Friends of Neabeack Hill v. City of Philomath
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtDe Muniz, P. J.
Petitioners seek review of LUBA’s remand of respondent City of Philomath’s approval of respondent Schneider Homes, Inc.’s application to develop a subdivision in the Neabeack Hill area. Petitioners oppose the application, and they assign error to a number of LUBA’s rulings in which it rejected their contentions. We write to address only their argument that LUBA erred in sustaining the city’s interpretation of Resources and Hazards Policy 6 of its comprehensive plan as allowing the disturbance and partial removal of a wooded Goal 5 resource site in the vicinity of the development. We affirm.
Bef…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- Clark v. Jackson CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1994
- Forster v. Polk CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
- Byrd v. StringerOregon Supreme Court · 1983
- STATE Ex Rel APPLING v. CHASEOregon Supreme Court · 1960
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Jones v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
- Kessler v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison SupervisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
- Gisler v. Deschutes CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
- Marquam Farms Corp. v. Multnomah CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
- Opus Development Corp. v. City of EugeneCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.