Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/07/1997

Home

Page 6 - September 25, 1997 Z.B. .'-' affirmed the council's approval, and Bothwell appealed. DECISION: Vacated and returned for dismissal. Instead of approving the council's decision, the trial court should have dis- missed the case. Bothwell couldn't sue the city because the council's approval of Jayo's preliminary plat application wasn't a final decision that could be appealed to court. The council's approval of the preliminary plat application wasn't "final approval" to develop the subdivision. Final approval required approval of the final plat application and the floodplain permit application. Jayo wouldn't get final approval for the subdivision until it applied for final approval and its application was reviewed by the city administrator, the planning and zoning commission, and other city agencies. Then, the city council could approve, approve conditionally, disapprove, or table the final plat for additional information. see also: South Fork Coalition of Board of Commissioners, 730 P.2d 1009 O~~. . Notice - Is appeal deadline based on date decision is made or mailed? Wicks-Snodgrass v. City of Reedsport, 939 P.2d 625 (Oregon) 1997 Wicks-Snodgrass and other citizens of the city of Reedsport, Ore., opposed an application for a residential subdivision. The city allowed the application on Nov. 6, 1995. State law required that all parties receive written notice of the decision; however, notice of the decision was not mailed to the citizens until the next day. State law required that persons appealing a local land-use decision had to file a notice of intent to appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) within 21 days after the date the decision became final. The citizens ap- pealed the city's decision to the LUBA on the 21st day after the city's no- tice was mailed. Thus, they appealed on the 22nd day after the city issued its decision. The city asked LUBA to dismiss the appeal, claiming the citizens filed it late. The citizens relied on a 1986 state court case, which ruled that a land use decision became final for purposes of appealing to LUBA only after the re- quired written notice was mailed or personally delivered to the parties. The city pointed out that the Legislature amended the notice statute in 1987. Under the statute, appeal of a land-use decision had to be filed no later than 21 days after the decision became final. LUBA denied the city's motion and decided the appeal, upholding some of the citizen's arguments and returning the decision to the city. The city asked the court to review LUBA's decision and the citizens cross-appealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the trial court. The citizens' time for appeal ran from the date the city's decision became final- not from the date the decision was mailed. The citizens' appeal was not timely filed and LUBA had no authority to decide the case. .. 'l~