Forbes v. Linn County

Under ORS 197.825(1) LUBA has exclusive jurisdiction to review land use decisions or limited land use decisions. An appeal of the county decision to issue a new rural address is not within a land use decision or limited land use decision under the statute.

The challenged decision of the commissioner’s email denied petitioner’s request to issue a second rural mailing address. In 2016 petitioner received county approval for a commercial site plan application for a farm stand to be located on petitioner’s property zoned Urban Growth Area (subject property). Petitioner’s application for the site plan approval stated the property would be divided in to two separate addresses; one address for the residential mobile home and another address for the gate house sales stand. The central issue on appeal concerns whether a new rural address for the farm stand is within LUBA’s jurisdiction to decide.

The county argues that petitioner has not established that the challenged decision is a “limited land use decision” as defined in ORS 197.015(12) or a “land use decision” as defined in ORS 197.015(10). Petitioner contends that Linn County Code regulates “the assignment of state address numbers [and] second street number addresses” are not “consistent.” It is the petitioner’s burden to establish that LUBA has jurisdiction to consider an appeal. LUBA agrees that the petitioner has failed to establish that the county decision was made under “land use standards that [required] interpretation or the exercise of policy or legal judgment.” DISMISSED.