ORS 215.437¹
Mandamus proceeding when county fails to take final action within specified time on remand of land use decision

(1) If the governing body of a county or its designee fails to take final action on an application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change within 90 days as provided in ORS 215.435 (Deadline for final action by county on remand of land use decision), the applicant may file a petition for a writ of mandamus as provided in ORS 34.105 (Definitions for ORS 34.105 to 34.240) to 34.240 (Appeal). The court shall set the matter for trial as soon as practicable but not more than 15 days from the date a responsive pleading pursuant to ORS 34.170 (Answer or motion to dismiss by defendant) is filed, unless the court has been advised by the parties that the matter has been settled.

(2) A writ of mandamus issued under this section shall order the governing body of the county or its designee to make a final determination on the application. The court, in its discretion, may order such remedy as the court determines appropriate.

(3) In a mandamus proceeding under this section the court shall award court costs and attorney fees to an applicant who prevails on a petition under this section. [1999 c.545 §3]

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