Fisher v. Colwell
| Decision Date | 23 April 1981 |
| Docket Number | Nos. LUBA,s. LUBA |
| Citation | 51 Or.App. 301,625 P.2d 1333 |
| Parties | Mildred FISHER, Norman Hobbs and Ann Hobbs, Petitioners, v. Russell M. COLWELL, Mildred Steinmetz, and Northwest District Association, Respondents. CITY OF PORTLAND, Petitioner, v. Russell M. COLWELL, Mildred Steinmetz and Northwest District Association, Respondents. 79-011; CA 17417, 17460. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Katherine H. O'Neil, Portland, argued the cause for petitioners Mildred Fisher, Norman Hobbs and Ann Hobbs. With her on the brief were Terry C. Hauck and Schwabe, Williamson, Wyatt, Moore & Roberts, Portland.
Ruth S. McKillip, Deputy City Atty., Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner City of Portland.
Edward J. Sullivan, Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Charles P. Duffy, Mark Whitlow and Duffy & Gibson, Portland.
Before RICHARDSON, P. J., and THORNTON and BUTTLER, JJ.
Petitioners appeal a decision of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), which reversed an order of the Portland City Council granting petitioners a revocable permit to maintain a business on their property contrary to applicable zoning ordinances. Petitioners challenge the jurisdiction of LUBA to review this particular order and LUBA's disposition of the case on the merits. We conclude LUBA lacked jurisdiction and reverse.
In October, 1976, petitioners Norman and Ann Hobbs (petitioners) purchased a house and property in Northwest Portland, from petitioner Mildred Fisher (Fisher). Prior to buying the property petitioners requested a report from an appraiser to determine whether applicable zoning ordinances would allow use of the property as an office for their travel agency. Petitioners did not, however, inquire of the local governmental body regarding zoning. The appraiser's report showed that the property was zoned C-2, commercial, which would allow the business purpose contemplated by petitioners. The property was also taxed as commercial. In fact, only a portion of the property was zoned commercial C-2, while the balance was zoned A-O, high density residential.
Petitioners opened their travel agency immediately after purchasing the property, and then remodeled and restored the building at an asserted cost of $80,000. Fisher and petitioners were unaware that the property was split-zoned until May or June of 1978, when they discovered the true zoning. Petitioners then sought a change of zone for the portion of the property zoned A-O to C-2. The petition was opposed by the Northwest District Association (NWDA), a citizens' group which is active in land use planning decisions concerning Portland's northwest sector.
The city's hearings officer recommended denial of the requested zone change, but also recommended that petitioners be granted a five-year revocable permit to occupy the property as a nonconforming use. The planning commission declined review, and the City Council adopted the hearings officer's recommendation. NWDA and others appealed the Council's decision to LUBA, which reversed the City's action for failure to apply the proper legal standard in granting a revocable permit.
The threshold question is whether LUBA had jurisdiction to review the City's decision. Petitioners contend the grant of a revocable permit did not concern the application of a comprehensive plan or a zoning ordinance which implements a comprehensive plan, and so LUBA did not have jurisdiction. NWDA contended, in the proceedings before LUBA, that the Northwest District Policy Plan adopted by the city was a comprehensive plan and that LUBA has jurisdiction to review land use decisions which applied that plan. 1 NWDA conceded in its brief and on oral argument that the Northwest District Policy Plan is not a comprehensive plan as defined in ORS 197.015(5). We agree. The association argues on appeal that all land use decisions of local governments are reviewable by LUBA.
We do not agree with NWDA's assessment of LUBA's jurisdiction. The statute does not give LUBA jurisdiction to review all land use decisions, but only those defined in the statute. Land use decisions over which LUBA has jurisdiction are defined in Or.Laws 1979, ch. 772, § 3:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Pendleton v. Kerns
...ch. 772, because Pendleton did not have an acknowledged comprehensive plan when this case was before LUBA, citing Fisher v. Colwell, 51 Or.App. 301, 625 P.2d 1333 (1981). In that case, we held that LUBA did not have jurisdiction to review a city's decision to grant a zoning permit. We point......
-
Bryant v. Clackamas County, s. 81-031
...subdivision or other ordinance that implements a comprehensive plan: " * * *." This argument before LUBA was based on Fisher v. Colwell, 41 Or .App. 301, 625 P.2d 1333, rev. den. 291 Or. 117 (1981), in which we held that, in the absence of a comprehensive plan, LUBA lacked jurisdiction to r......
-
Montmore Homeowners Ass'n v. Brydon
...that a local decision is reviewable by LUBA only if it concerns the adoption, amendment or application of state-wide goals." 51 Or.App. at 305, 625 P.2d 1333. In Fisher, "(n)either the petition for review * * * nor any contention presented by the parties in the proceedings before LUBA conce......
-
Solberg v. City of Newberg, 81-049
...implements a comprehensive plan * * *." The city's action here is analogous to the action by the city of Portland in Fisher v. Colwell, 51 Or.App. 301, 625 P.2d 1333, rev. den. 291 Or. 117 (1981), where we held that LUBA lacked jurisdiction under section 3(1)(a)(A) in the absence of any all......