Opinion ID: 2607808
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Aggrievement

Text: In their petition for review petitioners stated three separate bases for standing to appeal to LUBA. Petitioners' first allegation is that they were aggrieved, within the meaning of section 4(3), by the allegedly defective public notice given of the hearing before the county commissioners and thus should be entitled to challenge the merits of the decision. Petitioners contend they would have participated in that hearing, but did not because the public notice was inadequate. [11] Both LUBA and the Court of Appeals ruled that defective public notice cannot be the basis of aggrievement to create standing under section 4(3). Because we hold that petitioners met the appearance requirement by their appearance before the planning commission, and because we find that petitioners are aggrieved on other grounds, we need not here decide this basis for standing to challenge the merits of the local land use decision. [12] Petitioners' second allegation of standing is aggrievement arising from residency in the affected planning area. They contend, solely in the context of significant amendments to comprehensive plans, that any resident of a rural plan area, small in area and population, is legally aggrieved by a comprehensive plan amendment with which he or she is dissatisfied. Petitioners argue that a significant quasi-judicial change in a small comprehensive plan has plan-wide effects which affect all residents of the plan area. [13] LUBA declined to allow standing based solely on residency in the affected planning area. The Court of Appeals concurred. Petitioners' reliance on their residency in a small planning area to establish aggrievement by a comprehensive plan amendment is misplaced. We clarified the distinction between aggrievement and adverse effect in Jefferson Landfill Comm. v. Marion Co., 297 Or. 280, 686 P.2d 310 (1984). In Jefferson Landfill we stated:    to have standing to petition LUBA for review in a quasi-judicial proceeding as a person `aggrieved,' a person must meet a two-part test: FIRST PART (applicable to all petitioners before LUBA in quasi-judicial proceedings): 1. The person filed a notice of intent to appeal; and 2. The person appeared orally or in writing before the local land use decision-making body. SECOND PART (as a person `aggrieved'): 1. The person's interest in the decision was recognized by the local land use decision-making body; 2. The person asserted a position on the merits; and 3. The local land use decision-making body reached a decision contrary to the position asserted by the person. 297 Or. at 283, 686 P.2d 313. In Jefferson Landfill we noted that this construction of aggrieved gives to the local land use decision-makers a gate-keeping responsibility for appeals to LUBA. Local decision-makers, by ordinance or otherwise, may determine who will be admitted or excluded as an interested person or limited to the status of a disinterested witness in a quasi-judicial proceeding. These determinations may vary according to the nature of the land use decision in dispute, the issues involved or the particular proceeding. If the decision-makers have not made such a determination, by ordinance or otherwise, it will be assumed that when a person appears before the local body and asserts a position on the merits, the person has a recognized interest in the outcome. Jefferson Landfill, supra, 297 Or. 287, 686 P.2d 310. In their petition for review to LUBA, petitioners state that they appeared before the local decision-making body and gave oral testimony in opposition to the proposed plan amendment and zone changes. [14] Clearly, the county commissioners made a decision contrary to the position petitioners espoused to the planning commission. Absent a contrary determination by the local body or local ordinances which define a person's interest more narrowly, petitioners will be assumed to have an interest recognized by the local body. [15] Unless, on remand, respondents offer local ordinances which indicate that petitioners' interests were not recognized by the local body, petitioners will have met the statutory test for aggrievement under section 4(3). We hold that LUBA applied the wrong legal test for aggrievement and, upon application of the correct test to the facts stated in the petition for review, petitioners have alleged sufficient facts to allow them standing to appeal this land use decision to LUBA. Reversed and remanded to LUBA for further proceedings.