Opinion ID: 2607868
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standing of jeff fahey

Text: Respondents contend that petitioner Fahey based his claim of standing on his alleged entitlement to notice. In his petition for review to LUBA, Fahey stated that he attended the hearing and gave oral and written testimony in opposition to the proposed landfill. He alleged that he was entitled to notice because he was aggrieved by the proximity of his land and home to the proposed landfill and also because he received prior notice of the hearing in the newspaper and in a written notice to the Committee of which he is a member. LUBA's final order denied Fahey's claim of standing because his allegation of entitlement to notice was not supported by the facts which the parties agreed were to be considered concerning standing. We agree with LUBA's conclusion that the notice specified in Oregon Laws 1979, chapter 772, section 4(3)(b), as amended by Oregon Laws 1981, chapter 748, section 35, refers to special or individual notice, not notice by publication in a newspaper or notice as a committee member. Furthermore, receiving notice is not necessarily the same as being entitled as of right to notice and hearing. While we agree that Fahey has not alleged facts showing that he was entitled as of right to notice and hearing prior to the county's decision, LUBA would not be precluded from determining, based on the facts alleged, that Fahey meets either of the other tests for standing under section 4(3), i.e., adversely affected or aggrieved. In light of our conclusion in respect of the Committee, we find that Fahey alleged sufficient facts in the petition for review to show that he meets the test for aggrievement. Fahey alleged that he appeared at the hearing before the county commissioners, gave testimony in opposition to the proposed action, and submitted written testimony and documentary evidence. As noted above, Marion County Zoning Ordinance 111.020 provides that any person desiring to be heard for or against the subject of the hearing may file a statement in writing or may appear and respond orally at the hearing as an interested person. This Fahey did. Thus, under our construction of aggrieved, absent a contrary finding by the local decision-makers or LUBA, Fahey meets the standing requirements of section 4(3) because he was recognized by the local decision-makers as an interested person in conformance with Marion County Zoning Ordinance 111.020; he appeared before the local body and testified on the merits; and the decision made was contrary to the position he asserted.