LUBA Headnotes Database

Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals case law, organized by topic and searchable.

Text Search

🔍 Advanced SQL Search (Click to expand)
Available Fields: headnote, topic, summary, case_name, citation, year, full_citation, ors_cites, oar_cites, case_cites, section, sub, error_list

Example Queries (click to use):

Showing 100 results (filtered from total)
Headnote: 1.1.1; Topic: Administrative Law – Interpretation of Law – Generally
Case Citation: M & T Partners, Inc. v. City of Salem, 80 Or LUBA 221 (2019)
Summary: To the extent that LUBA’s holding in Perry v. Yamhill County, 26 Or LUBA 73, 80, aff’d, 125 Or App 588, 865 P2d 1344 (1993), that the reasoning in Clark v. Jackson County, 313 Or 508, 836 P2d 710 (1992), extends to a local govrnment’s interpretation of a prior land use decision, was correct, it was superseded by ORS 197.829(1), which requires LUBA to affirm “a local government’s interpretation of its comprehensive plan and land use regulations” but does not require LUBA to affirm a local government’s interpretation of a prior land use decision, findings adopted in support thereof, or conditions of approval attached thereto, which LUBA reviews under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(D) to determine whether the local government “[i]mproperly construed the applicable law.”
Year: 2019
Section: 1; Subsection: 1.1
Case Cites: 313 Or 508, 26 Or LUBA 73, 125 Or App 588
ORS Cites: 197.835, 197.829
Index: 0
Headnote: 1.1.1; Topic: Administrative Law – Interpretation of Law – Generally
Case Citation: VanSickle v. Klamath County, 80 Or LUBA 241 (2019)
Summary: Where a significant resource overlay zone provision requires that (1) resource sites not be altered or impacted to a degree that destroys their significance, (2) the proposed development not result in the loss of habitat for threatened or endangered species, (3) all feasible alternatives to the development that would not result in a substantial adverse impact on identified resource values be considered and rejected, (4) the development be sited on the property in such a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on identified resources, and (5) documentation be provided regarding requirements for state or federal permits or licenses and that appropriate resource management agencies have reviewed the development proposal against their plans, policies, and programs, the local government does not err in concluding that that provision applies at the development stage rather than the PAPA stage.
Year: 2019
Section: 1; Subsection: 1.1
Index: 1
Headnote: 1.1.1; Topic: Administrative Law – Interpretation of Law – Generally
Case Citation: York v. Clackamas County, (None)
Summary: Where a local code provision requires a finding that a proposed use “will not significantly increase fire hazard or significantly increase fire suppression costs or significantly increase risks to fire suppression personnel,” the proper comparison is between the proposed use and the pre-existing use, not between the proposed use and typical uses of the same type.
Section: 1; Subsection: 1.1
Index: 10
Parsing Errors: No case cite found in , 79 Or LUB 278 (2019).
Headnote: 1.1.1; Topic: Administrative Law – Interpretation of Law – Generally
Case Citation: Mintz v. City of Beaverton, 66 Or LUBA 118 (2012)
Summary: A one-half-acre size requirement threshold for requiring PUD approval is not a mere application requirement that can be overlooked to require PUD approval for proposals of less than one-half acre. Even if the city intended to delete that threshold for PUD proposals near transit stations, where the threshold clearly applies it cannot be overlooked to give effect to an intent that is inconsistent with the text of the zoning ordinance.
Year: 2012
Section: 1; Subsection: 1.1
Index: 100
Headnote: 1.1.3; Topic: Administrative Law – Interpretation of Law – Effect of Local Government Interpretation
Case Citation: Wynn v. Polk County, 47 Or LUBA 73 (2004)
Summary: Where a finding is ambiguous and could be read to misinterpret a code provision, but read in context it is reasonably clear that the local government did not intend the erroneous interpretation petitioner ascribes to it, and in fact intended an interpretation consistent with the code provision, petitioner’s arguments based on that ambiguous finding do not provide a basis for reversal or remand.
Year: 2004
Section: 1; Subsection: 1.1
Index: 1000
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Spiering v. Yamhill County, 25 Or LUBA 695 (1993)
Summary: Local decision makers in quasi-judicial land use proceedings are not required to maintain the “appearance of impartiality” required of judges, but rather to have “actual impartiality,” the ability to make a decision based on the argument and evidence before them, rather than on prejudgment or personal interest.
Year: 1993
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10000
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Spiering v. Yamhill County, 25 Or LUBA 695 (1993)
Summary: To establish actual bias or prejudgment on the part of a local decision maker, the petitioner has the burden of showing the decision maker was biased or prejudged the application and did not reach a decision by applying relevant standards based on the evidence and argument presented.
Year: 1993
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10001
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Horizon Construction, Inc. v. City of Newberg, 25 Or LUBA 656 (1993)
Summary: If the contents of an ex parte communication are not publicly announced and placed in the record, as required by ORS 227.180(3), a city official’s request for responses to the ex parte communication does not provide the opportunity for rebuttal required by ORS 227.180(3)(b).
Year: 1993
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
ORS Cites: 227.180
Index: 10002
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Derry v. Douglas County, 25 Or LUBA 790 (1993)
Summary: A general objection to the record requesting that speakers in a transcript be identified, because it would be easier to prepare the petition for review, does not provide a sufficient basis to sustain the objection. A request that a particular speaker in a transcript in the record be identified, because that speaker was a decision maker below and his dialogue establishes the existence of impermissible ex parte contacts, provides a sufficient basis to sustain that aspect of the record objection.
