Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County
Under ORS 215, LUBA will find the operation of a bed and breakfast is allowed as a 鈥渉ome occupation鈥 permitted in the 鈥渄welling house鈥 on a property zoned exclusive farm use.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Haj v. City of Portland
Where a local government鈥檚 decision falls under the exception to LUBA鈥檚 jurisdiction under ORS 197.015(10)(b)(D), the 鈥渟ignificant impacts鈥 test, which may give LUBA jurisdiction over decisions that do not qualify as a 鈥渓and use decision鈥 but create 鈥渁n actual qualitatively or quantitatively significant impact鈥 on surrounding land uses, will not grant LUBA jurisdiction over the appeal. Fire Mountain Gems and Beads v. City of Grants Pass, 57 Or. LUBA 597, 606-07 (2008) (citing Oregonians in Action v. LCDC, 103 Or. App. 35, 38, (1990)).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Ericsson v. Lane County
An application under section 11 of Measure 49 is not a permit within the meaning of ORS 215.402(4), and a local government does not err in refusing to issue a refund to a Measure 49 applicant for approval of an application outside the final action time requirement of ORS 215.427(8).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County
1) Where an issue is previously conclusively decided against a petitioner in a final reviewable LUBA decision, LUBA will consider the issue waived. 2) Where DLCD issues order acknowledging an amended land use ordinance is sufficient to ensure consistency with Goal 14, LUBA will find that no exception to Goal 14 is required. 3) Where a county鈥檚 comprehensive plan limits the intensity of rural industrial uses beyond what is allowed by regulation in unincorporated communities, LUBA will hold that limitation is "independently sufficient" to demonstrate a PAPA's compliance with Goal 14, and analysis under the Shaffer test is not be required.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Backer v. City of Salem
As part of a limited land use decision, LUBA will affirm a local government鈥檚 interpretation of its local codes provided their decision includes the standards and criteria used as required under ORS 197.195(4) and is supported by substantial evidence such that a reasonable person viewing the record as a whole could reach the conclusion the decisionmaker did.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Bend Research v. Deschutes County
When a private utility company applies for a LUCS merely to extend its connections to other customers without altering its treatment facility, and such extensions are allowed under the local code without restriction, LUBA will conclude it lacks jurisdiction under ORS 197.015(10)(b)(H).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use