2015 ORS 197.375¹
Appeal of decision on application for expedited land division
  • notice requirements
  • standards for review
  • procedure
  • costs

(1) An appeal of a decision made under ORS 197.360 ("Expedited land division" defined) and 197.365 (Application for expedited land division) shall be made as follows:

(a) An appeal must be filed with the local government within 14 days of mailing of the notice of the decision under ORS 197.365 (Application for expedited land division) (4), and shall be accompanied by a $300 deposit for costs.

(b) A decision may be appealed by:

(A) The applicant; or

(B) Any person or organization who files written comments in the time period established under ORS 197.365 (Application for expedited land division).

(c) An appeal shall be based solely on allegations:

(A) Of violation of the substantive provisions of the applicable land use regulations;

(B) Of unconstitutionality of the decision;

(C) That the application is not eligible for review under ORS 197.360 ("Expedited land division" defined) to 197.380 (Application fees for expedited land division) and should be reviewed as a land use decision or limited land use decision; or

(D) That the parties’ substantive rights have been substantially prejudiced by an error in procedure by the local government.

(2) The local government shall appoint a referee to decide the appeal of a decision made under ORS 197.360 ("Expedited land division" defined) and 197.365 (Application for expedited land division). The referee shall not be an employee or official of the local government. However, a local government that has designated a hearings officer under ORS 215.406 (Planning and zoning hearings officers) or 227.165 (Planning and zoning hearings officers) may designate the hearings officer as the referee for appeals of a decision made under ORS 197.360 ("Expedited land division" defined) and 197.365 (Application for expedited land division).

(3) Within seven days of being appointed to decide the appeal, the referee shall notify the applicant, the local government, the appellant if other than the applicant, any person or organization entitled to notice under ORS 197.365 (Application for expedited land division) (2) that provided written comments to the local government and all providers of public facilities and services entitled to notice under ORS 197.365 (Application for expedited land division) (2) and advise them of the manner in which they may participate in the appeal. A person or organization that provided written comments to the local government but did not file an appeal under subsection (1) of this section may participate only with respect to the issues raised in the written comments submitted by that person or organization. The referee may use any procedure for decision-making consistent with the interests of the parties to ensure a fair opportunity to present information and argument. The referee shall provide the local government an opportunity to explain its decision, but is not limited to reviewing the local government decision and may consider information not presented to the local government.

(4)(a) The referee shall apply the substantive requirements of the local government’s land use regulations and ORS 197.360 ("Expedited land division" defined). If the referee determines that the application does not qualify as an expedited land division as described in ORS 197.360 ("Expedited land division" defined), the referee shall remand the application for consideration as a land use decision or limited land use decision. In all other cases, the referee shall seek to identify means by which the application can satisfy the applicable requirements.

(b) The referee may not reduce the density of the land division application. The referee shall make a written decision approving or denying the application or approving it with conditions designed to ensure that the application satisfies the land use regulations, within 42 days of the filing of an appeal. The referee may not remand the application to the local government for any reason other than as set forth in this subsection.

(5) Unless the governing body of the local government finds exigent circumstances, a referee who fails to issue a written decision within 42 days of the filing of an appeal shall receive no compensation for service as referee in the appeal.

(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the referee shall order the local government to refund the deposit for costs to an appellant who materially improves his or her position from the decision of the local government. The referee shall assess the cost of the appeal in excess of the deposit for costs, up to a maximum of $500, including the deposit paid under subsection (1) of this section, against an appellant who does not materially improve his or her position from the decision of the local government. The local government shall pay the portion of the costs of the appeal not assessed against the appellant. The costs of the appeal include the compensation paid the referee and costs incurred by the local government, but not the costs of other parties.

(7) The Land Use Board of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to consider any decisions, aspects of decisions or actions made under ORS 197.360 ("Expedited land division" defined) to 197.380 (Application fees for expedited land division).

