land use claim in Oregon

2007In Meyer, we determined that the public participatory rights in a land use hearing on a residential subdivision, then required by Fasano v. Washington Co. Comm., 264 Or 574 , 507 P2d 23 (1973), were not undercut by conditioning final administrative approval of the subdivision on further technical studies on the individual building sites.

2007In Meyer, we determined that the public participatory rights in a land use hearing on a residential subdivision, then required by Fasano v. Washington Co. Comm., 264 Or 574 , 507 P2d 23 (1973), were not undercut by conditioning final administrative approval of the subdivision on further technical studies on the individual building sites.

2023As noted Cite as 327 Or App 6 (2023) 19 above, the legislature did exempt the amendments from the ordinary post-acknowledgment plan amendment statute, ORS 197.646.

2023As noted Cite as 327 Or App 6 (2023) 19 above, the legislature did exempt the amendments from the ordinary post-acknowledgment plan amendment statute, ORS 197.646.

2022Cite as 318 Or App 617 (2022) 639 Next, we briefly address petitioner’s third and fourth assignments of error.

2014Given that we discern the meaning of the statutory provision in the context of “other parts of the statute at issue,” Force v. Dept. of Rev., 350 Or 179, 188 , 252 P3d 306 (2011), the meaning of a “required” notice of a land use hearing under former ORS 197.830(4)(b) (as enacted by section 12 of HB 2288) is likely to be the new and specific requirements for prehearing notice of a quasi-judicial land use hearing under ORS 197.763 (as enacted by section 10a of HB 2288).

2014Given that we discern the meaning of the statutory provision in the context of “other parts of the statute at issue,” Force v. Dept. of Rev., 350 Or 179, 188 , 252 P3d 306 (2011), the meaning of a “required” notice of a land use hearing under former ORS 197.830(4)(b) (as enacted by section 12 of HB 2288) is likely to be the new and specific requirements for prehearing notice of a quasi-judicial land use hearing under ORS 197.763 (as enacted by section 10a of HB 2288).

1997However, the land use claim was bifurcated and consolidated for trial with another case and, thus, is not at issue in this appeal. 2 The court, after specifically finding plaintiffs’ witnesses to be credible, found that the composting operation “substantially and unreasonably interfered] with these plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their properties.” 3 The judgment provided that, in addition to the 12-month “grace period,” it would automatically be stayed in the event of an appeal. 4 The District also argues that plaintiffs failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence of a nuisance and that,

1997However, the land use claim was bifurcated and consolidated for trial with another case and, thus, is not at issue in this appeal. 2 The court, after specifically finding plaintiffs’ witnesses to be credible, found that the composting operation “substantially and unreasonably interfered] with these plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their properties.” 3 The judgment provided that, in addition to the 12-month “grace period,” it would automatically be stayed in the event of an appeal. 4 The District also argues that plaintiffs failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence of a nuisance and that,

1997However, the land use claim was bifurcated and consolidated for trial with another case and, thus, is not at issue in this appeal. 2 The court, after specifically finding plaintiffs’ witnesses to be credible, found that the composting operation “substantially and unreasonably interfered] with these plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their properties.” 3 The judgment provided that, in addition to the 12-month “grace period,” it would automatically be stayed in the event of an appeal. 4 The District also argues that plaintiffs failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence of a nuisance and that,

1997However, the land use claim was bifurcated and consolidated for trial with another case and, thus, is not at issue in this appeal. 2 The court, after specifically finding plaintiffs’ witnesses to be credible, found that the composting operation “substantially and unreasonably interfered] with these plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their properties.” 3 The judgment provided that, in addition to the 12-month “grace period,” it would automatically be stayed in the event of an appeal. 4 The District also argues that plaintiffs failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence of a nuisance and that,

1997However, the land use claim was bifurcated and consolidated for trial with another case and, thus, is not at issue in this appeal. 2 The court, after specifically finding plaintiffs’ witnesses to be credible, found that the composting operation “substantially and unreasonably interfered] with these plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their properties.” 3 The judgment provided that, in addition to the 12-month “grace period,” it would automatically be stayed in the event of an appeal. 4 The District also argues that plaintiffs failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence of a nuisance and that,

1997However, the land use claim was bifurcated and consolidated for trial with another case and, thus, is not at issue in this appeal. 2 The court, after specifically finding plaintiffs’ witnesses to be credible, found that the composting operation “substantially and unreasonably interfered] with these plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their properties.” 3 The judgment provided that, in addition to the 12-month “grace period,” it would automatically be stayed in the event of an appeal. 4 The District also argues that plaintiffs failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence of a nuisance and that,