Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.828
Board review of limited land use decision
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
197.828 Board review of limited land use decision. (1) The Land Use Board of Appeals shall either reverse, remand or affirm a limited land use decision on review.
(2) The board shall reverse or remand a limited land use decision if:
(a) The decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The existence of evidence in the record supporting a different decision shall not be grounds for reversal or remand if there is evidence in the record to support the final decision;
(b) The decision does not comply with applicable provisions of the land use regulations;
(c) The decision is:
(A) Outside the scope of authority of the decision maker; or
(B) Unconstitutional; or
(d) The local government committed a procedural error which prejudiced the substantial rights of the petitioner. [1991 c.817 §2]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2023 · leading case: Beck v. City of Tillamook
Beck v. City of Tillamook (1992)
“830(14), the board shall decide all issues presented to it when reversing or remanding a land use decision described in subsections (2) to (7) of this section or limited land use decision described in ORS 197.828 and 197.195. “(b) Whenever the findings are defective because of…”
Reinert v. Clackamas County (2017)
“See ORS 197.828(2)(a) (requiring the board to reverse or remand a limited land use decision, such as a subdivision approval, if the decision is not supported by “substantial evidence in the record”).”
Friends of Marion County v. Marion County (2010)
“However, because the parties accept the proposition that “the Goal 2 requirement for an adequate factual base is equivalent to the requirement for substantial evidence in the whole record,” and petitioners clearly preserved their claim that LUBA’s decision was not supported by…”
Holland v. City of Cannon Beach (1996)
“The only reason for doubt is that, in the statute relating to LUBA’s consideration of limited land use decisions, ORS 197.828, and *10 in the statutes pertaining to LUBA proceedings generally, the word “review” is used far more frequently than “appeal.”
Venable v. City of Albany (1997)
“Compare ORS 197.828 with ORS 197.835. More fundamentally, the very thing that makes the right to a hearing substantial is the opportunity for response, rebuttal and persuasion that it presents.”
Schwerdt v. City of Corvallis (1999)
“830(13), [LUBA] shall decide all issues presented to it when reversing or remanding a land use decision described in subsections (2) to (9) of this section or limited land use decision described in ORS 197.828 and 197.195.” But see Hendgen v.”
Willamette Oaks, LLC v. City of Eugene (2011)
“See ORS 197.828(2)(d) (directs LUBA to reverse or remand a limited land use decision if "[t]he local government committed a procedural error which prejudiced the substantial rights of the petitioner"); ORS 197.”
Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District v. City of Beaverton (1995)
“The essence of the city’s arguments is that its decisions were limited land use decisions and, under the limited bases for the review of such decisions, see ORS 197.828, none of Tri-Met’s arguments can warrant reversal.”
Backer v. City of Salem (2023)
“The existence of evidence in the record supporting a different decision shall not be grounds for reversal or remand if there is evidence in the record to sup- port the final decision[.”
Southcentral Ass'n of Neighbors v. City of Salem (2015)
“” ORS 197.828(2)(b). In making that determination, LUBA does not defer to the hearings officer’s interpretation of the local ordinance.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.828(2) — 1 case
Backer v. City of Salem (2023)
“The existence of evidence in the record supporting a different decision shall not be grounds for reversal or remand if there is evidence in the record to sup- port the final decision[.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.828(2)(a) — 2 cases
Reinert v. Clackamas County (2017)
“See ORS 197.828(2)(a) (requiring the board to reverse or remand a limited land use decision, such as a subdivision approval, if the decision is not supported by “substantial evidence in the record”).”
Backer v. City of Salem (2023)
“The existence of evidence in the record supporting a different decision shall not be grounds for reversal or remand if there is evidence in the record to sup- port the final decision[.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.828(2)(b) — 3 cases
Reinert v. Clackamas County (2017)
“See ORS 197.828(2)(a) (requiring the board to reverse or remand a limited land use decision, such as a subdivision approval, if the decision is not supported by “substantial evidence in the record”).”
Venable v. City of Albany (1997)
“Compare ORS 197.828 with ORS 197.835. More fundamentally, the very thing that makes the right to a hearing substantial is the opportunity for response, rebuttal and persuasion that it presents.”
Southcentral Ass'n of Neighbors v. City of Salem (2015)
“” ORS 197.828(2)(b). In making that determination, LUBA does not defer to the hearings officer’s interpretation of the local ordinance.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.828(2)(d) — 2 cases
Willamette Oaks, LLC v. City of Eugene (2011)
“See ORS 197.828(2)(d) (directs LUBA to reverse or remand a limited land use decision if "[t]he local government committed a procedural error which prejudiced the substantial rights of the petitioner"); ORS 197.”
Venable v. City of Albany (1997)
“Compare ORS 197.828 with ORS 197.835. More fundamentally, the very thing that makes the right to a hearing substantial is the opportunity for response, rebuttal and persuasion that it presents.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.