Legal Opinion
Department of Land Conservation & Development v. Yamhill County
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided November 22, 1989No. LUBA 89-040, LUBA 89-042 CA A61886PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, P. J.
Petitioners 1 seek review of LUBA’s decision in these consolidated proceedings, in which it held that Yamhill County ordinance 479 violates Goal 5 and the implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000 et seq. We affirm.
In 1988, county adopted ordinance 466, entitled The Historic Landmark Preservation Ordinance (HLPO). As explained in LUBA’s opinion:
“Section 3 of the HLPO sets out definitions of terms used in the ordinance. Section 5 of the HLPO establishes a process and criteria for county designation of a ‘landmark,’ and for removal of a landmark designation. Section 6 of the HLPO requires that a county…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation & Development CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1982
- Collins v. Land Conservation & Development CommissionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
- Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Land Conservation & Development CommissionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
- La Pine Pumice Co. v. Deschutes County Board of CommissionersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
3Cited by6 opinions
- Lake Oswego Preservation Society v. City of Lake OswegoOregon Supreme Court · 2016
- Cope v. City of Cannon BeachCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
- Port of St. Helens v. Land Conservation & Development CommissionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
- Byrnes v. City of HillsboroCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
- Lake Oswego Preservation Society v. City of Lake OswegoOregon Supreme Court · 2016
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.