American Tower Corp. v. City of Tualatin
A finding that a city council adopted that is not challenged by a petitioner is dispositive, and that finding renders any other errors in other findings that are responsive to the petitioner鈥檚 arguments below harmless.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Hill v. City of Portland
The city鈥檚 determination not to require street improvements for safety reasons under PCC 33.641.020(A) does not mean it cannot impose a condition requiring a waiver of remonstrance under PCC 33.800.070 to enforce PCC 17.88.020 for other reasons.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Vannett Properties LLC v. Lane County
A decision regarding 鈥渢he establishment of a dwelling鈥 authorized under section 6 of Measure 49, or a determination of whether a petitioner has a right to construct a Measure 49 dwelling made 鈥渦nder鈥 sections 6 and 11 of Measure 49, is not a land use decision and is therefore not subject to LUBA鈥檚 jurisdiction.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Stafford Investments LP v. Clackamas County
Under CCCP Policy 4.LL.3, a finding that a property has 鈥渁n historical commitment to commercial uses鈥 for purposes of allowing an RC designation requires that commercial uses have constrained the scope of uses on the property such that going forward only commercial uses are feasible, which excludes consideration of the temporary and incidental commercial uses.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Thomas v. Wasco County
Under ORS 197.015(10)(a), while a county Notification of Non-violation may 鈥渃oncern鈥 land use regulation, it does not necessarily constitute an 鈥渁pplication鈥 of land use regulation giving LUBA jurisdiction over its appeal.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Richardi v. City of Eugene
A final legal determination on a land use matter shall stand in later proceedings if not successfully challenged in prior proceedings.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Conte v. City of Eugene
The fact that application requirements may not have been satisfied provides no basis for remand unless the failure to satisfy the requirements resulted in non-compliance with mandatory approval criteria.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Hood River Valley Residents Comm. v. Hood River County
While ORS 215.416(11)(a)(C) reflects that a county鈥檚 land use regulations may provide the manner in which a written appeal of a permit decision made without a hearing shall be filed, it does not allow the county to place additional restrictions on who can appeal such a decision.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County
Under OAR 660-006-0035(3), a county may not rely upon an applicant鈥檚 bare assertion that a proposed structure complies with applicable fire siting standards if other evidence in the record indicates to the contrary that it does not.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use