Appeals

Click on the links to the right to review appeals by LandWatch Lane County.

Cases LandWatch won or lost are highlighted in green or red, respectively.

LUBA Nos. 2024-047/048/049
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Eymann Farms)
Petitioner did not file a petition for review.
Dismissed 5/7/25

Oregon Supreme Court No. S071646
Oregon Court of Appeals No. A184977
LUBA No. 2024-019
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Kim O’Dea)
Petition for review denied 4/10/25

Oregon Court of Appeals No. A184977
LUBA No. 2024-019
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Kim O’Dea)
Petitioner LandWatch Lane County seeks judicial review of a final order of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). In that order, LUBA dismissed petitioner’s challenge to Lane County’s (the county) 2015 approval of intervenor-respondent’s application for a forest template dwelling. LUBA concluded that the relevant law, House Bill (HB) 3362(4)(1)(b) (2023), which allows for such a challenge when the approval is based on forged documents, was unambiguous and, as written, did not apply to allow the challenge to the 2015 approval. LUBA reasoned that the 2015 approval itself was not “based on” forged deeds or documents, which in its view, precluded LUBA’s jurisdiction under the bill. Petitioner contends that LUBA erred because, in its view, the phrase “based on” is ambiguous, and the legislative history resolves that ambiguity in its favor, making the bill applicable to the challenge at issue here.
On petition, reversed and remanded 12/4/24

LUBA No. 2024-019
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Kim O’Dea)
Petitioner appeals a 2015 county planning director decision approving a forest template dwelling on property zoned Impacted Forest Lands (F-2).
Dismissed 7/10/24

LUBA No. 2024-019
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Kim O’Dea)
Petitioner requests that this appeal be dismissed.
Dismissed 5/23/24

Oregon Court of Appeals No. A185824
LUBA No. 2024-024
Mike Leckie v. Lane County (and LandWatch Lane County)
Petitioner seeks judicial review of an order of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). In that order, LUBA affirmed Lane County’s denial of petitioner’s request for legal lot verification. Petitioner raises two assignments of error, presented in the alternative. First, petitioner asserts that LUBA’s decision was unlawful in substance because the parcel established in 1912 as lot 27, which shares acreage with part of petitioner’s current property, remains a lawfully established unit of land. Second, and alternatively, petitioner asserts that, even if the subject property had ceased to be a lawfully established unit of land, LUBA erred in finding that a subsequent partition in 1993 made by petitioner’s neighbor did not functionally re-create historical Lot 27.
Affirmed 3/12/25

LUBA No. 2024-024
Mike Leckie v. Lane County (and LandWatch Lane County)
Petitioner appeals a hearings officer decision concluding that petitioner’s property is not a lawfully established unit of land.
Affirmed 10/10/24

Oregon Court of Appeals No. A184932
LUBA No. 2024-017
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Kim O’Dea)
Seeking to have intervenor-respondent’s legal lot verifications again set aside, petitioner Landwatch invoked HB 3362(4)(1)(a) to challenge them before LUBA. Landwatch alleged that the verifications were based “on deeds or documents that were forged” and should be invalidated for that reason. LUBA dismissed, reasoning that the provision did not apply because the verification decisions were not decisions under ORS 92.176. Petitioner seeks review of that decision, contending that, notwithstanding the fact that the verification decisions at issue are, undisputedly, not decisions under ORS 92.176, we should nonetheless conclude, based on the legislative history of the statute, that HB 3362(4)(1)(a) authorized its challenge to the legal lot verifications at issue. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that is not permissible for us to do so and, therefore, affirm LUBA’s decision.
On petition, affirmed 10/23/24

LUBA No. 2024-017
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Kim O’Dea)
Petitioner appeals a county planning director decision approving a final legal lot verification.
Dismissed 7/2/24

Oregon Court of Appeals No. A184345
LUBA No. 2023-087
Ferguson Creek Investment, LLC v. Lane County (and LandWatch Lane County)
As described below, we agree with petitioner LandWatch Lane County that LUBA misconstrued the 20-year-look-back provision in ORS 215.130(11) and, accordingly, reverse and remand.
Reversed and remanded 10/2/24

