I hearings board and the planning commission. These statements <br />2 are not contested by Permawood. <br />3 Our prior decisions have indicated that status as a party <br />4 in a contested case permit proceeding entitles one to notice <br />S and hearing prior to final decision making and that such status <br />6 satisfies the requirement in ORS 197.830(3) concerning <br />7 entitlement to notice. See e.g., Audubon Society of Portland <br />8 v. Oregon De arment of Fish and Wildlife, su ra; Oregon <br />9 Environmental Council v. Portland, 4 Or LUBA 208 (1981); Niemi <br />10 v. Clatsop County, 6 Or LUBA 147 (1982). Petitioner's failure <br />11 to allege this party status in the section of the petition <br />12 entitled "standing," is not fatal to its standing claim. So <br />13 long as the necessary allegations appear in the petition, they <br />14 are available to support the claim.3 <br />15 We conclude petitioner has standing to bring this appeal. <br />16 Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. <br />17 FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />18 In this assignment of error petitioner contends three <br />19 aspects of the city's decision violate the applicable <br />20 comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance: (1) approval of access <br />21 to the industrial site over residentially zoned land, (2) <br />22 allowance of fill and development in the floodway, and (3) <br />23 allowance of a plant classifiable as a heavy industrial use on <br />24 land designated only for light industrial use by the <br />25 comprehensive plan. <br />26 <br />5 <br />Page <br />