Legal Opinion

Holland v. City of Cannon Beach

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 27, 1995No. 95-049; CA A90660PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDeits, P. J.

Petitioner seeks review of LUBA’s affirmance of the City of Cannon Beach’s denial of his subdivision application. Petitioner’s principal argument is that the city violated ORS 227.173 and erred in other respects by basing its decision on policies in its comprehensive plan rather than standards and criteria set forth in its “development ordinance.” LUBA rejected that argument and the others that petitioner made to it.

Petitioner argues to us, but did not contend to LUBA, that the city’s use of the plan policies violates ORS 197.195(1). That statute provides:

“A ‘limited land use decision’ shall…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State v. HitzOregon Supreme Court · 1988

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. VanSpeybroeck v. Tillamook CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  2. Recovery House VI v. City of EugeneCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
  3. Holland v. City of Cannon BeachOregon Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Holland v. City of Cannon BeachCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API