Attorney John C Pinkstaff's Legal Cases

Land use and zoning

Gagnier v. City of Gladstone LUBA 38 Or LUBA 858 (2000)

Oct 20, 2000

OUTCOME: Reversal of city denial of building permit

After City approved variance for duplex, City denied building permit for duplex based on code amendment prohibiting duplexes in zone. Landowner appealed. Land Use Board of Appeals held state statute O ... RS 227.178(3) implicitly requires that a city apply a consistent set of standards to discretionary approval of proposed development of land and the construction of that development in accordance with discretionary approval. A city may not apply one set of standards to discretionary approval of proposed development of land and subsequently apply an amended standard to deny a building permit to construct the development in accordance with the discretionary permit.

Appeals

Stoloff v. City of Portland, 51 Or LUBA 560 (2006)

N/A

OUTCOME:

Whether revisions to a subdivision applications constitute substantial changes requiring a new application; and whether government’s power to condemn a sewer easement is adequate to support a finding t ... hat it is feasible to provide sewer service.

Appeals

King v. Washington County 42 Or LUBA 400 (2002)

N/A

OUTCOME:

Fact that small portion of EFU-zoned parcel can theoretically generate some farm income does not necessarily compel conclusion that property as a whole is suitable for farm use; and meeting the relevan ... t factor test for determining whether parcel is “generally unsuitable for farm use” as required for a nonfarm dwelling.

Appeals

Van Dyke v. Yamhill County, 35 OR LUBA 676(1999)

N/A

OUTCOME:

Issue preclusion under “raise it or waive it” statute: Failure of notice to list applicable state statutory provisions is not a violation of ORS 197.763(3)(b),and does not excuse petitioner from obliga ... tion to raise issue of compliance with those statutes during the local proceedings; and where record shows petitioner knew or should have known of existence and potential applicability of criteria in county ordinance and comprehensive plan that were omitted from notice of hearing, petitioner cannot raise new issues before LUBA regarding those criteria.

Appeals

Petersen v. Yamhill County, 33 Or LUBA 584 (1997)

N/A

OUTCOME:

For purposes of a template dwelling required by ORS 215.750(5) to be on a parcel that abuts a “road” the interpretation of local code is controlled by local legislative intent; and there was no implied ... road dedication where petitioner failed to establish the requirements that: (1) partition plat must include a dedication, and (2) parcels must have been sold with reference to partition plat containing the dedication.

Appeals

Department of Land Conservation and Development v. Yamhill County, 33 Or LUBA (1997); 151 Or App 367 (1997)

N/A

OUTCOME:

Statutory interpretation, based on the text, context and legislative history, allowed inter vivos transfer of property between certain specified family members without disqualifying the new owner from ... siting a lot of record dwelling under the statute.

Appeals

DeBates v. Yamhill County, 32 Or LUBA 276 (1997)

N/A

OUTCOME:

Under ORS 183.400 and ORS 215.304(3), LCDC rule in OAR 660-33-020(4) cannot be interpreted to prohibit what the statute otherwise allows.

Appeals

1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC and Yamhill County, 139 Or App 485 (1996)

N/A

OUTCOME:

County’s minimum parcel size requirements did not violate rule governing parcel sizes in forestry zones.

Appeals

Tides Association of Unit Owners v. City Council of City of Seaside, 92 Or App 446 (1993)

N/A

OUTCOME:

A 1921 City ordinance which prohibited the erection of any building or structure on beach also prohibited city from erecting restroom facilities on the beach.

John C Pinkstaff's Legal Cases (9)

Gagnier v. City of Gladstone LUBA 38 Or LUBA 858 (2000)

Stoloff v. City of Portland, 51 Or LUBA 560 (2006)

King v. Washington County 42 Or LUBA 400 (2002)

Van Dyke v. Yamhill County, 35 OR LUBA 676(1999)

Petersen v. Yamhill County, 33 Or LUBA 584 (1997)

Department of Land Conservation and Development v. Yamhill County, 33 Or LUBA (1997); 151 Or App 367 (1997)

DeBates v. Yamhill County, 32 Or LUBA 276 (1997)

1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC and Yamhill County, 139 Or App 485 (1996)

Tides Association of Unit Owners v. City Council of City of Seaside, 92 Or App 446 (1993)