Comprehensive Land Use Planning I
Review procedures
- standing
- fees
- deadlines
- rules
- issues subject to review
- attorney fees and costs
- publication of orders
- mediation
- tracking of reviews
Notes of Decisions
On remand, where petitioners who were entitled to notice of land use decision pursuant to ORS 197.615 did not receive notice from county, time for filing of intent to appeal to LUBA was tolled until they had knowledge of decision. Ludwick v. Yamhill County, 72 Or App 224, 696 P2d 536 (1985), Sup Ct review denied
County ordinance controls in determination as to when land use decision is final, for purposes of this section, where ordinance is not in conflict with LUBA rule or statutory authority. Columbia River Television v. Multnomah County, 299 Or 325, 702 P2d 1065 (1985)
Aggrieved property owners who opposed election to incorporate had standing to challenge vote of county board of commissioners on due process grounds. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Co. Court, 304 Or 76, 742 P2d 39 (1987)
Where petitioners contended in appeal to LUBA that county failed to hold hearing and give notice as required by ORS 215.416, petitioners were not required to satisfy appearance provision of this section and are “aggrieved” within meaning of this section for purposes of standing. Flowers v. Klamath County, 98 Or App 384, 780 P2d 227 (1989), Sup Ct review denied; Hugo v. Columbia County, 157 Or App 1, 967 P2d 895 (1998)
Local ordinance requirement for hearing cannot extend time for appealing post-acknowledgment amendment to land use regulation. Orenco Neighborhood v. City of Hillsboro, 135 Or App 428, 899 P2d 720 (1995)
Where petitioner files appeal under ORS 215.416 seeking local review, direct appeal to LUBA is not available. Tarjoto v. Lane County, 137 Or App 305, 904 P2d 641 (1995)
Failure to include payment with appeal accepted by LUBA is not jurisdictional defect. Ray v. Douglas County, 140 Or App 24, 914 P2d 26 (1996)
Party can be prevailing party where case is voluntarily dismissed without final decision on merits. Pfeifer v. City of Silverton, 146 Or App 191, 931 P2d 833 (1997)
Time for filing appeal is not tolled by delay in sending notice of final decision to party. Wicks-Snodgrass v. City of Reedsport, 148 Or App 217, 939 P2d 625 (1997), Sup Ct review denied
There is probable cause for belief that entire position is well founded if reasonable lawyer would conclude that any point asserted is open to doubt or subject to honest discussion. Fechtig v. City of Albany, 150 Or App 10, 946 P2d 280 (1997)
Attorney fees may be awarded only if all arguments comprising position of nonprevailing party on appeal are so meritless as to lack probable cause. Fechtig v. City of Albany, 150 Or App 10, 946 P2d 280 (1997)
Appellate decision need not decide assignment of error on merits for prevailing party to assert in attorney fee petition that assignment lacked probable cause. Spencer Creek Neighbors v. Lane County, 152 Or App 1, 952 P2d 90 (1998)
Assertion of local governing body interpretation that is clearly wrong is not necessarily assertion made without probable cause. Spencer Creek Neighbors v. Lane County, 152 Or App 1, 952 P2d 90 (1998)
Time for filing appeal of plan and land use amendments applies to any person with standing to appeal, not just persons entitled to notice. Department of Transportation v. City of Oregon City, 153 Or App 705, 959 P2d 615 (1998)
Notwithstanding statutory language permitting any person who appeared before local government to intervene in review process, person seeking to intervene must meet constitutional requirement of justiciability by showing that court’s opinion will have practical effect on that party. Utsey v. Coos County, 176 Or App 524, 32 P3d 933 (2001)
For purposes of determining whether local government made land use decision without providing hearing, “hearing” refers to quasi-judicial proceeding held to gather evidence about application for land use permit or to hear and consider argument on issues of fact or law relevant to application, regardless of scope of evidence considered at proceeding. Friends of Jacksonville v. City of Jacksonville, 189 Or App 283, 76 P3d 121 (2003), Sup Ct review denied
10-year limitation on appealing hearing or decision made pursuant to ORS 197.195 or [former] 197.763 applies retroactively. Jones v. Douglas County, 247 Or App 56, 270 P3d 264 (2011)
Express authority of state or local government to withdraw land use decision “subsequent to the filing of notice of intent and prior to the date set for filing the record” necessarily prohibits state or local government from withdrawing decision thereafter. Dexter Lost Valley Community Association v. Lane County, 255 Or App 701, 300 P3d 1243 (2013)
Petitioner, who did not receive notice required by local but not state law of city land use hearing, was not entitled to delayed appeal because without providing hearing means either hearing was not held at all or notice required by state law was not provided. Aleali v. City of Sherwood, 262 Or App 59, 325 P3d 747 (2014)
Where Land Use Board of Appeals extends time county has in which to transmit record of county land use decision to Land Use Board of Appeals, time in which county may reconsider land use decision is also extended. Columbia Riverkeeper v. Clatsop County, 267 Or App 578, 341 P3d 790 (2014)
Where petitioner, who appeared at city hearing by written testimony in opposition to proposed land use plan, did not receive notice of city’s final order, hearing to reconsider final order or affirmation of approval of final order as required by ORS 227.173, or of other petitioners’ intent to appeal final order to Land Use Board of Appeals, and city later corrected error and served notice of intent to appeal on petitioner, notice of intent to appeal was not filed with LUBA for purposes of this section and 21-day time in which to intervene in appeal was not triggered by improper filing. Oakleigh-McClure Neighbors v. City of Eugene, 269 Or App 176, 344 P3d 503 (2015)
Where county granted extension of time to travel stop company to begin implementation of site plan review for company’s proposed development of travel stop, and extension decision was made without public hearing, petitioner is not adversely affected by extension decision, which did not apply to petitioner or directly affect petitioner’s interests in adverse manner, so petitioner does not have standing under this section. Devin Oil Co., Inc. v. Morrow County, 275 Or App 799, 365 P3d 1084 (2015)
Mere endorsement of report submitted by report’s authors is not appearance, which requires individual to communicate to local government in manner that reasonably conveys individual’s desire to be treated as party to local government process. Conte v. City of Eugene, 292 Or App 625, 425 P3d 494 (2018)
Law Review Citations
65 OLR 186, 192 (1986); 36 WLR 441 (2000)