2015 ORS 197.830¹
Review procedures
  • standing
  • fees
  • deadlines
  • rules
  • issues subject to review
  • attorney fees and costs
  • publication of orders
  • mediation
  • tracking of reviews

Notes of Decisions

On remand, where peti­tioners who were entitled to notice of land use decision pursuant to ORS 197.615 (Submission of adopted comprehensive plan or land use regulation changes to Department of Land Conservation and Development) did not receive notice from county, time for filing of intent to ap­peal to LUBA was tolled until they had knowledge of decision. Ludwick v. Yamhill County, 72 Or App 224, 696 P2d 536 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

County ordinance controls in determina­tion as to when land use decision is final, for purposes of this sec­tion, where ordinance is not in conflict with LUBA rule or statutory authority. Columbia River Television v. Multnomah County, 299 Or 325, 702 P2d 1065 (1985)

Aggrieved prop­erty owners who opposed elec­tion to incorporate had standing to challenge vote of county board of com­mis­sioners on due process grounds. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Co. Court, 304 Or 76, 742 P2d 39 (1987)

Where peti­tioners contended in ap­peal to LUBA that county failed to hold hearing and give notice as re­quired by ORS 215.416 (Permit application), peti­tioners were not re­quired to satisfy appearance pro­vi­sion of this sec­tion and are "aggrieved" within meaning of this sec­tion for purposes of standing. Flowers v. Klamath County, 98 Or App 384, 780 P2d 227 (1989), Sup Ct review denied; Hugo v. Columbia County, 157 Or App 1, 967 P2d 895 (1998)

Local ordinance require­ment for hearing cannot extend time for ap­pealing post-acknowledg­ment amend­ment to land use regula­tion. Orenco Neighborhood v. City of Hillsboro, 135 Or App 428, 899 P2d 720 (1995)

Where peti­tioner files ap­peal under ORS 215.416 (Permit application) seeking local review, direct ap­peal to LUBA is not available. Tarjoto v. Lane County, 137 Or App 305, 904 P2d 641 (1995)

Failure to include pay­ment with ap­peal accepted by LUBA is not jurisdic­tional defect. Ray v. Douglas County, 140 Or App 24, 914 P2d 26 (1996)

Party can be prevailing party where case is voluntarily dismissed without final decision on merits. Pfeifer v. City of Silverton, 146 Or App 191, 931 P2d 833 (1997)

Time for filing ap­peal is not tolled by delay in sending notice of final decision to party. Wicks-Snodgrass v. City of Reedsport, 148 Or App 217, 939 P2d 625 (1997), Sup Ct review denied

There is probable cause for belief that entire posi­tion is well founded if reasonable lawyer would conclude that any point asserted is open to doubt or subject to honest discussion. Fechtig v. City of Albany, 150 Or App 10, 946 P2d 280 (1997)

Attorney fees may be awarded only if all argu­ments comprising posi­tion of nonprevailing party on ap­peal are so meritless as to lack probable cause. Fechtig v. City of Albany, 150 Or App 10, 946 P2d 280 (1997)

Appellate decision need not decide assign­ment of error on merits for prevailing party to assert in attorney fee peti­tion that assign­ment lacked probable cause. Spencer Creek Neighbors v. Lane County, 152 Or App 1, 952 P2d 90 (1998)

Asser­tion of local governing body interpreta­tion that is clearly wrong is not necessarily asser­tion made without probable cause. Spencer Creek Neighbors v. Lane County, 152 Or App 1, 952 P2d 90 (1998)

Time for filing ap­peal of plan and land use amend­ments applies to any per­son with standing to ap­peal, not just per­sons entitled to notice. Depart­ment of Transporta­tion v. City of Oregon City, 153 Or App 705, 959 P2d 615 (1998)

Notwithstanding statutory language permitting any per­son who appeared before local govern­ment to intervene in review process, per­son seeking to intervene must meet constitu­tional require­ment of justiciability by showing that court's opinion will have practical effect on that party. Utsey v. Coos County, 176 Or App 524, 32 P3d 933 (2001)

For purposes of determining whether local govern­ment made land use decision without providing hearing, "hearing" refers to quasi-judicial pro­ceed­ing held to gather evidence about applica­tion for land use permit or to hear and consider argu­ment on issues of fact or law relevant to applica­tion, regardless of scope of evidence considered at pro­ceed­ing. Friends of Jacksonville v. City of Jacksonville, 189 Or App 283, 76 P3d 121 (2003), Sup Ct review denied

10-year limita­tion on ap­pealing hearing or decision made pursuant to ORS 197.195 (Limited land use decision) or 197.763 (Conduct of local quasi-judicial land use hearings) applies retroactively. Jones v. Douglas County, 247 Or App 56, 270 P3d 264 (2011)

Express authority of state or local govern­ment to withdraw land use decision "sub­se­quent to the filing of notice of intent and prior to the date set for filing the record" necessarily prohibits state or local govern­ment from withdrawing decision thereafter. Dexter Lost Valley Community Associa­tion v. Lane County, 255 Or App 701, 300 P3d 1243 (2013)

Peti­tioner, who did not receive notice re­quired by local but not state law of city land use hearing, was not entitled to delayed ap­peal because without providing hearing means either hearing was not held at all or notice re­quired by state law was not provided. Aleali v. City of Sherwood, 262 Or App 59, 325 P3d 747 (2014)

Where Land Use Board of Appeals extends time county has in which to transmit record of county land use decision to Land Use Board of Appeals, time in which county may reconsider land use decision is also extended. Columbia Riverkeeper v. Clatsop County, 267 Or App 578, 341 P3d 790 (2014)

Where peti­tioner, who appeared at city hearing by written testimony in opposi­tion to proposed land use plan, did not receive notice of city's final order, hearing to reconsider final order or affirma­tion of approval of final order as re­quired by ORS 227.173 (Basis for decision on permit application or expedited land division), or of other peti­tioners' intent to ap­peal final order to Land Use Board of Appeals, and city later corrected error and served notice of intent to ap­peal on peti­tioner, notice of intent to ap­peal was not filed with LUBA for purposes of this sec­tion and 21-day time in which to intervene in ap­peal was not triggered by improper filing. Oakleigh-McClure Neighbors v. City of Eugene, 269 Or App 176, 344 P3d 503 (2015)

Where county granted extension of time to travel stop company to begin imple­menta­tion of site plan review for company's proposed develop­ment of travel stop, and extension decision was made without public hearing, peti­tioner is not adversely affected by extension decision, which did not apply to peti­tioner or directly affect peti­tioner's interests in adverse manner, so peti­tioner does not have standing under this sec­tion. Devin Oil Co., Inc. v. Morrow County, 275 Or App 799, 365 P3d 1084 (2015)

Law Review Cita­tions

65 OLR 186, 192 (1986); 36 WLR 441 (2000)

Notes of Decisions

To bring inverse condemna­tion ac­tion in state court, landowner must exhaust available local administrative remedies, but is not re­quired to ap­peal local administrative determina­tions to Land Use Board of Appeals. West Linn Corporate Park, L.L.C. v. City of West Linn, 349 Or 58, 240 P3d 29 (2010)

Law Review Cita­tions

19 WLR 109 (1983); 65 OLR 185, 186 (1986); 19 EL 67 (1988)

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.