Legal Opinion

Kelley v. Clackamas County

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 3, 1999No. LUBA No. 97-139 CA A104016PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDe Muniz, P. J.

Respondent Kelley applied to Clackamas County for a variance to permit a pool house at a location in his front yard that did not satisfy the applicable setback requirement of the county zoning ordinance. After the variance was denied by county planning personnel and by a county hearings officer, Kelley appealed to LUBA. It reversed the county’s decision, and the county seeks our review. We reverse.

Section 1205.02(A) of the zoning ordinance allows the granting of a variance if

“[cjompliance with the applicable requirement or standard of the ordinance would create a hardship due to one or more…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Clark v. Jackson CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Bienz v. City of DaytonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977
  3. Gage v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Reusser v. Washington CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
  5. deBardelaben v. Tillamook CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Yamhill CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  2. Cyrus v. Deschutes CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
  3. Beaver State Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Douglas CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API