Year: 1993
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10003
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: McInnis v. City of Portland, 25 Or LUBA 376 (1993)
Summary: Where a local government’s staff briefs an absentee decision maker concerning matters in the record and does not impermissibly advocate denial of the application, but rather simply provides administrative support to the decision maker, the fact that petitioners had no opportunity to rebut the substance of that staff briefing provides no basis for reversal or remand of the challenged decision.
Year: 1993
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10004
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Caine v. Tillamook County, 25 Or LUBA 209 (1993)
Summary: A party’s submission of proposed findings to a local decision maker does not constitute an ex parte contact warranting reversal or remand. In the absence of a local code provision to the contrary, there is no error in a local government’s utilization of such a process.
Year: 1993
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10005
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Heceta Water District v. Lane County, 24 Or LUBA 402 (1993)
Summary: Where a settlement agreement in a lawsuit previously filed by intervenor against a county simply says the county will consider a rezoning application for intervenor’s property, as it is required to do under ORS 215.416(2) in any case, the settlement agreement is irrelevant to an application for a replacement dwelling on the subject property, and does not establish bias or prejudgment by the county decision maker.
Year: 1993
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
ORS Cites: 215.416
Index: 10006
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Linebarger v. City of The Dalles, 24 Or LUBA 91 (1992)
Summary: A local government decision maker is entitled to consult with its attorney regarding evidence submitted during the evidentiary phase of the local proceeding and interpretive issues. Parties have no right to rebut the substance of a local government attorney’s advice to the local government decision maker.
Year: 1992
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10007
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Heiller v. Josephine County, 23 Or LUBA 551 (1992)
Summary: In establishing actual bias or prejudgment on the part of a local decision maker, the burden is on petitioner to show the decision maker was biased or prejudged the application and did not reach its decision by applying applicable standards based on the evidence and argument presented.
Year: 1992
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10008
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Rath v. Hood River County, 23 Or LUBA 200 (1992)
Summary: To establish actual bias or prejudgment on the part of a local government decision maker, the burden is on petitioners to establish that the decision maker was biased or prejudged the application and did not reach its decision by applying applicable standards based on the evidence and argument presented.
Year: 1992
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10009
Headnote: 1.1.3; Topic: Administrative Law – Interpretation of Law – Effect of Local Government Interpretation
Case Citation: McAlister v. Jackson County, 47 Or LUBA 125 (2004)
Summary: A hearings officer errs in determining that an internal logging road is not a “road” because of its poor condition and infrequent use, where the code definition of “road” does not assign significance to the road’s condition or frequency of use.
Year: 2004
Section: 1; Subsection: 1.1
Index: 1001
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Horizon Construction, Inc. v. City of Newberg, 23 Or LUBA 159 (1992)
Summary: Delay in disclosing an ex parte contact until after the close of the public hearing, and failure to make an announcement of the right to rebut the substance of the ex parte communication, as required by ORS 227.180(3)(b), are at most procedural errors.
Year: 1992
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
ORS Cites: 227.180
Index: 10010
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Southwood Homeowners Assoc. v. City of Philomath, 22 Or LUBA 742 (1992)
Summary: Where a new city councilor discloses his prior participation in a quasi-judicial land use proceeding and declares that he can render an unbiased decision on the matter following a remand from LUBA, that the city councilor is a realtor who might benefit through sale of lots in the subdivision in the future is too speculative to support a determination that his decision is influenced by bias or self interest.
Year: 1992
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10011
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Marson v. Clackamas County, 22 Or LUBA 497 (1991)
Summary: Where the planning department is not the decision maker, contacts between the planning department and neighbors of the applicant need not be disclosed by the decision maker under ORS 215.422(3).
Year: 1991
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
ORS Cites: 215.422
Index: 10012
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Marson v. Clackamas County, 22 Or LUBA 497 (1991)
Summary: Although under ORS 215.422(3) it may be error for a hearings officer to fail to disclose prior contacts with the planning department, it is a procedural error. LUBA may not reverse or remand on the basis of procedural error unless such error prejudices petitioner’s substantial rights. Petitioner’s substantial rights are not prejudiced by such error where petitioner was aware of and had an opportunity to respond to the substance of the contacts with the planning department.
Year: 1991
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
ORS Cites: 215.422
Index: 10013
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Toth v. Curry County, 22 Or LUBA 488 (1991)
Summary: A board of county commissioners need not provide parties an opportunity to rebut a memorandum in which the county counsel provides legal advice concerning a pending local land use appeal. Such communications are not ex parte contacts. ORS 215.422(4).
Year: 1991
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
ORS Cites: 215.422
Index: 10014
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Toth v. Curry County, 22 Or LUBA 488 (1991)
Summary: A petitioner may not assert the occurrence of his own ex parte contacts with the decision maker as a basis for reversal or remand, where the contacts were disclosed and petitioner did not object to the adequacy or completeness of the disclosure of such ex parte contacts.
Year: 1991
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10015
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Oregon Worsted Company v. City of Portland, 22 Or LUBA 452 (1991)
Summary: LUBA will not presume a local government decision maker is partial simply because the local government is the applicant for land use approval.
