Webber v. County of Clackamas
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtTanzer, J.
Plaintiffs initiated this declaratory judgment proceeding to obtain a declaration that they have established a nonconforming use giving them a vested right to develop their land at a density prohibited by the present Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan. The trial court found that plaintiffs had established the nonconforming use, and defendants appeal. We review de novo 1 and reverse.
Plaintiffs own approximately 127 acres of land in Clackamas County. Prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1974, plaintiffs drilled a well on their property, installed a pump, constructed a large…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Clackamas County v. HolmesOregon Supreme Court · 1973
- Bienz v. City of DaytonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977
- Eklund v. Clackamas CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1978
- Clackamas County v. Portland City TempleCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1973
- Lindsey v. Dairyland InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1977
3Cited by14 opinions
- Friends of Yamhill County, Inc. v. Board of CommissionersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
- Cook v. Clackamas CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1981
- Milcrest Corp. v. Clackamas CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1982
- FOPPO v. Washington CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
- Campbell v. Clackamas CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.