Brochure 1 in Findings Series

Know the Rules of Your Land Use Sandbox

Findings

One of the most basic needs for the local planning commissioner, local government decision maker, planner, developer, land owner, environmentalist, and/or the average neighbor is to understand the land use rules. One of the most important rules a local government must follow is that it is required to include findings1 in a decision to approve or deny an application.

Findings are written statements of fact, conclusions, and determinations based upon the evidence at hand, presented relative to the standards and criteria for such review and adopted by the local government’s decision maker(s) in support of a land use decision.

Findings Must:

1. Identify of the relevant approval standards (i.e., standards and criteria).

2. Identify of the facts which were believed and relied upon by the decision maker(s).

3. Explain how those facts lead to the conclusion that the standards are, or are not, satisfied.

4. Respond to specific issues relevant to compliance with applicable approval standards and criteria that were raised by citizens in the proceedings.

5. State that the approval standards are met or that compliance is feasible and impose conditions that will ensure compliance.

LUBA Opinions

Findings As required by ORS 215.416(8), written statements of fact, conclusions, and determinations based upon the evidence at hand, presented relative to the criteria and standards for such review and accepted by the review or hearing body in support of a final action (Article 11, Definitions, Josephine County Rural Land Development Code, page 1-17).

LUBA2 Opinions On Findings

1. Knight v. City of Eugene, 41, Or LUBA 279 (2002)

2. Hatfield v. City of Portland, 37 Or LUBA 664 (2000)

3. Wood v. Crook County, 36 Or LUBA 143 (1999)

4. Doob v. City of Grants Pass, LUBA No. 98-006 (1998)

5. Tenly Properties Corp. v. Washington County, 34 Or

    LUBA 352 (1998)

6. Port Dock Four, Inc. v. City of Newport, 33 Or LUBA 613

    (1997)

7. Harcourt v. Marion County, LUBA No. 97-028 (1997)

8. Thomas v. Wasco County, 30 Or LUBA 302 (1996)

9. Hilderbrand v. Marion County, 28 Or LUBA 703, 706

    (1995)

10. Forest Park Neigh. Assoc. v. City of Portland, 27 Or

     LUBA 215 (1994)

11. Heiller v. Josephine County, 23 Or LUBA 551 (1992)

12. Rhyne v. Multnomah County, 23 Or LUBA 442 (1992)

Critical To Get Your Testimony Into The Record

It's critical to get your testimony into the record. And, it is especially important of getting testimony into the record in writing. As a practical matter, it's simply too difficult to retrieve and rely on oral testimony. It is the local government's responsibility to identify the applicable standards and criteria. However, the local government often does not identify all relevant provisions of the local development code, or zoning ordinance or the comprehensive plan, much less relevant administrative rules or statutes. A person must identify and address other criteria that he or she thinks are applicable, and in fact must do so or risk waiving the right to raise those issues later.

More Information

Would you like to learn more about citizen involvement in land use planning? Contact a member of the Land Use Committee of the Hugo Neighborhood.

This brochure is one of several in the "findings" series numbered 1 through 8.

1. Land Use Decisions: What Are Findings?

2. Standards and Criteria

3. Facts

4. Standards Are, Or Are Not, Satisfied

5. Must Address Relevant Issues Raised by Public

6. Conditions of Approval

7. LUBA Remand

8. LUBA Reversal

Land Use Consultant

Jim Just, Executive DirectorGoal One Coalition

39625 Almen Drive

Lebanon OR 97355

541-258-6074

Footnotes

1. ORS 215.416(8)-(9) - Counties; ORS 227.173(3) - Cities.