Opinion ID: 2607808
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appearance Before the Local Governing Body

Text: The second issue this case presents is whether petitioners appeared before the local governing body as is required to appeal a quasi-judicial land use decision. [7] The relevant statutory provisions for standing to appeal a quasi-judicial land use decision to LUBA are found in section 4(3) of Oregon Laws 1979, chapter 772, as amended by Oregon Laws 1981, chapter 748, section 35. [8] Section 4(3) provides: Any person who has filed a notice of intent to appeal as provided in subsection (4) of this section may petition the board for review of a quasi-judicial land use decision if the person: (a) Appeared before the local government or special district governing body or state agency orally or in writing; and (b) Was a person entitled as of right to notice and hearing prior to the decision to be reviewed or was a person whose interests are adversely affected or who was aggrieved by the decision. Petitioners appeared and testified orally at the West Lane Planning Commission hearing. The planning commission was responsible for making a recommendation and report to the county board of commissioners on the proposed plan amendment. The planning commission held hearings on two days and then voted to reject the plan amendment and zone changes at issue. Petitioners did not testify at the subsequent hearing before the county commissioners. Respondents argue that appearance before the local government    governing body requires direct appearance  i.e., oral or written testimony to the governing body, in this case the Lane County Board of Commissioners, that made the final decision which petitioners seek to appeal. LUBA determined that petitioners' appearance before the planning commission was a sufficient appearance under section 4(3), because it was an appearance at some stage of the proceedings before the governing body, citing Weber v. Clackamas County, 3 Or.LUBA 237 (1981). We concur with LUBA's reasoning in Weber that the legislative history of Oregon Laws 1979, chapter 772 indicates that the legislature made the appearance requirement in order to prevent persons from doing nothing until after a quasi-judicial land use decision has been made, and then appealing the decision by showing adverse effect or dissatisfaction with it. The legislature required that in order to appeal, persons must first get involved and offer their views at the local level. Appearing before the hearings officer or planning commission, whichever is delegated responsibility to make land use decisions or gather evidence and make recommendations to the governing body, furthers the legislative policy of involving people and hearing their views at the local level. There may be instances where an appearance at some stage of the decision-making process will not meet the section 4(3)(a) requirement. [9] However, in a case such as this, where the local governing body bases its land use decision, in whole or in part, on the record obtained in a prior proceeding before a planning commission, hearings officer, or other approval authority, whichever is delegated responsibility to gather evidence and make land use decisions or recommendations to the local governing body, then an appearance on the record before that authority is an appearance before the local governing body. The test is not, of course, whether the local governing body actually considers or is persuaded by the record made below, but only whether local ordinances require that a record in the prior stage of the local proceeding be made and forwarded to the local governing body for consideration. Respondents contend that according to Lane County ordinance the county commissioners' hearing in the present case was de novo and not confined to the record below. Whatever meaning Lane County may attach to the words de novo in this context, [10] it is clear from the record that the planning commission's findings of fact, resolution recommending denial of the Renaghan amendment, and minutes of the planning commission hearings were delivered to the county commissioners and made a part of the record before the commissioners, pursuant to Lane County ordinance. The minutes contained summaries of the statements of persons (including petitioners) who spoke for and against the Renaghan amendment before the West Lane Planning Commission. The board's own findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its approval of the plan amendment and zone changes states: The Board of Commissioners conducted a de novo review of both applications, which included all of the materials, information and documents submitted previously to the West Lane Planning Commission. We hold that because petitioners appeared and testified orally before the West Lane Planning Commission, and because the county commissioners relied in whole or in part on the record made by the planning commission, petitioners have satisfied the statutory requirement of appearance before the local governing body, under section 4(3)(a). Thus, their standing to appeal to LUBA depends on whether they meet the other statutory prerequisites to maintaining an appeal, that is, whether they were entitled as of right to notice and hearing, had interests adversely affected, or were aggrieved by the county's decision.