LUBA No. 2023-087
Ferguson Creek Investment, LLC v. Lane County (and LandWatch Lane County)
Petitioner appeals a hearings official’s decision denying an application for nonconforming use verification of a dwelling on an 82-acre property zoned Exclusive Farm Use-40 (EFU-40).
Remanded 4/29/24

LUBA No. 2024-018
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Kim O’Dea, Cody Johnson & Elysia Johnson)
Petitioner requests that this appeal be dismissed.
Dismissed 5/3/24

LUBA No. 2024-016
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Kim O’Dea, Cody Johnson & Elysia Johnson)
Petitioner requests that this appeal be dismissed.
Dismissed 5/3/24

Oregon Supreme Court No. S070914
Oregon Court of Appeals No. A182319
LUBA No. 2023-037
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Kim Helsel)
Petition for review denied 5/2/24

Oregon Court of Appeals No. A182319
LUBA No. 2023-037
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Kim Helsel)
Petitioner seeks judicial review of a final opinion and order issued by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Petitioner challenges LUBA’s determination that ORS 197.307(4) applied only to housing development on land within an urban growth boundary, and, therefore, that it did not apply to petitioner’s application to build a relative farm help dwelling on land zoned for exclusive farm use (EFU). As a result, according to LUBA, petitioner was not relieved from compliance with county requirements for building a relative farm help dwelling. Based on the statute’s text, context, and legislative history, we hold that ORS 197.307(4) applied only to housing development on land within an urban growth boundary.
On petition, affirmed 1/31/24

LUBA No. 2023-037
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Kim Helsel)
Petitioner appeals a decision by the county hearings officer approving an application for a relative farm help dwelling on land zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU).
Remanded 8/29/23

Oregon Court of Appeals No. A180799
LUBA Nos. 2022-066/067
Cody & Elysia Johnson / Kimberly & John O’Dea, Bernard Perkins, Theresa Iverson-Perkins (and Thomas & Shealene Vogel) v. Lane County (and LandWatch Lane County, 1000 Friends of Oregon)
Petitioners seek review of a final order of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) that reversed Lane County’s revocation of a legal lot verification (LLV) that the county had approved ten years earlier. The county approved the LLV application in 2012, followed by a number of property line adjustments and forest template dwelling approvals. In 2022, the county revoked the 2012 LLV under Lane Code (LC) 14.090(8)(a)(iv) because it concluded that the LLV had been obtained by false or misleading information. A county hearings official upheld the revocation. LUBA reversed the hearings official and, thus, the county’s decision to revoke the LLV, concluding that because the revocation occurred more than ten years after the LLV was approved, the revocation violated the statutory preference for finality in land use decisions. Lane County did not seek judicial review of LUBA’s final order. Petitioners LandWatch and 1000 Friends of Oregon sought review of LUBA’s final order arguing that the revocation was a permissible direct attack on the LLV, similar to an enforcement proceeding. They argued that the deeds submitted with the LLV application in 2011-2012 were fraudulent and that the county’s interest in combating fraud in the land use application process outweighs the state’s interest in the finality of land use decisions. Held: LUBA was statutorily bound to enforce and prioritize finality as it applied land use law to the facts before it. The county’s decision to revoke the LLV was inconsistent with, and worked against, finality. LUBA’s conclusion that the revocation proceeding was an improper attack on the LLV because the issue raised in 2022 could have been raised and addressed in the 2012 LLV proceeding was not unlawful in substance.
Affirmed 8/16/23

LUBA Nos. 2022-066/067
Cody & Elysia Johnson / Kimberly & John O’Dea, Bernard Perkins, Theresa Iverson-Perkins (and Thomas & Shealene Vogel) v. Lane County (and LandWatch Lane County, 1000 Friends of Oregon)
Petitioners appeal a hearings official decision affirming a planning director revocation of a legal lot verification (LLV) and seven subsequent land use decisions.
Reversed 2/13/23

