I application of ORS 92.040(2). According to the city, a developer can invoke <br />2 ORS 92.040(2) only if (1) at the time of subdivision approval it complied with <br />3 the ORS 92.040(1) requirement to provide a "tentative plan showing the <br />4 general design of the proposed subdivision or partition[,]" (2) the tentative plan <br />5 provides information on proposed development of the lots created, and (3) the <br />6 subdivision approval evaluates proposed development of lots against the <br />7 applicable criteria, in this case the planned development and other standards <br />8 that applied to the 2006 subdivision application. However, the city argues, the <br />9 2006 subdivision applicant submitted a tentative plan that proposed no <br />10 development of Tract B, and no development of Tract B was evaluated against <br />11 the applicable criteria or approved in the 2006 decision.6 Therefore, the city <br />12 argues, ORS 92.040(2) does not apply to preclude application of post-2006 <br />13 standards such as LDC 3.6.30 and 4.10.60.01.b. <br />14 We partially agree with the city. Because the 2006 subdivision applicant <br />15 did not propose development of Tract B, and the city did not evaluate any <br />16 development of Tract B against whatever criteria would be applied to proposed <br />17 development of lots at the tentative plat stage, ORS 92.040(2) would not <br />18 generally operate to shield future development of Tract B from application of <br />19 new development standards adopted after 2006 that regulate development of <br />20 Tract B. However, as explained above, the 2006 subdivision decision did make <br />21 a significant decision regarding the general location of future development on <br />6 The city also emphasizes that the 2006 plat did not label Tract B as a "lot," <br />and argues that Tract B is not a "lot." We do not see that labels matter in the <br />present case. As a matter of law, a unit of land created by a subdivision is a <br />"lot," no matter what the unit of land is labeled on the plat. See ORS 92.010(4) <br />and (16) (definitions of "lot" and "subdivide land"). For what it is worth, Tract <br />B is technically a "lot." <br />Page 22 <br />