Year: 1991
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10016
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Oregon Worsted Company v. City of Portland, 22 Or LUBA 452 (1991)
Summary: In establishing actual bias or prejudgment on the part of a local government decision maker, the burden is on petitioner to show the decision maker was biased or prejudged the application and did not reach its decision by applying applicable standards based on the evidence and argument presented.
Year: 1991
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10017
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Oregon Worsted Company v. City of Portland, 22 Or LUBA 452 (1991)
Summary: That the initial administrative decision maker was not impartial would be insufficient grounds to reverse or remand a challenged decision, where petitioner was afforded a de novo review of the administrative decision, including a public hearing, by a hearings officer.
Year: 1991
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10018
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Cummins v. Washington County, 22 Or LUBA 129 (1991)
Summary: To establish a claim of bias sufficient to result in reversal or remand of a challenged decision, a petitioner is required to clearly demonstrate that the public officials charged with bias are incapable of making a decision on the basis of the evidence and argument presented.
Year: 1991
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10019
Headnote: 1.1.3; Topic: Administrative Law – Interpretation of Law – Effect of Local Government Interpretation
Case Citation: McAlister v. Jackson County, 47 Or LUBA 125 (2004)
Summary: Where a hearings officer misinterprets the code term “road,” but does not address either the applicant’s proposed interpretation that a logging track can be a “road” or a contrary planning staff interpretation that only platted rights-of-way or legally described easements are “roads,” LUBA will remand the decision to the hearings officer to reconsider what constitutes a “road.”
Year: 2004
Section: 1; Subsection: 1.1
Index: 1002
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Schmaltz v. City of Hood River, 22 Or LUBA 115 (1991)
Summary: Personal bias sufficiently strong to disqualify a public official must be clearly demonstrated. A petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that the public official was incapable of making a decision based on the evidence and argument before him.
Year: 1991
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10020
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Holladay Investors, Ltd. v. City of Portland, 22 Or LUBA 90 (1991)
Summary: Contacts between city decision makers and planning staff are by definition not ex parte contacts. ORS 227.180(3) and (4).
Year: 1991
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
ORS Cites: 227.180
Index: 10021
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Holladay Investors, Ltd. v. City of Portland, 22 Or LUBA 90 (1991)
Summary: While the requirement that local governments carrying out public land development projects grant land use approvals to themselves presents inherent appearance of bias problems, such appearance problems, in and of themselves, present no basis for reversal or remand.
Year: 1991
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10022
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Brown & Cole, Inc. v. City of Estacada, 21 Or LUBA 392 (1991)
Summary: A city attorney’s statement at the beginning of the city council hearing, to the effect that parties are welcome to rebut ex parte communications, satisfies the requirement of ORS 227.180(3)(b) that a public announcement of the parties’ right to rebut the substance of an ex parte communication be made at the first hearing following the communication.
Year: 1991
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
ORS Cites: 227.180
Index: 10023
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Waker Associates, Inc. v. Clackamas County, 21 Or LUBA 588 (1991)
Summary: That a decision maker may have interpreted the local plan and code incorrectly in some respects does not establish that the decision maker was biased or had undisclosed ex parte contacts.
Year: 1991
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10024
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Carsey v. Deschutes County, 21 Or LUBA 118 (1991)
Summary: Read in context, a hearings officer’s findings and conclusions describing a commercial development as “garish” do not demonstrate bias or prejudgment.
Year: 1991
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10025
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Kittleson v. Lane County, 20 Or LUBA 286 (1990)
Summary: In order to establish bias on the part of the decision maker, petitioner must show that the decision maker either has a personal stake in the outcome of the proceeding or has prejudged the matter. LUBA will not infer the existence of bias on the part of a decision maker.
Year: 1990
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10026
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Knapp v. City of Jacksonville, 20 Or LUBA 189 (1990)
Summary: Where the city council conducted a de novo review of the planning commission’s decision, only the city council members are the decision makers, and actions by the city planner and planning commission members do not demonstrate bias on the part of the city decision makers.
Year: 1990
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10027
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Knapp v. City of Jacksonville, 20 Or LUBA 189 (1990)
Summary: Allegations that the city council misinterpreted plan and code provisions and overlooked items in the record, even if true, would simply demonstrate error in the decision made by the city council, not that the council members had prejudged the matter and were incapable of making an objective decision on petitioners’ subdivision application based on the evidence and argument before them.
Year: 1990
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10028
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Hoffman v. City of Lake Oswego, 20 Or LUBA 64 (1990)
Summary: It is not error for a governing body to provide a lower local tribunal with a memorandum in the nature of a declaratory ruling interpreting certain code provisions while an application to which those code provisions apply is pending before the lower tribunal. Even if it were a procedural error, there would be no prejudice if petitioners had an adequate opportunity in a local appeal to address the interpretation and applicability of the code provisions in question before the governing body.
Year: 1990
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10029
Headnote: 1.1.3; Topic: Administrative Law – Interpretation of Law – Effect of Local Government Interpretation
Case Citation: Doob v. City of Grants Pass, 47 Or LUBA 152 (2004)
Summary: A local government may not interpret a local code provision that requires connection to “an existing city standard paved street” to be satisfied by a security deposit in lieu of an improved street.
Year: 2004
Section: 1; Subsection: 1.1
Index: 1003
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Burk v. Umatilla County, 20 Or LUBA 54 (1990)
Summary: Even if the planning commission chairman’s participation in the planning commission proceedings on a proposed comprehensive plan amendment were improper, de novo review of the proposed plan amendment by the city council cured any such impropriety.
