2015 ORS 215.416¹
Permit application
  • fees
  • consolidated procedures
  • hearings
  • notice
  • approval criteria
  • decision without hearing

(1) When required or authorized by the ordinances, rules and regulations of a county, an owner of land may apply in writing to such persons as the governing body designates, for a permit, in the manner prescribed by the governing body. The governing body shall establish fees charged for processing permits at an amount no more than the actual or average cost of providing that service.

(2) The governing body shall establish a consolidated procedure by which an applicant may apply at one time for all permits or zone changes needed for a development project. The consolidated procedure shall be subject to the time limitations set out in ORS 215.427 (Final action on permit or zone change application). The consolidated procedure shall be available for use at the option of the applicant no later than the time of the first periodic review of the comprehensive plan and land use regulations.

(3) Except as provided in subsection (11) of this section, the hearings officer shall hold at least one public hearing on the application.

(4) The application shall not be approved if the proposed use of land is found to be in conflict with the comprehensive plan of the county and other applicable land use regulation or ordinance provisions. The approval may include such conditions as are authorized by statute or county legislation.

(5) Hearings under this section shall be held only after notice to the applicant and also notice to other persons as otherwise provided by law and shall otherwise be conducted in conformance with the provisions of ORS 197.763 (Conduct of local quasi-judicial land use hearings).

(6) Notice of a public hearing on an application submitted under this section shall be provided to the owner of an airport defined by the Oregon Department of Aviation as a "public use airport" if:

(a) The name and address of the airport owner has been provided by the Oregon Department of Aviation to the county planning authority; and

(b) The property subject to the land use hearing is:

(A) Within 5,000 feet of the side or end of a runway of an airport determined by the Oregon Department of Aviation to be a "visual airport"; or

(B) Within 10,000 feet of the side or end of the runway of an airport determined by the Oregon Department of Aviation to be an "instrument airport."

(7) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (6) of this section, notice of a land use hearing need not be provided as set forth in subsection (6) of this section if the zoning permit would only allow a structure less than 35 feet in height and the property is located outside the runway "approach surface" as defined by the Oregon Department of Aviation.

(8)(a) Approval or denial of a permit application shall be based on standards and criteria which shall be set forth in the zoning ordinance or other appropriate ordinance or regulation of the county and which shall relate approval or denial of a permit application to the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan for the area in which the proposed use of land would occur and to the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan for the county as a whole.

(b) When an ordinance establishing approval standards is required under ORS 197.307 (Effect of need for certain housing in urban growth areas) to provide only clear and objective standards, the standards must be clear and objective on the face of the ordinance.

(9) Approval or denial of a permit or expedited land division shall be based upon and accompanied by a brief statement that explains the criteria and standards considered relevant to the decision, states the facts relied upon in rendering the decision and explains the justification for the decision based on the criteria, standards and facts set forth.

(10) Written notice of the approval or denial shall be given to all parties to the proceeding.

(11)(a)(A) The hearings officer or such other person as the governing body designates may approve or deny an application for a permit without a hearing if the hearings officer or other designated person gives notice of the decision and provides an opportunity for any person who is adversely affected or aggrieved, or who is entitled to notice under paragraph (c) of this subsection, to file an appeal.

(B) Written notice of the decision shall be mailed to those persons described in paragraph (c) of this subsection.

(C) Notice under this subsection shall comply with ORS 197.763 (Conduct of local quasi-judicial land use hearings) (3)(a), (c), (g) and (h) and shall describe the nature of the decision. In addition, the notice shall state that any person who is adversely affected or aggrieved or who is entitled to written notice under paragraph (c) of this subsection may appeal the decision by filing a written appeal in the manner and within the time period provided in the county’s land use regulations. A county may not establish an appeal period that is less than 12 days from the date the written notice of decision required by this subsection was mailed. The notice shall state that the decision will not become final until the period for filing a local appeal has expired. The notice also shall state that a person who is mailed written notice of the decision cannot appeal the decision directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals under ORS 197.830 (Review procedures).

(D) An appeal from a hearings officer’s decision made without hearing under this subsection shall be to the planning commission or governing body of the county. An appeal from such other person as the governing body designates shall be to a hearings officer, the planning commission or the governing body. In either case, the appeal shall be to a de novo hearing.

(E) The de novo hearing required by subparagraph (D) of this paragraph shall be the initial evidentiary hearing required under ORS 197.763 (Conduct of local quasi-judicial land use hearings) as the basis for an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals. At the de novo hearing:

(i) The applicant and other parties shall have the same opportunity to present testimony, arguments and evidence as they would have had in a hearing under subsection (3) of this section before the decision;

(ii) The presentation of testimony, arguments and evidence shall not be limited to issues raised in a notice of appeal; and

(iii) The decision maker shall consider all relevant testimony, arguments and evidence that are accepted at the hearing.

(b) If a local government provides only a notice of the opportunity to request a hearing, the local government may charge a fee for the initial hearing. The maximum fee for an initial hearing shall be the cost to the local government of preparing for and conducting the appeal, or $250, whichever is less. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal, the fee for the initial hearing shall be refunded. The fee allowed in this paragraph shall not apply to appeals made by neighborhood or community organizations recognized by the governing body and whose boundaries include the site.

