Opinion ID: 2607868
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standing of jefferson landfill committee

Text: LUBA's final order denied petitioner Jefferson Landfill Committee's (Committee's) claim of standing in either its representational or organizational capacity. [4] Respondents argued and LUBA found that the Committee did not allege sufficient facts to show that it had standing under section 4(3). We disagree. An organization has standing, in its own right, to appeal a quasi-judicial decision when the section 4(3) criteria are met. [5] Person, as used in section 4(3), means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, governmental subdivision or agency or public or private organization of any kind. ORS 197.015(14). The definition of person clearly includes a committee, such as the Jefferson Landfill Committee, which falls under the rubric of a private organization of any kind. The Committee alleged that its members attended the hearing and made oral and filed written objections to the proposed landfill. Under our construction of aggrieved, the benefit of which LUBA did not have, the Committee meets the standing requirements of section 4(3) because its members appeared before the local decision-making body; they effectively were recognized as interested persons by the local body; they testified on the merits; and the decision made was contrary to the position they asserted. Sufficient facts were stated in the petition for review to show the Committee's aggrievement. Respondents argue that there is nothing stated in the petition for review to show that the Committee was recognized by the county. As noted above, absent a contrary finding by the local decision-makers or LUBA, it is assumed that a person who appeared before the local decision-makers and asserted a position on the merits is an interested person. The Committee's allegations are sufficient to show that its members' views were heard in opposition to the landfill site and, absent a contrary finding, it is assumed that its members appeared as interested persons. In this case, the Committee's position is strengthened by Marion County zoning ordinances, which provide, in part: 111.010 HOLDING PUBLIC HEARINGS.    At any such hearing all persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard. 111.020 APPEARANCES OF INTERESTED PERSONS,    Any person or persons desiring to be heard for or against the subject of the hearing may file with the Governing Body, Hearings Officer or the Planning Commission, whichever holds the hearing, a statement in writing, or may appear and respond orally at the hearing, either in person or by attorney.    These ordinances apply to individual persons and associations. [6] In Marion County, 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. Because the Committee did this, it meets the county's definition of an interested person. Thus, the Committee has alleged sufficient facts to have standing to petition LUBA for review in a quasi-judicial proceeding. Because we hold that the Committee stated sufficient facts to establish entitlement to standing as aggrieved by the decision, under section 4(3), we need not decide whether the Committee, which received prior written notice of the hearing, was entitled as of right to notice and hearing prior to the decision.