Kulongoski v. City of Portland
Portland City Code 33.825.040 allows a review body to approve modifications of site-specific development standards that 鈥渂etter meet design guidelines鈥 and are consistent with the 鈥減urpose of the standard for which a modification is requested.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Botts Marsh, LLC v. City of Wheeler
Under ORS 197.195(4), 鈥淸a]pproval or denial of a limited land use decision shall be based upon and accompanied by a brief statement that explains the criteria and standards considered relevant to the decision, states the facts relied upon in rendering the decision and explains the justification for the decision based on the criteria, standards and facts set forth.鈥 If the local government finds the application does not comply with the applicable standards, their 鈥渇indings must be sufficient to inform the applicant either what steps are necessary to obtain approval or that it is unlikely that the application will be approved. . . . The findings must provide a coherent explanation for why the city believes the proposal does not comply with the criteria.鈥 Bridge Street Partners v. City of Lafayette, 56 Or LUBA 387, 394 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Columbia County
Under OAR 660-004-0020(2)(d), to be approved, a Goal 3 exception must make a showing that 鈥淸t]he proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses . . . 鈥 and that 鈥渢he proposed use is situated in such a manner as to be compatible with surrounding natural resources and resource management or production practices.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Conte v. City of Eugene
(1-1) On remand from LUBA and the Oregon Court of Appeals, a local government may change their approach to amending local land use regulations without necessitating adoption of specific findings as to their reason for changing course as long as 鈥渞equired considerations were indeed considered.鈥 (1-2) When determining residential density under EC 9.3626(1)(g) 鈥渋t is permissible to count a detached single-family dwelling and its accessory dwelling as one dwelling鈥 because EC 9.3626(1)(a) to (c) already interprets the word 鈥渄welling鈥 flexibly when pertaining to density ranges in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. (2) The 鈥減revent [ion of] the erosion of the neighborhood鈥檚 residential character鈥 in the Westside Neighborhood Plan Land Use Element Policy 1 refers only to those changes 鈥渞ezoning or redesignating residentially zoned properties therein.鈥 (3) 鈥淐omplicated does not equate to ambiguous鈥 when considering if local governments 鈥渁dopt and apply only clear and objective standards, conditions, and procedures regulating the development of housing鈥 as required by ORS 197.307(4).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
OR Dep't of Fish and Wildlife v. Crook County
A plan with unknown off-site locations for conservation efforts which are not owned in fee is not a reliable 鈥渘o net loss鈥 mitigation policy under OAR 635-415-0025.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Tadei v. City of Astoria
Under OAR 660-010-0030(4), a petition for review must assign error and provide arguments for why a decision below must be reversed.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use