LUBA No. 2022-099
Ferguson Creek Investment, LLC v. Lane County (and LandWatch Lane County)
Petitioner appeals a hearings officer’s decision denying a request for verification of the nonconforming use status of a structure as a dwelling.
Remanded 6/9/23

LUBA No. 2022-095
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Matthew & Alyssia Urness)
Petitioner appeals a hearings officer decision approving an application for a legal lot verification.
Affirmed 3/10/23

LUBA No. 2021-102
Old Hazeldell Quarry, LLC v. Lane County (and Save TV Butte, Linda McMahon, Tim Caughlin, Keegan & Jenny Caughlin, Kevin Matthews, Michael Garvin, Patricia Beard, Cascadia Wildlands, LandWatch Lane County)
Petitioner appeals a board of county commissioners decision denying its applications to (1) amend the county’s comprehensive plan inventory of significant aggregate resources to add 46 acres to the inventory; (2) adopt comprehensive plan and zone map amendments to redesignate 107 acres from Forest to Natural Resource: Mineral (NR:M), and rezone the same 107 acres from Impacted Forest (F-2) and Non-Impacted Forest (F-l) to Quarry and Mine Operations Zone/Rural Comprehensive Plan (QM/RCP), and (3) approve a site plan for a quarry to mine and process aggregate on a portion of the 183-acre property.
Affirmed 2/21/23

Oregon Court of Appeals No. A179203
LUBA No. 2021-102
Old Hazeldell Quarry, LLC v. Lane County (and Save TV Butte, Linda McMahon, Tim Caughlin, Keegan & Jenny Caughlin, Kevin Matthews, Michael Garvin, Patricia Beard, Cascadia Wildlands, LandWatch Lane County)
Intervenors Save TV Butte et al seek review of an order of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), arguing that LUBA incorrectly reversed a decision of the Board of County Commissioners for Lane County (the county) that denied applicant’s application for a comprehensive plan amendment, adoption of comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments, and approval of a site plan for a quarry. In a cross-petition, applicant contends that LUBA incorrectly denied, in part, its motion to take evidence outside the record.
On petition, reversed and remanded; on cross-petition, affirmed 12/7/22

LUBA No. 2021-102
Old Hazeldell Quarry, LLC v. Lane County (and Save TV Butte, Linda McMahon, Tim Caughlin, Keegan & Jenny Caughlin, Kevin Matthews, Michael Garvin, Patricia Beard, Cascadia Wildlands, LandWatch Lane County)
Petitioner appeals a board of county commissioners decision that denies its applications to (1) amend the county’s comprehensive plan inventory of significant aggregate resources to add 46 acres to the inventory; (2) adopt comprehensive plan and zone map amendments to redesignate 107 acres from Forest to Natural Resource: Mineral (NR:M), and rezone the same 107 acres from Impacted Forest (F-2) and Non-Impacted Forest (F-l) to Quarry and Mine Operations Zone/Rural Comprehensive Plan (QM/RCP), and (3) approve a site plan for a quarry to mine and process aggregate on a portion of the 183-acre property. LandWatch Lane County, et al., move to intervene on the side of the county.
Remanded 7/18/22

LUBA No. 2021-117
Jeffrey Hendrickson v. Lane County (and LandWatch Lane County)
Petitioner has moved for an award of attorney fees in the amount of $31,540.00. The county filed a response stating that the county has no objection.
Attorney fees granted, in part 8/18/22

LUBA No. 2022-038
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Tranquill Lands, LLC)
Petitioner appeals a county hearing officers approval of a tentative partition plan to replat an 80-acre area of land.
Remanded 8/8/22

LUBA No. 2022-006
Peter Sikora v. Lane County (and LandWatch Lane County)
Petitioner appeals a county hearings officer’s decision denying their request for legal lot verification. LandWatch Lane County moves to intervene on the side of the county.
Affirmed 7/27/22

