Oregon land use boards
Oregon Land Use Boards: Overview
Oregon is known for its comprehensive and statewide land use planning system, established primarily by Senate Bill 100 (1973). The system is unique in the U.S. and centers on managing growth, preserving agricultural and forest lands, protecting natural resources, and coordinating local planning.
Key Components of Oregon’s Land Use Governance:
Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC): The top policy-making body that adopts statewide land use goals and approves local comprehensive plans.
Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA): A specialized administrative tribunal that hears appeals from local land use decisions.
Local Governments: Cities and counties prepare local comprehensive plans consistent with LCDC goals.
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD): Supports LCDC and assists local governments.
Role of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA)
Exclusive appeal forum: LUBA reviews local land use decisions (e.g., zoning, permits) for compliance with state land use laws.
Standard of review: LUBA examines whether the local government’s decision complies with statutes, rules, and acknowledged comprehensive plans.
Remand power: LUBA can remand decisions back to local governments for correction.
Further judicial review: Decisions of LUBA can be appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
Case Law: Detailed Explanation of Key Oregon Land Use Cases
1. Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County, 49 Or LUBA 41 (2005)
Facts: Environmental group challenged county approval of a rural residential subdivision, arguing it violated statewide land use goals.
Issue: Whether the county’s decision complied with Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) and Goal 14 (Urbanization).
Holding: LUBA remanded the decision, finding insufficient findings to support consistency with the goals.
Significance: Demonstrates LUBA’s role in ensuring local decisions adhere to statewide planning goals and the need for detailed local findings.
Key Principle: Local governments must provide clear and supported findings explaining how decisions meet applicable land use goals.
2. Or. Ass’n of Naturopathic Physicians v. City of Portland, 153 Or App 167 (1998)
Facts: City of Portland rezoned property; naturopathic physicians challenged on procedural grounds.
Issue: Whether the city complied with public notice and hearing requirements.
Holding: Court upheld city’s action but emphasized strict adherence to procedural due process.
Significance: Shows the importance of procedural fairness in land use decisions and the role of courts in reviewing administrative compliance.
Key Principle: Compliance with public hearing and notice provisions is essential for validity of land use decisions.
3. PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606 (1993)
Facts: Pacific Gas & Electric challenged local land use regulation that affected its property rights.
Issue: Whether the regulation was an unconstitutional taking.
Holding: Oregon Supreme Court balanced property rights against land use regulation under state law.
Significance: This case clarifies how land use boards and courts consider constitutional property rights in reviewing land use decisions.
Key Principle: Land use regulation must balance public interests with constitutional protections.
4. Turner v. Department of Land Conservation and Development, 26 Or LUBA 523 (1993)
Facts: Landowners challenged DLCD's acknowledgment of a comprehensive plan amendment.
Issue: Whether DLCD properly reviewed compliance with statewide goals.
Holding: LUBA held DLCD's review was consistent with statutory requirements.
Significance: Highlights the administrative review function of DLCD and LUBA’s role in reviewing state agency actions.
Key Principle: State agencies’ plan reviews are subject to LUBA’s scrutiny for compliance with land use statutes.
5. Karnopp v. Department of Land Conservation and Development, 25 Or LUBA 635 (1993)
Facts: Challenge to a local government's decision allowing a non-farm dwelling in an exclusive farm use zone.
Issue: Whether the decision complied with Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands).
Holding: LUBA remanded the decision due to failure to adequately justify the exception.
Significance: Illustrates LUBA’s role in protecting exclusive farm use zones and enforcing strict standards for exceptions.
Key Principle: Exceptions to land use restrictions must be clearly justified with supporting evidence.
6. Wilsonville Neighborhood Association v. City of Wilsonville, 147 Or App 164 (1997)
Facts: Neighborhood association appealed city approval of a comprehensive plan amendment.
Issue: Whether the amendment was consistent with statewide planning goals.
Holding: Court upheld LUBA’s decision affirming the city’s approval.
Significance: Reinforces deference to local government expertise when decisions are supported by the record.
Key Principle: Courts and LUBA give deference to local government planning decisions when supported by substantial evidence.
Summary of Oregon Land Use Board Processes and Judicial Review
| Board/Agency | Role | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| LUBA | Administrative appeals from local land use decisions | Friends of Yamhill County |
| LCDC | Sets statewide goals, approves plans | Turner v. DLCD |
| Local Governments | Make initial land use decisions | Karnopp v. DLCD |
| Oregon Courts | Review LUBA decisions, ensure constitutional compliance | PGE v. Bureau of Labor |
Key Takeaways
Oregon’s land use boards play a critical role in enforcing statewide planning goals.
The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) serves as a specialized body to provide efficient, expert review of local decisions.
Cases demonstrate the need for clear, supported findings and procedural compliance in land use decisions.
Courts ensure that land use regulations balance public goals with constitutional rights.
The system aims to coordinate state, regional, and local interests to promote orderly development and resource conservation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments