Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society
|
Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society |
|
|
JO CO PATTERN & PRACTICE OF NEGLECT FOR 150-DAY RULE
December 5, 2006
JO CO Pattern & Practice Of Neglect For 50-Day Rule An important county land use planning rule to understand by the applicant and the public is that the law requires a final action on a permit within 150-days.
Systematic and continuing violations by Josephine County (JO CO) of ORS 215.427 are resulting in deleterious effects on citizens and land use applicants. This pattern and practice has an appearance ranging from neglect because of the absence of overt adverse impacts to JO CO for ignoring the 150-day law, to potential intentional efforts by JO CO to subvert its own land use laws. The Issue1 The issue is the effect on citizen participation in a county violation of the 150-day rule (ORS 215.427), and a mandamus process (ORS 215.429) that may follow from the failure, to move the land use process out of the jurisdiction of the JO CO Board of Commissioners (BCC) to the circuit court. A county’s violation of ORS 215.427 is in no way altered or obviated, especially in cases where the principal basis for the decision to award attorney fees under ORS 20.075(1) is that the broader public benefit is to require the county to act according to law and to act with some dispatch.1 The county can't say we're supposed to act in 150 days but that's okay, the law doesn't apply to us; we can act whenever we get around to it and be safe from attorney fees. In other words, counties’ violation of the statutory 150-day requirement--and not anything related to a non-defense of a writ of mandamus actions--is the reason why attorney fees should be awarded against the defendant counties and not intervenors. The fact remains that counties are parties to these actions as they failed to perform their duty of taking final action on the land use applications within the time prescribed by law.1 More Information Where the county's nonfeasance was the principal reason necessitating the action, the consideration described in ORS 20.075(1)(a) is a significant factor that weighs against an award of attorney fees from intervenors. If intervenors’ conduct contributed to the need for the litigation at all, they were not the sole or main contributors to that need, and the counties’ contributing conduct was--in the statute's word--illegal.1 Many counties, including JO CO, have an unspoken premise that a violation of the 150-day requirement should not warrant an award of attorney fees in itself no matter that they do not defend against writs of mandamus. The effect of such violations, and the resort to the mandamus process are many.2 This brochure is one of 11 brochures in the Hugo Neighborhood’s education series on 150-Day Violations.3 More Information. Would you like to learn more? Contact a member of the Land Use Committee of the Hugo Neighborhood.
Disclaimer. This brochure is as much about providing information and provoking questions as it is about opinions concerning the adequacy of findings of fact and land use decisions. It does not provide recommendations to citizens and it is not legal advice. It does not take the place of a lawyer. If citizens use information contained in this paper, it is their personal responsibility to make sure that the facts and general information contained in it are applicable to their situation.
|
|
@ 2010 Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society |
