- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Land Use
- Date Filed: 09-28-2016
- Case #: A154387
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Handlock, C.J. for the Court; Sercombe, P.J.; & Tookey, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner appealed the trial court’s determination that Petitioner’s petition for declaratory relief of a special zoning ordinance was improperly filed and lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Petitioner argued that his property was subject to a “special ordinance” and was thus not subject to a later enacted comprehensive plan; as such, he filed a petition requesting declaratory relief from the comprehensive plan. Lane County sought dismissal arguing that Petitioner lacked subject matter jurisdiction since this was a “land use decision,” as defined by statute, and was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The trial court ultimately agreed with Lane County and dismissed Petitioner's petition. On appeal, Petitioner asserted that the trial court erred in finding a lack of subject matter jurisdiction because his requested interpretation of the two ordinances were matters of statutory construction, not land use. The Court did not agree and found that requested petition did encompass a “land use decision.” Affirmed.