Dilley et al v. City of North Bend

Under North Bend City Code, 18.92.020, filling out a sign-in sheet to receive notice of the decision can be considered “requested notice” to satisfy the requirement of establishing “party status” to appeal.

Petitioners Dilley and McCaffree (Dilley) appeal a city council decision denying Dilley’s appeal of a planning commission decision. Dilley brought the appeal after receiving a Notice of Decision from the city of the planning commissions approval of an application by a private contractor to temporarily house 2,000 construction workers in the Simpson Heights area of North Bend.

The city council concluded that Dilley had failed to establish “party status” which is required to appeal a planning commission decision, denying her appeal. In her first assignment of error, Dilley argued that the city council’s interpretation of “party status” was incorrect. Because the term is undefined in the code, city council considered the context of three related city code provisions which generally provide that to appeal a planning commission decision the issue must be raised prior to the close of public record or hearing of the application. Further, the description of “standing for appeal” provided on the Notice of Decision, requires that (1) a person appear before the planning commission orally or in writing, or (2) was entitled to receive mailed notice prior to the hearing on an application, or (3) requested notice of decision and was also adversely affected by the decision. Using these three criteria, the city council concluded Dilley did not have “party status”. LUBA held that since the public comment sign-in sheet was understood as a request for notice, and Dilley did actually receive notice as a result of signing, she “requested notice” for purposes of establishing party status. Since the council had not determined whether she was adversely affected, remand was appropriate to determine her “party status.” In the second assignment of error, McCaffree argued that she was wrongly dismissed as a co-appellant. LUBA rejected this argument, holding that merely endorsing Dilley’s notice of appeal was insufficient to establish McCaffree or any of the other sixty endorsers as co-appellants. REMANDED.