LUBA Nos. 2021-099/100
Christian Futures Inc. v. Lane County (and LandWatch Lane County)
In these consolidated appeals, petitioner appeals two hearings officer decisions reversing two planning director decisions that concluded that property includes two lawfully established units of land. LandWatch Lane County moves to intervene on the side of the county.
Affirmed 6/23/22

LUBA No. 2021-117
Jeffrey Hendrickson v. Lane County (and LandWatch Lane County)
Petitioner appeals a county hearings official decision denying their application for a temporary hardship dwelling. LandWatch Lane County moves to intervene on the side of the county.
Reversed 4/11/22

LUBA No. 2021-053
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (re Ray Family Trust)
Petitioner appeals a county hearings officer decision approving a temporary hardship dwelling.
Remanded 11/9/21

LUBA Nos. 2021-047/052
Edward J. King / E.J.K. Investments v. Lane County (and LandWatch Lane County)
In these consolidated appeals, petitioners appeal two hearings officer decisions denying applications for forest template dwellings. LandWatch Lane County moves to intervene on the side of the county.
Affirmed 10/15/21

LUBA No. 2021-031
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Jaqua Joint Trust)
Petitioner requests that this appeal be dismissed.
Dismissed 5/11/21

LUBA No. 2021-010
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (re Culwells)
Petitioner appeals a hearings officer decision verifying as a legal lot a unit of land created by deed in 1951.
Affirmed 5/10/21

LUBA No. 2020-085
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Stephen Ford)
Petitioner appeals a hearings officer’s decision verifying two parcels as legal lots.
Affirmed 4/29/21

LUBA Nos. 2020-046/047/048/049
McDougal Brothers Inc., Melvin McDougal, Leelynn Inc., McDougal Brothers Investments v. Lane County (and LandWatch Lane County)
In these consolidated appeals, petitioners challenge four county hearings official decisions denying four forest template dwelling applications. LandWatch Lane County moves to intervene on the side of the county. Intervenor moves to dismiss these appeals, arguing that petitioners failed to exhaust all remedies available by right prior to appealing to LUBA.
Dismissed 4/13/21

LUBA No. 2020-079
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Eric Smith)
Petitioner challenges a county hearings official decision approving a forest template dwelling.
Affirmed 3/26/21

LUBA No. 2020-104
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Nathan Large)
Petitioner appeals a county hearings officer’s approval of a primary farm dwelling on property zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and Natural Resource (NR).
Remanded 3/19/21

LUBA No. 2020-098
Tim Beach, Trustee of Harvey Family Trust v. Lane County (and LandWatch Lane County)
LandWatch Lane County moves to intervene on the side of the county. Petitioner requests that this appeal be dismissed.
Dismissed 2/2/21

LUBA No. 2020-086
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County
Petitioner appeals a county hearings officer decision verifying a legal lot and approving a property line adjustment.
Affirmed 1/25/21

LUBA No. 2020-030
LandWatch Lane County (and 1000 Friends of Oregon) v. Lane County (and Nimpkish LLC)
Petitioner appeals a decision by a hearings officer approving an application for a forest template dwelling.
Remanded 1/21/21

LUBA No. 2020-072
Robert Russell v. Lane County (and LandWatch Lane County)
Petitioner appeals a hearings officer decision denying petitioner’s forest template dwelling application. LandWatch Lane County moves to intervene on the side of the county.
Affirmed 1/8/21

LUBA No. 2020-070
Clinton Matthews v. Lane County (and LandWatch Lane County)
Petitioner challenges a county hearings official denial of petitioner’s application for modification of a nonfarm dwelling approval to enlarge the home site. LandWatch Lane County moves to intervene on the side of the county.
Remanded 11/13/20

LUBA No. 2020-041
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Karin & Jim Fallon)
Petitioner appeals a decision by the hearings officer approving an application for a large tract forest dwelling.
Remanded 10/20/20

LUBA No. 2019-131
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and McDougal Brothers Investments)
Petitioner appeals a county hearings officer’s decision approving a forest template dwelling.
Remanded 5/26/20

