Mediation Cases
Mediation of land use, public policy and environmental cases, especially before litigation does not resemble a settlement conference type of negotiation. Rather it is much more like negotiating a treaty or a union contract, because the settlement may have to go through a public approval process which may or may not be open to new parties. As with treaties and labor contracts, there is a risk of non-approval. Yet the benfits outweigh the risks.
The Consensus Building Institute and Lincoln Land Institute have done a national study of effectiveness of site-specific land use mediation. Three of the cases below, LaGrande v. Island City, Melendy v. City of Independence and Cascade Pumice v. Deschutes County were used in that study whose conclusions may be consulted by anyone considering such site specific land use mediation. For a neutral evaluation and description of the LaGrande mediation see “Resolving Land-Use Conflicts Through Mediation: Challenges and Opportunities” Working Papers, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy @David Lampe and Marshall Kaplan, 1999, pages 24- 32 - see evaluations quoted in references.
Public Policy Mediation: Environment and Land use
- Vernonia v. Columbia County - Airport industrial rezoning and development outside
· McCoy v Linn County - location of a rock quarry operation in a rural residential area
· LaGrande v City of Island City, - urban growth management and boundary dispute (references);
· Cascade Pumice v Deschutes County - pumice mining with residential neighbors
· Coalition for Responsible Growth v City of Banks - a subdivision tripling population of Banks
· City of Tillamook v County of Tillamook and LCDC - trucking business just outside the UGB
· Fargo Interchange and Marion County v LCDC - extension of sewer services from outside UGB to a municipal treatment plant
· Fargo Interchange - revisited five years later as a fight between competing truck stops providers
· Central Point v Bear Creek Valley Sanitary - sewer services within UGB but outside city limits
· Melendy v City of Independence - site review of an apartment complex in the flood plain
· City of Dundee v Yamhill County - a rural subdivision just outside Dundee's city line;
· City of Battle Ground v Schmidt - conditions of approval and service provisions;
· Donnelly v Curry County - trailer park campground on the Rogue River;
· Abadi v. Washington County - post decision sub-division challenge (LUBA)
· Wilsonville v Charbonneau – best use argument over development of the last three lots in Charbonneau
· Doob v. Josephine County - LCDC enforcement proceeding order over provision of urban services in the UGB
· Doncoe v. City of Camas - a municipal requirement for a 30% open space set aside in exchange for development rights
· Riverside Ranch/Crook County - three unrecorded subdivisions in an agricultural zone, 180+ lots of less than the minimum lot size
· Roach v. City of Astoria – second LUBA appeal of a waterfront development
· Carver v City of Salem – a LUBA appeal of park dedication requirement under a concurrency scheme requiring provision of urban services as a condition for allowing development
· Friends of Linn County v. Linn County – a pre-LCDC enforcement proceeding over alleged issues of inconsistent land use administration
· Howell Territorial Park –(assessment) a conditional use application for an expanded park on Sauvie Island
· LDS v City of West Linn - a Court of Appeals case involving conditional use for a church in a residential area (RIULPA)
· Lenske v Corbett Area neighbors – (assessment) rock and gravel operation expansion in Mult. Co.
· Hegele v Crook County – (assessment) proposed gravel operation expansion in Crook Co.
· Bazhinov v Mihalut - a Court of Appeals case involving two neighbors with one driveway.
· Rim Community Assoc v Rennaissance Homes – (LUBA Appeal) established subdision v proposed subdivision, with park and river acess issues.