Year: 1990
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10030
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: McNulty v. Marion County, 19 Or LUBA 367 (1990)
Summary: That a member of the county counsel’s office acts as hearings officer does not, itself, deny the petitioner an unbiased decision maker, nor does it necessarily imply that improper ex parte contacts occurred between the hearings officer and the board of commissioners.
Year: 1990
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10031
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Murphey v. City of Ashland, 19 Or LUBA 182 (1990)
Summary: The planning commission’s error in failing to consider the propriety of a commissioner’s participation in the decision on the subject application, where the issue was raised before the commission, is procedural and, therefore, petitioner must establish the error caused prejudice to his substantial rights.
Year: 1990
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10032
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Murphey v. City of Ashland, 19 Or LUBA 182 (1990)
Summary: If the governing body holds a de novo hearing on an appeal of the planning commission’s decision on the subject application, such hearing cures any prejudice due to a planning commissioner’s allegedly improper participation in the planning commission proceedings.
Year: 1990
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10033
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Walker v. City of Beaverton, 18 Or LUBA 712 (1990)
Summary: Where a mayor’s ex parte contacts were completely disclosed, although late in the deliberations and after an incomplete disclosure earlier in the proceedings, and the mayor invited challenges and inquiries, the remedial purpose of ORS 227.180(3) is nevertheless served. Where petitioners did not object to the timing and manner of the disclosure, and do not show their substantial rights were violated, there is no basis for remand.
Year: 1990
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
ORS Cites: 227.180
Index: 10034
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Walker v. City of Beaverton, 18 Or LUBA 712 (1990)
Summary: A mayor’s disclosure of ex parte contacts with former associates and political supporters at most creates an appearance of impropriety and does not show actual bias.
Year: 1990
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10035
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Douglas v. Multnomah County, 18 Or LUBA 607 (1990)
Summary: Where the record shows the ex parte contacts alleged by petitioner were disclosed during local hearings, such ex parte contacts provide no basis for reversal or remand.
Year: 1990
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10036
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Beck v. City of Tillamook, 18 Or LUBA 587 (1990)
Summary: Standing alone, the fact that a city council approved a federal block grant for a homeless shelter does not disqualify the city council on the basis of bias from considering a subsequent land use application for the homeless shelter.
Year: 1990
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10037
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County, 79 Or LUBA 96 (2019)
Summary: Where state statute requires that a local government provide either a public hearing before ruling on an application for a statutory permit or an opportunity for an appeal that includes a de novo public hearing, although the local government may require a notice of appeal that sets forth with reasonable particularity the issues that the appealing party will raise at the hearing, the local government may not, consistent with the statute, (1) make that notice requirement a jurisdictional bar to obtaining the hearing, (2) limit the issues specified to five types of issues, or (3) approve or reject requests for hearings based on a qualitative assessment of how well the appellant has explained the issues specified.
Year: 2019
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10038
Headnote: 25.6.5; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – Impartial Tribunal
Case Citation: Niederer v. City of Albany, 79 Or LUBA 305 (2019)
Summary: A city councilor’s statement in the comment section of an online blog article that a specific application should be approved in order to “get[] this particular monkey off of [the applicant’s] back” is sufficient to demonstrate both actual bias and that the councilor has so prejudged the matter as to be incapable of determining its merits based on the evidence and arguments presented, and any subsequent decision on the application in which the biased councilor participates will be remanded, to allow the council to consider the application without the biased councilor’s participation. A statement made by the biased councilor during a public hearing on the application that he will render an impartial decision does not cure his demonstrated actual bias.
Year: 2019
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10039
Headnote: 1.1.3; Topic: Administrative Law – Interpretation of Law – Effect of Local Government Interpretation
Case Citation: Doob v. City of Grants Pass, 47 Or LUBA 152 (2004)
Summary: A local government has the discretion to interpret a local code provision requiring private streets to provide for pedestrian needs in a “safe and functional manner” to not require sidewalks on private streets serving four or fewer units, in context with another code provision that requires sidewalks on private streets only if the streets serve more than four units.
Year: 2004
Section: 1; Subsection: 1.1
Index: 1004
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Hood River Valley Residents Comm. v. Hood River County, 78 Or LUBA 282 (2018)
Summary: When a county opts to approve a permit without a public hearing, any person who is adversely affected or aggrieved, or who is entitled to notice of the decision may appeal a decision made without a hearing. The county cannot require participation prior to a decision, either by attending a conference (that may or may not have occurred), or providing written comments, or in any other manner. Additionally, the county may not enact additional restrictions to prevent a person who is entitled to file an appeal under the ORS 215.416(11)(a)(A) right to file a local appeal.
Year: 2018
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
ORS Cites: 215.416
Index: 10040
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition v. Coos County, 76 Or LUBA 346 (2017)
Summary: Deferral of compliance with an approval standard to a subsequent proceeding under Rhyne v. Multnomah County, 23 Or LUBA 442 (1992), or Gould v. Deschutes County, 227 Or App 601, 206 P3d 1106 (2009), may not be permissible at all where the approval standard at issue invokes a particular process that is explicitly linked to submittal of the development application, requiring consultation and dispute resolution between the applicant, the local government, and a sovereign Native American Tribe before development approval.