LUBA No. 2019-128
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and ATR Services Inc.)
Petitioner appeals a county ordinance that adopts text amendments to county code provisions governing land use applications and appeals.
Remanded 4/20/20

LUBA No. 2019-044
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Duane & Tonya Doughty)
Petitioner challenges a board of county commissioners’ approval of a replacement dwelling in an exclusive farm use zone.
Reversed 10/15/19

LUBA No. 2019-030
Lee & Kathy Klein, Dennis & Luann Kloehn, LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Oregon Country Fair)
Petitioners challenge a board of county commissioners’ approval of a special use permit authorizing park and campground uses on property zoned Rural Residential (RR) and Impacted Forest (F-2).
Affirmed 9/6/19

LUBA No. 2019-024
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Jim Belknap)
Petitioner appeals Ordinance No. 18-08, which amends several provisions of the county’s zoning code.
Remanded 8/19/19

LUBA No. 2019-048
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Larry Martinez)
Petitioner appeals a board of county commissioners’ decision amending the comprehensive plan designation of a 54-acre property from Forest Land to Marginal Land and changing the property’s zoning from Impacted Forest Lands (F-2) to Marginal Land (ML).
Remanded 8/9/19

Oregon Supreme Court No. S066807
Oregon Court of Appeals No. A170207
LUBA No. 2018-077
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Diane Kasle)
Petition for review denied 7/18/19

Oregon Court of Appeals No. A170207
LUBA No. 2018-077
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Diane Kasle)
Affirmed without opinion 5/8/19

LUBA No. 2018-077
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Diane Kasle)
Petitioner appeals a decision by the hearings officer approving a forest template dwelling.
Affirmed 2/6/19

LUBA No. 2018-134
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Norman McDougal)
Petitioner appeals a decision by the county approving a partition of land zoned Non-Impact Forest (F-1).
Reversed 7/17/19

LUBA No. 2018-148
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Jim Belknap)
Because a petition for review was not filed within the time required by LUBA rules, LUBA dismissed this appeal.
Dismissed 6/6/19

Oregon Supreme Court No. S065917
Oregon Court of Appeals No. A166333
LUBA No. 2017-056
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Kay King)
Landowner received county approval to replace certain dwellings on exclusive farm use-zoned land under Oregon Laws 2013, chapter 462, section 2. LandWatch appealed that decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals, which held that that statute did not apply to landowner’s buildings because landowner had demolished them more than five years before she applied for the permits. Landowner obtained judicial review in the Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals reversed. Held: (1) Oregon Laws 2013, chapter 462, section 2(2) does not authorize replacement dwelling permits for dwelling that were destroyed or demolished more than five years before the permit application was filed; (2) landowner cannot obtain replacement permits under that subsection. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The final order of the Land Use Board of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded to the Board for further proceedings.
Reversed 4/25/19

Oregon Court of Appeals No. A166333
LUBA No. 2017-056
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Kay King)
Petitioner seeks judicial review of a final order of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), which reversed a decision by Lane County to issue three replacement-dwelling permits for former dwellings sited on land zoned for exclusive farm use. The county issued the permits pursuant to Oregon Laws 2013, chapter 462, section 2(b) (the 2013 Act), which allows the permitting authority to issue replacement-dwelling permits only if it finds that the former dwelling was taxed as a dwelling “for the lesser of” (A) the previous five property tax years “unless the value of the dwelling was eliminated as a result of the destruction, or demolition in the case of restoration, of the dwelling” or (B) the time when the dwelling was built “unless the value of the dwelling was eliminated as a result of the destruction, or demolition in the case of restoration, of the dwelling.” Petitioner assigns error to LUBA’s conclusion that the former dwellings, which were demolished in 1997, did not qualify for replacement-dwelling permits under the 2013 Act because they had not been taxed as dwellings in any of the five years preceding the permit applications. Held: LUBA’s order was unlawful in substance because its construction of the 2013 Act was in error. The two “unless” phrases in subparagraphs (2)(b)(A) and (B) of the 2013 Act had the effect of exempting destroyed or demolished buildings from the “lesser of” taxation requirement that otherwise applied.
Reversed and remanded 3/28/18

