Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes Cty.

“ORS 197.015(10)(e)(B) provides that the term land use decision ‘does not include any local decision or action taken on an application subject to ORS 215.427 or 227.178 after a petition for a writ of mandamus has been filed under ORS 215.429 or 227.179”. ORS 197.015(10)(e)(B).

Petitioner petitioned for judicial review of the Land Use Board of Appeals (“LUBA”) order concluding that LUBA did not have jurisdiction and transferring the case to circuit court. Respondent cross-petitioned for review, arguing that LUBA should not have transferred the case but dismissed it instead. Petitioner assigned two errors to LUBA, arguing (1) that Respondent’s petition for a writ of mandamus was filed prematurely, so jurisdiction could not have been stripped from LUBA, and (2) that LUBA used the incorrect timeline to characterize the nature of the land use decision. “ORS 197.015(10)(e)(B) provides that the term land use decision ‘does not include any local decision or action taken on an application subject to ORS 215.427 or 227.178 after a petition for a writ of mandamus has been filed under ORS 215.429 or 227.179”. ORS 197.015(10)(e)(B). The Court reasoned that because a mandamus action gives the circuit court jurisdiction, it does not matter if Respondent filed their petition prematurely, further reasoning that LUBA did have the correct timeline, so there was no final decision from the county before Respondent filed the mandamus action. The Court rejects Respondent’s cross-petition because under OAR 661-010-0075(9)(c) LUBA was required to transfer the case to the circuit court. Therefore, LUBA was correct in transferring the case. Affirmed.