Main Menu
Date: May 19, 2015
Location: Portland, OR
The Court of Appeals and LUBA have issued a handful of recent decisions that planners should know about, if for no other reason, to make for interesting conversations at land use planner cocktail parties:
New wrinkles relating to notice:
  • Determining the boundaries for mailing land use notices considered in MacKenzie v. City of Portland.
  • Relying on the notice of decision to establish LUBA appeal deadlines considered in Carver v. Washington County.
Interpreting statutes and the role of legislative history: 
  • Who is the "property owner" for purposes of seeking removal of historic designation considered in Lake Oswego Preservation Society v. City of Portland.
  • Allowing expansion of a firearms training facility pursuant to a provision that allows the siting of a firearms training facility on EFU land considered in H.T. Rea Farming Corp. v. Umatilla County.
Limitation on local government interpretations of local code: 
  • Interpretation prohibiting mineral excavation necessary to allow residential development and instead characterizing it as mining considered in S. St. Helens v. City of St. Helens. 
  • Extent to which a local government may deviate from LUBA's interpretation of a local standard on remand considered in Gould v. Deschutes County.
Back to Page

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. By continuing to use our website, you agree to the use of cookies. To learn more about how we use cookies, please see our Cookie Policy.