LUBA Headnotes Section 37 37. That a use is authorized under a zoning ordinance or granted building or zoning permits does not, alone, shield the use from later-adopted zoning ordinance amendments that prohibit the use or impose a requirement for additional permits. The judicial doctrine of vested rights does not apply to development allowed under a conditional use permit, where the permit is approved under an ordinance obligating the user to commence construction within six months or request an extension from the city. Prior to the creation of LUBA, circuit courts had jurisdiction to declare the existence of vested rights to develop land under previously existing land use regulations.
Claim preclusion applies to preclude relitigation of a claim that has been litigated.
Where a party's claim of a vested right to residential use of certain property was determined in a circuit court judgment, to which the local government and other parties to the LUBA appeal were also parties, the local government is precluded from making a new determination on that vested right claim, even if it would otherwise have jurisdiction to do so. Where the issue on appeal is whether petitioner has a vested right to develop property in a manner inconsistent with current zoning regulations, and the resolution of that issue requires the application of city land use regulations from 1973 to the present, the challenged decision is a land use decision subject to LUBA's jurisdiction. Terraces Condo Assoc. Where a local government approved a height variance in 1977, but at that time had no code provision authorizing density transfers or a master plan approval process, the 1977 height variance approval does not also authorize a density transfer or give master plan approval. Terraces Condo Assoc.