Legal Opinion

Nicholson v. Clatsop County

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided June 25, 1997No. LUBA 96-033, 96-035; CA A96517PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDeits, P. J.

Petitioner Schroeder seeks review of LUBA’s remand of Clatsop County’s decision granting petitioner’s application for approval of a subdivision. We affirm.

The proposed location of the development is in an active dune overlay zone. The area is generally subject to Goal 18, the statewide planning goal relating to “coastal beach and dune areas.” In 1978, the county adopted comprehensive plan provisions that limited or prohibited development west of the active dune line. That year, the county also adopted Ordinance 78-25, through which it took an exception to Goal 18, based on existing…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Fasano v. Board of County Com'rs of Washington Cty.Oregon Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Clark v. Jackson CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Reeves v. Yamhill CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Stewart v. City of SalemCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
  2. PLISKA v. Umatilla CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
  3. PLISKA v. Umatilla CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API