Dooley v. Wasco County
When approving an irrevocable exception to a Statewide Planning Goal, a local government must fully evaluate the subject property’s relationship to uses of all adjacent properties to determine if the subject property is irrevocably committed to a non-resource use. ORS 197.732; OAR 660-004-0028.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Columbia County
When a term for a transportation use that does not require an exception to a Statewide Planning Goal is undefined in the statute, LUBA will look to the plain meaning of the words and available state agency definitions to determine whether the proposed uses are consistent with that definition or exceed it and require an exception.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
1st John 2:17, LLC v. City of Boardman
LUBA will grant deference to a local government’s interpretation of an ambiguous land use regulation unless its interpretation is inconsistent with the express language, purpose, or underlying policy of the provisions. ORS 197.829(1). Where the provisions in question do not include express language contrary to a local government’s interpretation, but there is nevertheless a “strong implication” that a different interpretation is required, LUBA will not grant deference.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Smith v. Douglas County
Absent a local ordinance specifying otherwise, LUBA will find a county official who receives a misfiled appeal of a land use decision has the authority to deny the application for improper filing.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Zimmerlee v. Crook County
Where a party seeking to appeal a county land use decision files a NITA two days late and makes no showing of prejudice, LUBA will strictly construe ORS 197.830(9) and dismiss the appeal.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Husk v. City of Bend
Where applicable, a local government must consider the implementation of ORS 197.758, the “middle housing statute,” when evaluating code compliance of an applicant’s proposed subdivision of single-family homes.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
1st John 2:17, LLC v. City of Boardman
Where the record shows that a party has been granted advance occupancy of an easement, it is not inconsistent with the express language of a local ordinance applying to “record owner[s] of property (person(s) whose name is on the most recently recorded deed)” to classify that party as “a record owner." Even when a private utility company is providing a service to the general public it is not inconsistent with a local ordinance applying to “[p]rivate utilities (e.g. natural gas, electricity, telephone, cable, and similar facilities)” to classify the company as a “private utility.”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use