Pinnacle Alliance Group LLC v. City of Sisters

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Municipal Law
  • Date Filed: 09-01-2016
  • Case #: 2016-021
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Opinion by Holstun
  • Full Text Opinion

Sisters Development Code 4.3.400.F only allows two one-year extensions of tentative subdivision plan approvals for multi-phase subdivision proposals.

     On September 16, 2010, the city granted a tentative subdivision plan and master plan approval for McKenzie Meadows Village, a multi-phase development. The approval was extended several times over the years. The petitioner, Pinnacle Alliance Group, LLC (petitioner), appealed a city council decision that denied its request for a third extension. The first tentative subdivision approval was granted on November 3, 2012, extending the approval until 2014. The second extension was granted on December 10, 2014, and was extended until December 31, 2015. The city planning commission granted the third approval extension on November 19, 2015, which was appealed and then affirmed on February 11, 2016. The approval was extended until December 31, 2016.

     The petitioner made three assignment of error. In its first assignment of error, the petitioner argued that Sisters Development Code (SDC) 4.3.400.F only allowed two one-year extensions and the third extension violated SDC 4.3.400.F.

     In its second assignment of error, the petitioner argued that the third extension violated SDC 4.3.400.F.2, which states that “[i]n no case shall extensions combined with original approval durations exceed four years for single phased development from the original approval date, and six years for subsequent phases within a multiple-phased development from the original approval date.” The extension to December 31, 2016 extended the approval more than six years from the original 2010 approval date.

     For both the first and second assignments of error, the city did not file a response brief and intervenor-respondents acknowledged that the city council’s interpretation was not sustainable, even with the deference accorded to the city under ORS 197.829(1). LUBA agreed with the petitioner on the first two assignments of error, and so it did not reach the third assignment of error, which was alternatively styled. REVERSED. 


Back to Top