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.