Johns v. City of Lincoln City
Docket: LUBA No. 97-235; CA A102949
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon; November 3, 1998; Oregon; State Appellate Court
Petitioner seeks review of LUBA’s affirmation of the City of Lincoln City’s denial of his application for a single-family dwelling in a residential and environmental quality overlay zone. The court affirms part of the decision and reverses part. An earlier ruling required further city proceedings to assess the specificity of issues raised in the opponents' notices of appeal regarding the planning director's approval. The court previously reversed LUBA’s decision affirming the denial by the planning commission and city council, directing LUBA to remand the case to the city. On remand, the city again denied the application, which led to another appeal to LUBA, which affirmed the denial. Petitioner presents two assignments of error. First, he argues that the city did not adequately execute the remand and erred in its interpretation of the cognizability of issues based on the opponents’ notices of appeal. The court finds no error in the city’s actions. Second, petitioner contends that LUBA erred in affirming the city’s determination that the proposed dwelling would create hazards on adjacent properties without substantial evidence supporting this finding. The city asserts that substantial evidence exists in the record but acknowledges that LUBA did not explicitly address the substantial evidence regarding the "Natural Hazards" issue. The court agrees that LUBA failed to make any substantial evidence determination on this matter. It cannot review local findings directly and thus remands the case for LUBA to address the substantial evidence challenge regarding the “Natural Hazards” finding. The decision is reversed and remanded for further proceedings concerning this issue; all other aspects are affirmed.