LUBA No. 2017-056
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Kay King)
Petitioner appeals a decision by the county approving applications for three replacement dwellings on land zoned exclusively farm use.
Reversed 10/24/17

LUBA No. 2018-093
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and ATR Services)
Petitioner appeals a county ordinance that adopts text amendments to county code provisions governing land use applications and appeals.
Remanded 1/31/19

LUBA No. 2018-078
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County
Petitioner appeals a county decision approving a forest template dwelling on land zoned impacted forest lands.
Affirmed 1/18/19

LUBA No. 2018-047
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Peggy Keppler)
Petitioner requests that this appeal be dismissed.
Dismissed 11/27/18

LUBA No. 2018-025
Norman McDougal v. Lane County (and LandWatch Lane County)
LandWatch Lane County moves to intervene on the side of the county. The Board has not received a refiled original notice of intent to appeal or an amended notice of intent to appeal.
Dismissed 11/26/18

LUBA No. 2018-098
Northwest Mineral Resources, LLC v. Lane County (and LandWatch Lane County)
LandWatch Lane County moves to intervene on the side of the county. Petitioner requests that this appeal be dismissed.
Dismissed 10/29/18

LUBA No. 2018-046
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and David Ziegler)
Petitioner appeals a hearings officer’s decision approving an art studio as an accessory structure to an existing dwelling on land zoned for forest uses.
Remanded 10/4/18

Oregon Court of Appeals No. A168168
LUBA No. 2017-125
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Amy & Trevor Harwood)
Affirmed without opinion 9/12/18

LUBA No. 2017-125
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Amy & Trevor Harwood)
Petitioner appeals a county board of commissioners’ decision approving a forest template dwelling and issuing final notice of a legal lot verification.
Affirmed 6/8/18

LUBA No. 2018-013
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and McDougal Brothers Investments)
Petitioner appeals a hearings officer’s decision verifying four parcels as legal lots.
Remanded 9/10/18

LUBA No. 2018-026
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Yu Ying Lin Living Trust)
Petitioner requests that this appeal be dismissed.
Dismissed 8/9/18

Oregon Court of Appeals No. A167264
LUBA No. 2017-077
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and McDougal Foundation Inc.)
Affirmed without opinion 6/13/18

LUBA No. 2017-077
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and McDougal Foundation Inc.)
Petitioner appeals a decision by the board of county commissioners concluding that an applicant has a vested right to construct a girls’ dormitory building at an existing school that is a nonconforming use.
Affirmed 2/26/18

LUBA No. 2017-115
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Weyerhaeuser Company)
Petitioner appeals a decision by the board of county commissioners approving an application to amend the county’s comprehensive plan to redesignate property from Forest to Natural Resource: Mineral, and rezone it from Nonimpacted Forest Land to Quarry and Mine Operations.
Affirmed 6/7/18

LUBA No. 2017-114
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Bill Sproul)
Petitioner appeals a decision determining that a 33-acre property is non-resource land and approving a concurrent comprehensive plan designation and zoning map amendment to allow rural residential development.
Affirmed 5/8/18

Oregon Court of Appeals No. A159121
LandWatch Lane County v. Land Conservation and Development Commission
This case concerns whether the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) erred in determining that there was not “good cause to proceed” to an enforcement hearing that petitioner had demanded against Lane County. See ORS 197.324(2)(b). The question on review is whether petitioner presented evidence of a “pattern of decision making” sufficient to obligate the commission to determine that there was “good cause to proceed” to an enforcement hearing. See OAR 660-045-0020(9), (10). Held: LCDC’s order was not unlawful in substance and was supported by substantial evidence in the whole record.
Affirmed 3/7/18

LUBA No. 2017-096
James & Nancy Wolcott, Josh Petersen, Rollie Keeney v. Lane County (and LandWatch Lane County)
Petitioners appeal a county decision denying their application for a forest template dwelling. LandWatch Lane County moves to intervene on the side of the county.
Affirmed 2/6/18