Year: 2017
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Case Cites: 227 Or App 601, 23 Or LUBA 442
Index: 10041
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition v. Coos County, 76 Or LUBA 346 (2017)
Summary: A local government errs in imposing a condition of approval deferring consideration of compliance with a comprehensive plan policy requiring the applicant and county to undertake a process to consult and resolve differences with local Native American tribes before approving development in an estuary, where the deferral is to an ad hoc proceeding without any assurances that the deferred proceeding will actually occur, and the deferral is not supported by findings demonstrating that deferral is permissible under Rhyne v. Multnomah County, 23 Or LUBA 442 (1992), or Gould v. Deschutes County, 227 Or App 601, 206 P3d 1106 (2009).
Year: 2017
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Case Cites: 227 Or App 601, 23 Or LUBA 442
Index: 10042
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Central Eastside Industrial Council v. City of Portland, 74 Or LUBA 221 (2016)
Summary: Where no statute or local code provision requires that a city council, in making the city’s final decision on a request for a zoning classification as described in ORS 227.160(2)(b), conduct the city council meeting pursuant to quasi-judicial land use procedures requiring notice and an evidentiary hearing, the city council does not err in conducting the meeting pursuant only to the procedures governing a public meeting.
Year: 2016
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
ORS Cites: 227.160
Index: 10043
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Rosenzweig v. City of McMinnville, 64 Or LUBA 402 (2011)
Summary: If a local government in granting planned development approval wishes to defer a finding that is required at the time of planned development approval to a subsequent, future proceeding, it must ensure that the public will be provided the same participatory rights at the future proceeding that they have at the time of planned development approval.
Year: 2011
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10044
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Rosenzweig v. City of McMinnville, 64 Or LUBA 402 (2011)
Summary: A tentative subdivision approval decision that imposes a condition of approval that the applicant must submit a revised tentative subdivision plat to reflect an amendment to the application that was submitted before the local government adopted its decision is not accurately characterized as an improper requirement for a replat without public participation.
Year: 2011
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10045
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Boucot v. City of Corvallis, 61 Or LUBA 459 (2010)
Summary: When approving a subdivision where approval criteria must be applied in a proceeding where the public has participatory rights, a city may defer findings on a required approval criterion to a later proceeding, so long as that later proceeding is one in which the public has participatory rights.
Year: 2010
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10046
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Mazorol v. City of Bend, 59 Or LUBA 260 (2009)
Summary: The obligation to conduct a “hearing at least for argument” under ORS 227.180(1)(a)(B) only applies when a city council conducts a review of a lower body’s decision. The obligation does not apply when the city council declines review thereby making the lower body’s decision the city’s final determination.
Year: 2009
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
ORS Cites: 227.180
Index: 10047
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Kane v. City of Beaverton, 56 Or LUBA 240 (2008)
Summary: Code procedures that distinguish between “Type II” permit decisions that can be made without an initial hearing, with an opportunity for affected persons to appeal to a de novo hearing, and “Type III” permit decisions that require an initial hearing, do not violate the privileges and immunities clause by granting “privileges” to participants of Type III proceedings that are denied Type II participants.
Year: 2008
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10048
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Neighbors 4 Responsible Growth v. City of Veneta, 52 Or LUBA 325 (2006)
Summary: Although a local government is obligated to open the evidentiary record to allow the parties to address any new criteria that may be applied on remand from LUBA, where a local government applies the same criterion on remand that it did in its initial decision and merely cites different comprehensive plan policies to explain how it interprets that criterion, the local government is not obligated to reopen the evidentiary record.
Year: 2006
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10049
Headnote: 1.1.3; Topic: Administrative Law – Interpretation of Law – Effect of Local Government Interpretation
Case Citation: Gumtow- Farrior v. Crook County, 47 Or LUBA 186 (2004)
Summary: Where a conditional use approval criterion requires a finding that the proposed conditional use will have minimal adverse impacts “compared to the impact of development that is permitted outright,” a county decision that interprets that criterion to be met by a proposed commercial recreational park, because an otherwise identical publicly owned recreational park could be approved as a use permitted outright, is not reversible under ORS 197.829(1).
Year: 2004
Section: 1; Subsection: 1.1
ORS Cites: 197.829
Index: 1005
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Moreland v. City of Depoe Bay, 48 Or LUBA 136 (2004)
Summary: A local government errs in deferring a determination of compliance with a discretionary permit criterion requiring that development protect riparian vegetation and aesthetic resources to a subsequent staff review that does not provide for notice or hearing.
Year: 2004
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10050
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Jaqua v. City of Springfield, 46 Or LUBA 566 (2004)
Summary: That comprehensive plan policies apply to a challenged grading permit, and thus the permit is a “land use decision” as defined by ORS 197.015(10), does not necessarily mean that the city is obligated to provide a hearing on the grading permit. Not all permits that are land use decisions are also statutory “permits” as defined by ORS 215.402 and 227.160 and subject to statutory requirements to provide a hearing or opportunity for a hearing.
Year: 2004
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
ORS Cites: 215.402, 197.015, 227.160
Index: 10051
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Manning v. Marion County, 45 Or LUBA 1 (2003)
Summary: A local government does not err in failing to provide an evidentiary hearing on remand to accept updated information regarding the current status of petitioner’s property, where LUBA’s remand did not require the local government to conduct additional evidentiary hearings, and petitioner fails to identify any authority that requires the local government to conduct an additional evidentiary hearing to accept updated information.
