Land Use Board of Appeals (5 summaries)
Gould v. Deschutes County
Under Deschutes County Code, 22.36.020(A), the two pronged approach to determine whether development action has been 鈥渋nitiated鈥 under a land use approval to 鈥渟ubstantially exercise鈥 all required conditions must be taken as a whole and not individually whereas 鈥渇ault of the applicant 鈥 does need to be applied to each condition.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Dilley et al v. City of North Bend
Under North Bend City Code, 18.92.020, filling out a sign-in sheet to receive notice of the decision can be considered 鈥渞equested notice鈥 to satisfy the requirement of establishing 鈥減arty status鈥 to appeal.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
S. St. Helens LLC v. City of St. Helens
Under St, Helens Municipal Code 17.32.140(2)(i), the city鈥檚 construction of the term 鈥渘atural mineral resources development鈥 to characterize 鈥渞ock鈥 as a 鈥渕ineral鈥 is acceptable, particularly where the city has adopted the normal dictionary definition as a rule of construction and the proposal at issue seeks to remove an amount of rock one hundred times greater than the quantity considered as 鈥渟urface mining鈥 under ORS 517.755(15)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
LaBare v. Clackamas County
Under Clackamas County ZDO 1107.04(B)(2)(b) 鈥渆ach property鈥 refers back to the two units of property that are the subject of the property line adjustment application.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Foland v. Jackson County
A 鈥渨ater system鈥 for the purposes of a Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Utilities) exception only includes water to be used for human consumption; modification of proposal to change the source of landscape irrigation water would not constitute a change of this 鈥渟ystem鈥 and thus does not require approval of a new 鈥渞easons鈥 exception.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use