Oregon Court of Appeals No. A166298
LUBA No. 2017-043
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (re Oak Hill School)
Affirmed without opinion 1/24/18

LUBA No. 2017-043
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (re Oak Hill School)
Petitioner appeals a county decision that approves Oak Hill School’s request for approval to expand two existing school buildings.
Reversed 10/16/17

LUBA No. 2016-124
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Alison & Charles Farver)
Petitioner appeals a county board of commissioners’ order affirming and adopting a hearings official decision that verified four parcels as legal lots.
Affirmed 6/29/17

LUBA No. 2016-129
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Swanson Bros. Lumber Co. Inc.)
Petitioner requests that this appeal be dismissed.
Dismissed 6/5/17

LUBA No. 2016-106
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Jeannie Marr)
Petitioner appeals a county governing body’s decision approving a zone change from F-1 (Non-Impacted Forestland) to F-2 (Impacted Forestland).
Affirmed 5/2/17

LUBA No. 2016-115
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Julius & Justine Benedick)
Petitioner appeals a board of county commissioners’ decision amending the comprehensive plan designation of a 110.5-acre property from Agricultural to Marginal Land, and rezoning the property from Exclusive Farm Use (E-40) to Marginal Land.
Affirmed 4/17/17

LUBA No. 2016-109
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Weyerhaeuser NR Company)
Petitioner requests that this appeal be dismissed.
Dismissed 4/12/17

LUBA No. 2016-082
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Terry & Linda Sayre)
Petitioner appeals a decision by the county approving a forest template dwelling.
Affirmed 2/15/17

LUBA No. 2016-067
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and David J. Smejkal)
Petitioner requests that this appeal be dismissed.
Dismissed 9/29/16

LUBA No. 2016-038
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and McDougal Foundation Inc.)
Petitioner appeals a board of county commissioners’ decision concluding that a 2005 permit approving three buildings for a school has not expired.
Remanded 9/16/16

LUBA Nos. 2016-003/004
LandWatch Lane County, Lee D. Kersten v. Lane County, City of Coburg (and Interstate Properties Inc.)
Petitioners appeal two county ordinances that amend a county rural comprehensive plan and co-adopt city comprehensive plan amendments to the city’s transportation system plan and urban growth boundary.
Remanded 8/1/16

LUBA No. 2016-019
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Jordan & Margaret Iverson)
Petitioner appeals a county decision that approves a comprehensive plan map amendment to redesignate land from Agricultural to Marginal Land, and rezone that land from Exclusive Farm Use (E-40) to Marginal Land with Site Review (ML/SR).
Remanded 6/13/16

LUBA No. 2015-045
Andrew Head v. Lane County (and Rindy & Cody Spicer, Timothy & Karrely Payne, Jan B. Hall, Steve & Valerie Dillon, Tracy Engholm, John & Laura McCallum, Daniel Walter, Heather Redwine-Walter, LandWatch Lane County)
Petitioner appeals a decision by the board of county commissioners denying an application for a home occupation permit for an event venue. LandWatch Lane County, et al., move to intervene on the side of the county.
Affirmed 12/3/15

LUBA No. 2015-031
Nena Lovinger v. Lane County (and McKenzie River Golf Course Inc., Rod & Sara Omlid)
Petitioners request that this appeal be dismissed.
Dismissed 6/29/15

LUBA No. 2015-007
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County
The parties request that the decision challenged in this appeal be remanded. Accordingly, the decision is remanded. The parties further stipulate that the petitioner is the prevailing party in this appeal. Petitioner is awarded the cost of the filing fee, in the amount of $200, to be paid by respondent. The Board shall return petitioner’s $200 deposit for costs.
Remanded 5/5/15

LUBA No. 2014-070
LandWatch Lane County, Robert Emmons v. Lane County (and Travis Bamford)
Petitioners appeal a county decision approving intervenor’s application for special use permit approval for a nonfarm dwelling on land zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU).
Affirmed 11/12/14

