Court of Appeals Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

Cite as 269 Or App 176 (2015) 185 (set out at 269 Or App 179 n 4). In other words, under- standing the statute and implementing rule together- that is, the text in context-the 21-day deadline triggered by the filing of a notice of intent to appeal encompasses service of the notice on the person seeking to intervene." We are not persuaded by applicant's arguments to the contrary. First, applicant contends that "a delay in service, under the statute, does not extend the deadline for filing a motion to intervene, any more that [sic] a delay in mailing notice of a final land use decision tolls the deadline for appealing that decision," citing Wicks-Snodgrass v. City of Reedsport, 148 Or App 217, 223, 939 P2d 625, rev den, 326 Or 59 (1997). Wicks-Snodgrass, however, is materially distinguishable. In Wicks-Snodgrass, the question was whether LUBA had erroneously denied the city's motion to dismiss an appeal to LUBA for lack of jurisdiction, where the notice of intent to appeal the city's decision had not been filed within the time limit in ORS 197.830(8) (1997),12 which required, "as a prerequisite to LUBA's jurisdiction, that a notice of intent to appeal to LUBA from a local land use decision `be filed not later than 21 days after the date the decision sought to be reviewed becomes final."' 148 Or App at 219. In deciding that question, we considered, and ultimately 11 Petitioners also assert that other provisions of the land use scheme lend support to that reading of the statute, in particular, ORS 197.805 (providing that "lilt is the policy of the Legislative Assembly that * * * decisions [in matters involving land use] be made consistently with sound principles governing judi- cial review") and Goal One of the Statewide Land Use Planning Goals (requir- ing local governments to have "a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process"). We agree, to a point. See DLCD v. Jackson County, 151 Or App 210, 218, 948 P2d 731 (1997), rev den, 327 Or 620 (1998) ("Such expressions [of general policy] can serve as contextual guides to the meaning of particular provisions of the statutes or rules, as much as any other parts of the enactment can." (Emphasis in original.)). However, we are cautious not to place too much emphasis on statements of policy. See Burke v. DLCD, 352 Or 428, 441-42, 290 P3d 790 (2012) ("[A] statement of legislative findings, without more, is a slim reed on which to rest an argument that the operative provisions of a statute should be taken to mean something other than what they appear to suggest."). 12 ORS 197.830(8) (1997) provided, in part, that "[a] notice of intent to appeal a land use decision or limited land use decision shall be filed not later than 21 days after the date the decision sought to be reviewed becomes final." The statute has been amended several times since Wicks-Snodgrass was decided, and that provision is now included in ORS 197.830(9).