ORS 215.435¹
Deadline for final action by county on remand of land use decision
  • exception

(1) Pursuant to a final order of the Land Use Board of Appeals under ORS 197.830 (Review procedures) remanding a decision to a county, the governing body of the county or its designee shall take final action on an application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change within 90 days of the effective date of the final order issued by the board. For purposes of this subsection, the effective date of the final order is the last day for filing a petition for judicial review of a final order of the board under ORS 197.850 (Judicial review of board order) (3). If judicial review of a final order of the board is sought under ORS 197.830 (Review procedures), the 90-day period established under this subsection shall not begin until final resolution of the judicial review.

(2)(a) In addition to the requirements of subsection (1) of this section, the 90-day period established under subsection (1) of this section shall not begin until the applicant requests in writing that the county proceed with the application on remand.

(b) The 90-day period may be extended for a reasonable period of time at the request of the applicant.

(3) The 90-day period established under subsection (1) of this section applies only to decisions wholly within the authority and control of the governing body of the county.

(4) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to a remand proceeding concerning an amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation or the adoption of a new land use regulation that was forwarded to the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development under ORS 197.610 (Local government notice of proposed amendment or new regulation). [1999 c.545 §2]

Chapter 215

Notes of Decisions

Published notice is adequate if prop­erty owners can reasonably ascertain that prop­erty in which they hold interest may be affected. Clackamas County v. Emmert, 14 Or App 493, 513 P2d 532 (1973), Sup Ct review denied

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

Where county had not yet adopted comprehensive plan but had zoned certain por­tions "primarily agricultural," county had not enacted adequate interim measures to protect its agricultural land until exclusive farm use zoning was completed. Columbia County v. LCDC, 44 Or App 749, 606 P2d 1184 (1980)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., applica­tion to county governing bodies and planning com­mis­sions, (1974) Vol 36, p 960; binding effect on govern­mental agencies of the adop­tion of interim Willamette River Greenway boundaries, (1975) Vol 37, p 894

Law Review Cita­tions

36 EL 25 (2006)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 215—County Planning; Zoning; Housing Codes, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­Archive/­2007ors215.­pdf (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 215, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­215ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
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. Currency Information