Year: 2003
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10052
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Martin v. City of Dunes City, 45 Or LUBA 458 (2003)
Summary: A city denial of petitioners’ request for an evidentiary hearing after remand from LUBA is not error, where (1) petitioners had an opportunity to present evidence and argument during the city’s initial proceedings; (2) the city did not apply new approval criteria or consider new evidence in making its decision on remand; and (3) petitioners do not provide a reason why the initial evidentiary proceedings were inadequate to address petitioners’ application.
Year: 2003
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10053
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Baker v. Lane County, 43 Or LUBA 493 (2003)
Summary: Where a hearings officer finds that it is feasible to comply with an approval standard, and imposes conditions to ensure compliance, the issue becomes whether that finding is adequate and supported by substantial evidence, not whether the hearings officer improperly deferred a finding of compliance to a later review stage. The fact that the hearings officer addresses the possibility that the solution found to be feasible might not work, and finds that if so DEQ would require that the project be scaled back, does not mean that the hearings officer deferred a finding of compliance with the approval standard or impermissibly delegated that finding to DEQ.
Year: 2003
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10054
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Arlington Heights Homeowners v. City of Portland, 41 Or LUBA 185 (2001)
Summary: A local government’s decision to request that an applicant prepare revised findings to respond to a LUBA remand does not, by itself, obligate the local government to provide a hearing following LUBA’s remand.
Year: 2001
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10055
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Arlington Heights Homeowners v. City of Portland, 41 Or LUBA 185 (2001)
Summary: Parties that seek to demonstrate that a local government erred by adopting an interpretation of local land use legislation after the opportunity for argument and evidentiary presentations closes must demonstrate (1) that the interpretation was unforeseeable, and (2) that the party can produce new evidence that is different from evidence in the record and is directly responsive to the unanticipated interpretation. Gutoski v. Lane County, 155 Or App 369, 963 P2d 145 (1998).
Year: 2001
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Case Cites: 155 Or App 369
Index: 10056
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Arlington Heights Homeowners v. City of Portland, 41 Or LUBA 185 (2001)
Summary: Where LUBA remands a land use decision for inadequate findings, parties have no unqualified right to demand a hearing to present additional argument or evidence under Morrison v. City of Portland, 70 Or App 437, 689 P2d 1027 (1984).
Year: 2001
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Case Cites: 70 Or App 437
Index: 10057
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Neighbors for Livability v. City of Beaverton, 40 Or LUBA 52 (2001)
Summary: A city rezoning decision conditioned on the applicant providing a geotechnical report and allowing the city to retain an independent engineer to ensure adequate monitoring and mitigation of environmental hazards during construction as part of the site development permit process, which does not provide for public hearings, does not defer discretionary decision making to a later stage of review. In that circumstance, the conditions are properly viewed as being designed to support the city’s threshold finding that environmental hazards on the subject property do not impact adjoining properties in violation of comprehensive plan objectives.
Year: 2001
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10058
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Neighbors for Sensible Dev. v. City of Sweet Home, 40 Or LUBA 21 (2001)
Summary: A nonbinding preliminary PUD approval is equivalent to a tentative decision following a pre-application conference or review, and therefore does not trigger the statutory requirement under ORS 227.175(3) for a public hearing or the right of local appeal to challenge a permit decision rendered without a prior public hearing.
Year: 2001
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
ORS Cites: 227.175
Index: 10059
Headnote: 1.1.3; Topic: Administrative Law – Interpretation of Law – Effect of Local Government Interpretation
Case Citation: Nelson v. Curry County, 47 Or LUBA 196 (2004)
Summary: Findings that rely on code drainage requirements to avoid impacts on adjacent farming are adequate to demonstrate compliance with a code standard requiring no significant impact on farming, where the only issue raised regarding impacts on adjacent farming involved drainage.
Year: 2004
Section: 1; Subsection: 1.1
Index: 1006
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Mitchell v. Washington County, 37 Or LUBA 452 (2000)
Summary: A finding of feasibility of compliance with a code standard requiring adequate fire protection, conditioned on the fire marshal’s written approval of a proposed emergency turnaround, does not impermissibly defer a finding of compliance with that standard to a second stage of review that fails to provide notice and opportunity for hearing, where the finding of feasibility of compliance is based on evidence that the proposed emergency turnaround is acceptable to the fire marshal.
Year: 2000
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10060
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Tenly Properties Corp. v. Washington County, 34 Or LUBA 352 (1998)
Summary: A local code provision requiring an “adequate turnaround” is not satisfied by deferring the decision concerning the design of the turnaround to the fire district where (1) there will be no opportunity for public comment or a hearing, and (2) designs required by the fire district will require adjustments to or elimination of one or more lots.
Year: 1998
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10061
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Tenly Properties Corp. v. Washington County, 34 Or LUBA 352 (1998)
Summary: In order for a county to find it is feasible to comply with a code requirement for an “adequate turnaround,” it must have a proposed turnaround to review. The county may not defer development and approval of a proposed turnaround to a later stage where there is no opportunity for public hearing.
Year: 1998
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10062
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Property Rights and Owners, Ltd. v. City of Salem, 34 Or LUBA 258 (1998)
Summary: A local government has not deferred compliance with mandatory approval criteria where it grants tentative subdivision approval with the condition that development plans be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer prior to the issuance of construction permits. Once a local government has determined that compliance with a mandatory criterion is feasible, it may impose conditions of approval to ensure compliance with that criterion. No hearing on the geotechnical report is required.