(c)(A) Notice of a decision under paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be provided to the applicant and to the owners of record of property on the most recent property tax assessment roll where such property is located:

(i) Within 100 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice when the subject property is wholly or in part within an urban growth boundary;

(ii) Within 250 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice when the subject property is outside an urban growth boundary and not within a farm or forest zone; or

(iii) Within 750 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice when the subject property is within a farm or forest zone.

(B) Notice shall also be provided to any neighborhood or community organization recognized by the governing body and whose boundaries include the site.

(C) At the discretion of the applicant, the local government also shall provide notice to the Department of Land Conservation and Development.

(12) A decision described in ORS 215.402 (Definitions for ORS 215.402 to 215.438 and 215.700 to 215.780) (4)(b) shall:

(a) Be entered in a registry available to the public setting forth:

(A) The street address or other easily understood geographic reference to the subject property;

(B) The date of the decision; and

(C) A description of the decision made.

(b) Be subject to the jurisdiction of the Land Use Board of Appeals in the same manner as a limited land use decision.

(c) Be subject to the appeal period described in ORS 197.830 (Review procedures) (5)(b).

(13) At the option of the applicant, the local government shall provide notice of the decision described in ORS 215.402 (Definitions for ORS 215.402 to 215.438 and 215.700 to 215.780) (4)(b) in the manner required by ORS 197.763 (Conduct of local quasi-judicial land use hearings) (2), in which case an appeal to the board shall be filed within 21 days of the decision. The notice shall include an explanation of appeal rights.

(14) Notwithstanding the requirements of this section, a limited land use decision shall be subject to the requirements set forth in ORS 197.195 (Limited land use decision) and 197.828 (Board review of limited land use decision). [1973 c.552 §§15, 16; 1977 c.654 §2; 1977 c.766 §12; 1979 c.772 §10a; 1983 c.827 §20; 1987 c.106 §2; 1987 c.729 §17; 1991 c.612 §20; 1991 c.817 §5; 1995 c.595 §27; 1995 c.692 §1; 1997 c.844 §4; 1999 c.357 §2; 1999 c.621 §1; 1999 c.935 §23; 2001 c.397 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Under pro­vi­sions of this sec­tion concerning county pro­ce­dures for authorizing land use develop­ment, including subdivisions, proposed subdivision was re­quired to comply with county comprehensive framework plan. Commonwealth Properties v. Washington County, 35 Or App 387, 582 P2d 1384 (1978)

Specificity require­ments of this sec­tion were not met by board of county com­mis­sioners' denial of tentative approval of proposed subdivision plat where denial was couched in general language and failed to specify what criteria were used to determine that proposed plat did not comply with county comprehensive plan. Commonwealth Properties v. Washington County, 35 Or App 387, 582 P2d 1384 (1978)

County ordinance which re­quired that ap­peals of land use decisions be taken within ten days of oral decision of hearings of­fi­cer was invalid since it conflicted with pro­vi­sion in this sec­tion requiring written notice of decision to be given to parties. Bryant v. Clackamas County, 56 Or App 442, 643 P2d 649 (1982)

County's decision whether to allow construc­tion of primary farm dwelling on land zoned for exclusive farm use entailed issuance of permit requiring discre­tionary approval under ORS 215.402 (Definitions for ORS 215.402 to 215.438 and 215.700 to 215.780) and was subject to notice, hearing and other procedural require­ments of this sec­tion. Doughton v. Douglas County, 88 Or App 198, 744 P2d 1299 (1987)

Where peti­tioners contended in ap­peal to LUBA that county failed to hold hearing and give notice as re­quired by this sec­tion, peti­tioners were not re­quired to satisfy appearance pro­vi­sion of ORS 197.830 (Review procedures) and are "aggrieved" within meaning of ORS 197.830 (Review procedures) 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)

It was beyond county's legislative power to require as part of condi­tional use permit that skydiving company be strictly liable for any damages resulting from its activities. Skydive Oregon, Inc. v. Clackamas County, 122 Or App 342, 857 P2d 879 (1993)

Where peti­tioner files ap­peal seeking local review, direct ap­peal to LUBA under ORS 197.830 (Review procedures) is not available. Tarjoto v. Lane County, 137 Or App 305, 904 P2d 641 (1995)

Listing of categories of per­sons entitled to notice imposes cumulative notice require­ment, not alternative notice require­ment. Wilbur Residents v. Douglas County, 151 Or App 523, 950 P2d 368 (1997), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

6 EL 151 (1975)

Notes of Decisions

Peti­tioner who at­tempted to ap­peal county planning director's decision to county planning com­mis­sion, where no local ap­peal was provided in county ordinance, could not challenge pro­ce­dures or merits of director's decision in ap­peal to LUBA from com­mis­sioner's refusal to consider matter, after failing to bring direct timely ap­peal to LUBA from first decision. Smith v. Douglas County, 98 Or App 379, 780 P2d 232 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 395 (1974)

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 ([former] 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/­ors/­ors215.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 215, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano215.­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.