Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals

Opinions Filed in September 2023

Zip-O-Laminators LLC v. City of Eugene

Where a petitioner fails to show that a decision is a land use decision (ORS 197.825(10(a)(A) and fails to show that a decision significantly impacts present or future land uses, LUBA will dismiss.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

City of Roseburg v. Douglas County

Where a local government does not adequately explain its approval or denial of a land use decision (ORS 215.416(9); Sunnyside Neighborhood v. Clackamas Co. Comm., 280 Or 3, 21 (1977)), LUBA will remand. Under LUDO 2.120(1)(a), the standard of review is a preponderance of the evidence. When a petitioner assigns error after failing to object to a procedural error below when it had the opportunity to do so, LUBA will deny the assignment of error. Torgeson v. City of Canby, 19 Or LUBA 511, 519 (1990); Dobaj v. City of Beaverton, 1 Or LUBA 237, 241 (1980). When a petitioner assigns error to statements made by the local government below instead of to the final written decision, LUBA will deny the assignment of error. Gray v. Clatsop County, 22 Or LUBA 270, 293 (1991); Gruber v. Lincoln County, 16 Or LUBA 456, 460 (1988); Bruck v. Clackamas County, 15 Or LUBA 540, 542 (1987); Oatfield Ridge Residents Rights v. Clackamas County, 14 Or LUBA 766, 768-69 (1986); Citadel Corporation v. Tillamook County, 9 Or LUBA 61, 67 (1983).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Silver Creek Solar, LLC v. Marion County

Under OAR 660-006-0050(2), where both farm and forest standards apply to an application, a local government must apply all applicable standards to the application.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Dean v. Lincoln County

Where a decision by a local government lacks a clear connection to the comprehensive plan or zoning regulations, LUBA will hold that decision is not a land use decision. Ramsey v. City of Portland, 30 Or LUBA 212, 213, 217-18 (1995); Oregon Aviation Watch v. City of Hillsboro, 67 Or LUBA 252, 253, 256 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Central Oregon Landwatch v. Jefferson County

Where a reasonable person would not be able to identify the findings of fact and statements of reasons supporting the exceptions from a local government’s decision, LUBA will remand. Under OAR 660-004-0015(1), an amendment must be more than a list of amendments on the code’s face page with the ordinance number and ordinance date, and must indicate the subject of the amendment, including exceptions. LUBA will not affirm a local government’s decision under ORS 197.829(1) if the local government’s interpretation is not plausible. When a local government does not address the applicable criteria or fails to adopt findings of fact or statements of reasons, LUBA will remand.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Back to Top