Year: 1998
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10063
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Johnston v. City of Albany, 34 Or LUBA 32 (1998)
Summary: Where a local code requires that manufactured home parks “which contain land within the floodplain district” be subject to a “Type III” review, Type III review is required to approve a proposed manufactured home park, notwithstanding that no “development” is proposed for the portion of the park located in the floodplain district.
Year: 1998
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10064
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: R/C Pilots Association v. Marion County, 33 Or LUBA 532 (1997)
Summary: A county does not commit a procedural error where local ordinances allow the county to call up a hearings officer decision and refer it back for reconsideration without first providing an opportunity for a hearing. A party is not prejudiced by such a summary procedure where it is provided an opportunity to appeal the hearings officer’s decision on reconsideration.
Year: 1997
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10065
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Johns v. City of Lincoln City, 32 Or LUBA 195 (1996)
Summary: ORS 197.175(10)(a) requires the city to provide, on appeal from a decision made without a hearing, at least one hearing at which any issue may be raised.
Year: 1996
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
ORS Cites: 197.175
Index: 10066
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Richards-Kreitzberg v. Marion County, 32 Or LUBA 76 (1996)
Summary: Where, on remand from LUBA, the county corrects an error in its decision, it is not required to follow the procedures that were required during the initial proceeding.
Year: 1996
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10067
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Azevedo v. City of Albany, 29 Or LUBA 516 (1995)
Summary: When the city zoning ordinance makes final approval of a tentative subdivision plan a limited land use decision appealable to LUBA, a decision applying the ordinance is not a “tentative decision” that can be appealed locally at a hearing pursuant to ORS 227.175(10).
Year: 1995
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
ORS Cites: 227.175
Index: 10068
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Save Amazon Coalition v. City of Eugene, 29 Or LUBA 335 (1995)
Summary: ORS 197.763 governs how a quasi-judicial land use hearing is conducted, not whether one is required. ORS 197.763 does not confer a right to a quasi-judicial land use hearing where such a right does not otherwise exist.
Year: 1995
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
ORS Cites: 197.763
Index: 10069
Headnote: 1.1.3; Topic: Administrative Law – Interpretation of Law – Effect of Local Government Interpretation
Case Citation: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Hood River County, 47 Or LUBA 256 (2004)
Summary: A governing body’s interpretation of a design review criterion requiring that the “bulk and scale” of a proposed retail supercenter be “compatible” with surrounding buildings as necessitating a comparison of the size of the proposed buildings and surrounding buildings—and not just visual compatibility—is consistent with the text of the criterion and not reversible under ORS 197.829(1)(a).
Year: 2004
Section: 1; Subsection: 1.1
ORS Cites: 197.829
Index: 1007
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Save Amazon Coalition v. City of Eugene, 29 Or LUBA 335 (1995)
Summary: Fasano v. Washington Co. Comm., 264 Or 574, 507 P2d 23 (1973), does not independently confer a right to a hearing prior to a local government determination on compliance with particular code requirements, where none is conferred by the statutes or local regulations governing such land use decisions.
Year: 1995
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Case Cites: 264 Or 574
Index: 10070
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Save Amazon Coalition v. City of Eugene, 29 Or LUBA 335 (1995)
Summary: Where LUBA remands a decision because the local decision maker failed to adopt findings explaining its determination of compliance with relevant approval standards, and the local decision maker was not required to hold a hearing before making its initial decision, the local decision maker is not required to hold a hearing on remand.
Year: 1995
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10071
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Friends of the Metolius v. Jefferson County, 28 Or LUBA 591 (1995)
Summary: Where LUBA remands a local government decision because it lacks findings of compliance with relevant approval standards, the local government must, at a minimum, conduct a hearing on remand to allow the parties an opportunity to present argument based on the possible interpretations to be adopted by the local government on remand.
Year: 1995
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10072
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Collins v. Klamath County, 28 Or LUBA 553 (1995)
Summary: Where a local government is required to adopt a new decision on remand, it must conduct a hearing and provide notice of that hearing, at least for the purpose of allowing argument on the proposal’s compliance with the standards to be addressed on remand.
Year: 1995
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10073
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Fechtig v. City of Albany, 27 Or LUBA 666 (1994)
Summary: If a “permit” decision is erroneously is processed as a limited land use decision, without a public hearing or an opportunity to request a hearing through a local appeal, then the challenged decision is a “land use decision” made without providing a hearing, and the deadline for filing a notice of intent to appeal with LUBA is governed by ORS 197.830(3).
Year: 1994
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
ORS Cites: 197.830
Index: 10074
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: DLCD v. Benton County, 27 Or LUBA 49 (1994)
Summary: Decisions concerning development of property applying the elements of equitable estoppel require the exercise of factual and legal judgment and, therefore, are permits. Where a local government fails to provide a local public hearing or opportunity for appeal of such a permit decision, the deadline for filing a notice of intent to appeal the decision to LUBA is governed by ORS 197.830(3).
Year: 1994
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
ORS Cites: 197.830
Index: 10075
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Van Veldhuizen v. Marion County, 26 Or LUBA 468 (1994)
Summary: Where a permit applicant receives a public hearing and decision from a local government and, under the local code, an appeal to the governing body may be decided without further public hearing, the governing body commits no error by denying the applicant’s appeal at a public meeting without further notice or public hearing.
