 4) Substantial evidence is evidence a reasonable person would rely on in making a decision. Dodd v. Hood River County, 317 Or 172, 179 (1993).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use