Pinnacle Alliance Group LLC v. City of Sisters

Under ORS 197.830(3), a petitioner must establish how land uses authorized by a local government's administrative extension of a master plan for a mixed use development adversely affects its interests, and where a petitioner asserts an impact without any explanation as to why the impact is adverse and how the decision results in an adverse impact, such an assertion will be deemed insufficient to establish standing under ORS 197.830(3).

Pinnacle Alliance Group, LLC (Pinnacle), appealed a community development director’s approval of a one-year extension of a master plan approval for McKenzie Meadow Village (MMV), comprising a senior assisted living facility as the first phase of a proposed multi-phased, mixed use development (originally approved in 2010). Pinnacle was not aware that intervenor-respondent McKenzie Meadows Village, LLC (Meadows), had requested the extension and did not appear before the community development director. The extension decision became final on October 19, 2015, Pinnacle learned of the decision of November 12, 2015, and filed its appeal with LUBA 21 days later on December 3, 2015.

Pinnacle was required under ORS 197.830(9) to file its notice of intent to appeal 21 days “after the date the decision sought to be reviewed becomes final.” The deadline to appeal the city’s decision expired on November 9, 2015. Pinnacle argued that the city’s failure to provide a hearing on the extension decision meant that it had standing to appeal based on ORS 197.830(3), and LUBA responded by noting that Pinnacle was required to demonstrate that it was “adversely affected by the decision.” Pinnacle asserted it was adversely affected by the decision because a time extension for a development would, in part, generate traffic impacts, impacts to transportation and water infrastructure, and economic impacts that would affect Pinnacle’s property located “approximately 6,280 feet” from the subject property. The city’s response noted that a decision to administratively extend a master plan approval, as opposed to a reauthorization, does not adversely affect Pinnacle, and Meadows generally characterized Pinnacle’s alleged adverse effects as “only conjecture” not based on facts or evidence. LUBA held that Pinnacle lacked standing under ORS 197.830(3) because its brief and affidavit failed to establish how the uses authorized by the extended master plan adversely affected its interests. DISMISSED.