Year: 1994
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10076
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Van Veldhuizen v. Marion County, 26 Or LUBA 468 (1994)
Summary: Where the local code provides a possibility of, but not a right to, a second public hearing on appeal of a hearings officer’s decision, the appeal may be denied without providing an additional public hearing, and the code need not include standards for determining whether to grant an additional public hearing.
Year: 1994
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10077
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Tuality Lands Coalition v. Washington County, 22 Or LUBA 319 (1991)
Summary: Where adoption of the challenged decision required the exercise of factual and legal judgment, the decision required the exercise of discretion and, consequently, approves a “permit.” Under these circumstances, it is error for the local government to fail to provide petitioner with notice and opportunity for hearing, where at least some of petitioner’s members were entitled to notice if a public hearing had been scheduled.
Year: 1991
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10078
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Von Lubken v. Hood River County, 20 Or LUBA 208 (1990)
Summary: Where the local code establishes procedures and notice requirements for hearings on administrative actions, but does not require that determinations of compliance with conditions imposed on administrative action approvals themselves be processed as administrative actions, proceedings to determine compliance with such conditions are not required to follow the hearing and notice procedures for administrative actions.
Year: 1990
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10079
Headnote: 1.1.3; Topic: Administrative Law – Interpretation of Law – Effect of Local Government Interpretation
Case Citation: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Hood River County, 47 Or LUBA 256 (2004)
Summary: There is no intrinsic reason why a regulatory concern to ensure compatibility of size between proposed and existing development must be expressed as zoning standards rather than as site design review standards.
Year: 2004
Section: 1; Subsection: 1.1
Index: 1008
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Von Lubken v. Hood River County, 20 Or LUBA 208 (1990)
Summary: Where LUBA determined in a previous appeal that a local government properly found compliance with applicable code standards and, through conditions, deferred responsibility for developing particular technical solutions to the planning commission, and LUBA’s decision was not appealed, the local government is entitled to determine compliance with the conditions of approval administratively, without notice and public hearing.
Year: 1990
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10080
Headnote: 25.6.6; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Hearings – When Required
Case Citation: Nicolai v. City of Portland, 19 Or LUBA 142 (1990)
Summary: Where an amended code provides discretionary criteria for approval of minor land divisions, it is error for the code to fail to require or provide for notice and hearing before the local government makes a final decision concerning a proposed minor land division.
Year: 1990
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.6
Index: 10081
Headnote: 25.7; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Legislative/Quasi-judicial Distinction
Case Citation: VanDyke v. Yamhill County, 78 Or LUBA 530 (2018)
Summary: A proposed land use that requires a conditional land use permit must be processed under quasi-judicial, rather than legislative, procedures where the applicable county code provision specifies that conditional uses in the exclusive farm use zone are subject to conditional use criteria and “shall be reviewed” according to the county’s quasi-judicial review procedures. Further, according to Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers v. Board of Comm., 287 Or 591, 602-03, 601 P2d 769 (1979), the Oregon Supreme Court established a three-factor test to determine whether a land use matter is quasi-judicial or legislative, and where all three factors indicate that the county’s action is quasi-judicial in nature, the county also erred in processing the application under its legislative rather than its quasi-judicial procedures.
Year: 2018
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.7
Case Cites: 287 Or 591
Index: 10082
Headnote: 25.7; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Legislative/Quasi-judicial Distinction
Case Citation: Setniker v. Polk County, 75 Or LUBA 1 (2017)
Summary: Where a county code provision governing the conduct of proceedings on remand is not limited by text or context to remands of quasi-judicial decisions, a county does not err in applying those provisions to govern the conduct of proceedings on remand of a legislative decision.
Year: 2017
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.7
Index: 10083
Headnote: 25.7; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Legislative/Quasi-judicial Distinction
Case Citation: Forest Park Neighborhood Assoc. v. Washington County, 73 Or LUBA 193 (2016)
Summary: An ordinance that amends the width and features of a buffer area between urban and rural lands is properly viewed as a legislative rather than quasi-judicial decision, where the ordinance was adopted as part of a legislative process that was not bound to result in a decision, the modified buffer affects over 135 acres of land that stretch over one mile in length, and the amendments potentially affect hundreds of property owners.
Year: 2016
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.7
Index: 10084
Headnote: 25.7; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Legislative/Quasi-judicial Distinction
Case Citation: Housing Land Advocates v. City of Happy Valley, 73 Or LUBA 405 (2016)
Summary: That a comprehensive plan map amendment may be quasi-judicial, and therefore potentially approvable by a planning commission, does not mean relevant statutes may not require that action be taken by the governing body before the map amendment can become final and effective.
Year: 2016
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.7
Index: 10085
Headnote: 25.7; Topic: Local Government Procedures – Legislative/Quasi-judicial Distinction
Case Citation: Squier v. Multnomah County, 71 Or LUBA 98 (2015)
Summary: A hearings officer’s decision on a property owner’s request for an interpretation as to whether approving a floating home development in a zone that allows such development requires an exception to Goal 14 is a quasi-judicial decision rather than a legislative decision. Consequently, the “raise it or waive it” provisions of ORS 197.763(1) apply.
Year: 2015
Section: 25; Subsection: 25.7
ORS Cites: 197.763
Index: 10086