(8) Any party to a proceeding before a referee under this section may seek judicial review of the referee’s decision in the manner provided for review of final orders of the Land Use Board of Appeals under ORS 197.850 (Judicial review of board order) and 197.855 (Deadline for final court order). The Court of Appeals shall review decisions of the referee in the same manner as provided for review of final orders of the Land Use Board of Appeals in those statutes. However, notwithstanding ORS 197.850 (Judicial review of board order) (9) or any other provision of law, the court shall reverse or remand the decision only if the court finds:

(a) That the decision does not concern an expedited land division as described in ORS 197.360 ("Expedited land division" defined) and the appellant raised this issue in proceedings before the referee;

(b) That there is a basis to vacate the decision as described in ORS 36.705 (Vacating award) (1)(a) to (d), or a basis for modification or correction of an award as described in ORS 36.710 (Modification or correction of award); or

(c) That the decision is unconstitutional. [1995 c.595 §10; 2003 c.598 §37]

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 414-421, 474, 475 (1974); 56 OLR 270 (1977)

Chapter 197

Notes of Decisions

A comprehensive plan, although denominated a "resolu­tion," is the controlling land use planning instru­ment for a city; upon its passage, the city assumes responsibility to effectuate the plan and conform zoning ordinances, including prior existing zoning ordinances, to it. Baker v. City of Milwaukie, 271 Or 500, 533 P2d 772 (1975)

Procedural require­ments of the state-wide planning goals adopted by the Land Conserva­tion and Develop­ment Commission are not applicable to ordinances adopted before the effective date of the goals. Schmidt v. Land Conserva­tion and Develop­ment Comm., 29 Or App 665, 564 P2d 1090 (1977)

This chapter, es­tab­lishing LCDC and granting it authority to es­tab­lish state-wide land use planning goals, does not unconstitu­tionally delegate legislative power where both standards (ORS chapter 215) and safeguards ([former] ORS 197.310) exist. Meyer v. Lord, 37 Or App 59, 586 P2d 367 (1978)

Where county's comprehensive plan and land use regula­tions had not been acknowledged by LCDC, it was proper for county to apply state-wide planning standards directly to individual request for parti­tion. Alexanderson v. Polk County Commissioners, 289 Or 427, 616 P2d 459 (1980)

Issuance of a building permit was a "land conserva­tion and develop­ment ac­tion" where county had no acknowledged comprehensive plan, land was not zoned and no pre­vi­ous land use decision had been made re­gard­ing the land. Columbia Hills v. LCDC, 50 Or App 483, 624 P2d 157 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Nothing in this chapter grants the Land Conserva­tion and Develop­ment Depart­ment authority to challenge local land use decisions made after comprehensive plan acknowledg­ment. Ochoco Const. v. LCDC, 295 Or 422, 667 P2d 499 (1983)

LCDC has authority in periodic review process to require local govern­ment to add specific language or pro­vi­sions to its land use legisla­tion to assure compliance with statewide goals and LCDC rules. Oregonians in Ac­tion v. LCDC, 121 Or App 497, 854 P2d 1010 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Authority of a land conserva­tion and develop­ment com­mis­sion to bind the state in an interstate compact or agree­ment, (1973) Vol 36, p 361; applica­tion of Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., (1974) Vol 36, p 960; state-wide planning goal in conjunc­tion with interim Willamette River Greenway boundaries, (1975) Vol 37, p 894; binding effect on govern­mental agencies of the adop­tion of interim Willamette River Greenway boundaries, (1975) Vol 37, p 894; applica­tion to state agencies, (1976) Vol 37, p 1129; preexisting ordinances during the interim imple­menting stage, (1976) Vol 37, p 1329; constitu­tionality of delega­tion to LCDC of authority to prescribe and enforce statewide planning goals, (1977) Vol 38, p 1130; effect of situa­tion where similar peti­tion is filed before both com­mis­sion and a court, (1977) Vol 38, p 1268; considera­tion of availability of public school facilities in determina­tion of whether to approve subdivision, (1978) Vol 38, p 1956

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 99 (1973); 53 OLR 129 (1974); 5 EL 673 (1975); 54 OLR 203-223 (1975); 56 OLR 444 (1977); 18 WLR 49 (1982); 61 OLR 351 (1982); 20 WLR 764 (1984); 14 EL 661, 693, 713, 779, 843 (1984); 25 WLR 259 (1989); 31 WLR 147, 449, 817 (1995); 36 EL 25 (2006); 49 WLR 411 (2013)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 197—Comprehensive Land Use Planning I, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors197.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 197, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano197.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.