Land Use Board of Appeals (9 summaries)
Buffalo-Bend Associates, LLC v. Clackamas County
Where an applicant not only argues generally that the local government can apply only clear and objective standards and conditions under ORS 197.307(4), but more specifically that certain terms in certain local code provisions that the local government applied are undefined and subjective, the local government’s failure to respond to those arguments requires remand.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County
(1) For purposes of establishing a lot of record dwelling under ORS 215.705, a trust qualifies as a “business entity,” and therefore an “owner,” and there is no limit on the number of transfers that can take place before an owner applies for such a dwelling. (2) Where a dwelling has been approved for a parcel but not yet built, that parcel “include[s] a dwelling” for purposes of ORS 215.705(1). (3) Where one parcel is owned by an applicant individually and another is owned by a trust for which the applicant serves as trustee, those parcels are not “under the same ownership” for purposes of ORS 217.010(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Save TV Butte v. Lane County
Whether a local government’s errors under ORS 197.610 require remand depends not on whether the petitioners can demonstrate prejudice to their own substantial rights, but on whether the errors call into question whether the process performed its function.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County
An unlawful division of land creates two new, undevelopable units rather than an undevelopable unit and a lawful remainder.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Carroll v. City of Malin
The mere fact that a decision-maker is related to individuals who own property close to an applicant and who oppose the applicant’s project does not establish that the decision-maker is motivated by improper bias.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
VanSickle v. Klamath County
(1) Under ORS 197.829(1), LUBA must affirm a county’s interpretation of its own regulations if it is not inconsistent with its express language or underlying purpose or policies, and not contrary to state law. (2) Where a party does not challenge responsive findings, that party does not establish a basis for reversal or remand.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County
(1) While the focus under ORS 197.247(1)(b)(A) is on the number of lots or parcels, and not land area, there is only one test area, not two. (2) Where adverse expert testimony is submitted, some level of expertise may be required to establish the sufficiency of a response to the adverse expert testimony.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Cattoche v. Lane County
(1) In determining whether new uses will conflict with protected Goal 5 resources under OAR 660-023-0040, local governments must evaluate all uses allowed outright or conditionally in the new zone and may not limit their evaluation based on the uses proposed in the new development or any conditions placed thereon. (2) LUBA will not affirm a decision when the findings fail to identify relevant criteria, even if the parties identify evidence in the record which clearly supports that decision, if there is conflicting evidence in the record.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Williams v. Coos County
(1) Under ORS 197.829(1)(a), LUBA is required to affirm a board of county commissioners’ interpretation of its land use regulation unless the interpretation is inconsistent with the express language of the comprehensive plan or land use regulation. (2) OAR 660-033-0140(1)(c) does not prohibit a local government from adopting new criteria and exempting existing issued permits from those new criteria.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use