Wachal v. Linn County
(1) Where a local code provision prevents a local government from receiving or considering any 鈥渆vidence, argument, or testimony that would substantially change the application,鈥 an interpretation of that provision as allowing additional supporting evidence that approval criteria are satisfied, as long as the proposed use, its location, and the approval criteria have not changed, is not inconsistent with the provision鈥檚 express language and is plausible. (2) Where an administrative rule requires that a farm operator 鈥渃ontinue to play the predominant role鈥 in the management of the farm, a reasonable person could rely on the farm operator鈥檚 testimony regarding their own management activities, and their status as the state license holder for the crop, to conclude that they play a predominant role, even where they have hired another company to perform certain tasks and provide consultation. (3) Where a local government relies on the past issuance of permits to conclude that an approval criterion is satisfied, a challenge to the local government鈥檚 procedure in issuing the permits provides no basis for reversal or remand where the permits are not the subject of the appeal.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition v. City of North Bend
(1) Where a comprehensive plan provision allows 鈥渕inor navigational improvements鈥 in a particular zone, which it defines as 鈥渁lterations necessary to provide water access to existing or permitted uses in conservation management units,鈥 an interpretation of that provision as not requiring that the use for which the alteration is needed and the alteration itself be located in the same zone is consistent with the provision鈥檚 express language; however, an interpretation of that provision as allowing alterations that are needed for a use that is not in a 鈥渃onservation management unit鈥 is inconsistent the provision鈥檚 express language. (2) Where a comprehensive plan management objective allows 鈥渁 limited boat dock for transient recreation craft tie-up鈥 in a particular zone, and the uses and activities matrix allows 鈥渄ocks鈥 without limitation, but where a different comprehensive plan provision states that uses and activities matrixes are 鈥渟ubordinate鈥 to management objectives, and that allowed uses and activities must be 鈥渃onsistent鈥 with the management objectives, a local government errs by allowing non-limited boat docks in the zone. (3) Where a local code provision requires that a 鈥渄eclaration of anticipated noise levels鈥 be attached to certain land use approvals and that applicants incorporate noise abatement strategies where noise levels are anticipated to exceed a certain threshold, the word 鈥渄eclaration鈥 anticipates more than a statement from the applicant鈥檚 attorney, without supporting documents or studies, and a reasonable person would not rely on such statements alone to conclude that the noise threshold is not exceeded. (4) Where a local code provision prohibits development, including fill, in certain special flood hazard areas unless the cumulative effect of the development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the base flood elevation (BFE) more than one foot, a reasonable person would not rely on a letter from a professional engineer, which provides that the 鈥渕inimal amounts of fill placed below the BFE鈥 would have no measurable effect on the BFE, to conclude that the provision is satisfied, where the letter does not quantify the amount of fill associated with the development, or address the cumulative effects of all other existing and anticipated development.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Mattson v. Lane County
Where a local code provides that (1) all applications must be submitted on 鈥渁 form provided by the [Planning] Department鈥; (2) that certain applications must be reviewed pursuant to Type II procedures, but that those applications 鈥渕ay be reviewed鈥 pursuant to Type I procedures in certain circumstances; and (3) that applications 鈥渟hall not be considered accepted solely because of having been received,鈥 the local government has discretion to reject an application filed on an incorrect form.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Morrow County
(1) LUBA will remand a county鈥檚 conclusion that an exception site provides a locational advantage under OAR 660-004-0022(3)(c) where that conclusion is based on an alternatives analysis which is inadequate to comply with OAR 660-004-0020(2)(b). (2) In the context of a reasons exception to redesignate property from Agricultural to Industrial, while speculation that the exception will hasten future rezonings in the area does not establish that the exception will not 鈥渃ause only minimal loss of reproductive resource lands鈥 under OAR 660-004-0022(3)(c), the fact that that an equal amount of land elsewhere in the county will be redesignated from Industrial to Agricultural also has no bearing on compliance with that criterion. (3) A county鈥檚 alternatives analysis is inadequate to comply with OAR 660-004-0020(2)(b) where the analysis rejects some alternatives based on existing use, contractual obligation, an unknown ownership transfer timeline, the mere presence of wetlands, undefined issues of facility proximity and interdependence, and the applicant鈥檚 objective of extending services in a particular direction.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Crowley v. City of Hood River
(1) Where LUBA seemingly addresses an issue in its opinion, but where the petitioner only raised that issue before the local government, in their reply brief, and at oral argument, and did not raise the issue in their petition for review, such petitioner has not 鈥渞aised鈥 and LUBA has not 鈥渄ecided鈥 that issue for purposes of the law of the case doctrine. (2) A local government need not interpret the term 鈥減rotect鈥 the same way in the context of a statewide planning goal which does not protect a specific unique natural resource or area that it does in the context of a goal that does protect a specific unique natural resource or area, even where the definitions of 鈥減rotect鈥 in the relevant goal or comprehensive plan are identical.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Simons Investment Properties, LLC v. City of Eugene
Where a local government determines, in applying a particular zone to property, that that property meets certain applicable criteria for the zone, it need not revisit that determination in considering subsequent applications to remove that zone from the property.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use