Southwood Homeowners Ass'n v. City Council of Philomath
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtButtler, P. J.
Petitioners appealed to LUBA from the City of Philomath’s approval of a subdivision inside the city’s urban growth boundary. Petitioners contended that the subdivision does not comply with city land use regulations. The city moved to dismiss the appeal, contending that, under ORS 197.015(10)(b)(B), LUBA lacked jurisdiction. LUBA granted the motion. Petitioners seek review, and we reverse.
ORS 197.015(10)(a) defines “land use decisions” that come within LUBA’s jurisdiction under ORS 197.825(1). ORS 197.015(10) (b), as amended by Or Laws 1989, ch 761, § 1, provides that the term does not include…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Monaco v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1976
- Doughton v. Douglas CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
- Dennehy v. City of PortlandCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
3Cited by9 opinions
- Wicks-Snodgrass v. City of ReedsportCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
- State v. Vasquez-RubioCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995
- Benzinger v. Oregon Department of Insurance & FinanceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
- State v. BrustCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
- McKay Creek Valley Ass'n v. Washington CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.