LUBA No. 2013-060
LandWatch Lane County, Jim Weaver, Jim Evonuk, Bob Emmons v. Lane County
Petitioners request that this appeal be dismissed.
Dismissed 9/3/14

LUBA No. 2013-058
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (re Goshen)
Petitioner appeals a county ordinance taking a reasons exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 (Urbanization) to allow urban levels of industrial development on existing rural industrials lands in the unincorporated community of Goshen.
Remanded 2/20/14

LUBA No. 2013-096
Mona Linstromberg, LandWatch Lane County, Carol Van Strum, Linda Johnston, Charlotte Mills, Ed Dyess, Bob Emmons, Grant Windom v. Lane County
Petitioners appeal a special use permit for a private park and campground in a forest zone.
Reversed 2/13/14

LUBA No. 2013-107
Goal One Coalition, LandWatch Lane County, Bob Emmons v. Lane County (and Seuss Co.)
Petitioner requests that this appeal be dismissed.
Dismissed 12/18/13

LCDC
Lane County Citizen-Initiated Request for Enforcement
The commission will consider a request by LandWatch Lane County for an enforcement order under ORS 197.319 to 197.335 requiring Lane County to comply with statutory and zoning ordinance deadlines for making land use decisions. Testimony will be limited to the petitioner and the county.
3/21/13

U.S. District Court District of Oregon No. 6:2012cv00958
LandWatch Lane County v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development (and City of Veneta)
Plaintiff filed suit against defendants United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development (USDA) alleging violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) arising from defendants’ funding and approval of a water pipeline project undertaken by the City of Veneta. Plaintiff and defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and amicus curiae City of Veneta filed a brief in support of defendants’s motion. I find that plaintiff fails to establish standing to pursue this action, and defendants’ motion for summary judgement is granted.
Denied 10/19/12

Oregon Court of Appeals No. A147405
Lane County Circuit Court No. 161009774
John Brown, Bob Cassidy, Rich Cunningham, Joann Ernst, Ron Farmer, as Commissioners of the Eugene Water & Electric Board v. City of Eugene (and Friends of Eugene, LandWatch Lane County, Kevin Matthews, Ashley Miller, Charles Biggs)
The Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) sought judicial validation of a contract under which it agreed to sell water to the City of Veneta. Other interested parties intervened in the proceeding, including the City of Eugene. Intervenors argued that EWEB lacked authority to enter into the contract because, under the Eugene Charter, “extension of water service” is subject to control by the Eugene City Council, which has not approved the sale at issue. EWEB argued that the charter’s grant of control over extension of water service does not include wholesale sales like the one at issue in this case. The trial court entered a judgment validating the contract. Intervenors appeal, arguing that “water service” encompasses the wholesale provision of water to another entity, regardless of what entity distributes that water to end users. EWEB contends that “water service” refers only to EWEB’s direct provision of water to the ultimate users. Held: The Eugene Charter grants the city council control only over extensions of EWEB’s water service to end users, not over EWEB’s wholesale sale of water to other entities that, themselves, will distribute the water further. It follows that EWEB had authority to enter the Cite as 250 Or App 132 (2012) 133 contract with the City of Veneta without first obtaining approval from the Eugene City Council.
Affirmed 5/16/12

LUBA No. 2004-102
LandWatch Lane County, Robert Emmons, Norm Maxwell v. Lane County
Petitioner requests that this appeal be dismissed.
Dismissed 1/26/10

LUBA No. 2008-032
LandWatch Lane County, Jim Reed v. Lane County
Petitioners requests that this appeal be dismissed.
Dismissed 4/22/08

LUBA No. 2006-235
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (and Blue Mountain School, Wade & Betty Skinner)
Petitioner appeals a county ordinance amending its rural comprehensive plan and approving zone changes to nineteen properties, and adopting exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals 3 and 4 for two of the properties.
Affirmed 4/1/08

LUBA No. 2006-039
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County (re fee increases)
Petitioner appeals a county order that increases the fees that the Lane County Land Management Division charges for its planning, subsurface sanitation, surveyor and building permit activities.
Remanded 6/27/06