2015 ORS 215.422¹
Review of decision of hearings officer or other authority
  • notice of appeal
  • fees
  • appeal of final decision

(1)(a) A party aggrieved by the action of a hearings officer or other decision-making authority may appeal the action to the planning commission or county governing body, or both, however the governing body prescribes. The appellate authority on its own motion may review the action. The procedure and type of hearing for such an appeal or review shall be prescribed by the governing body, but shall not require the notice of appeal to be filed within less than seven days after the date the governing body mails or delivers the decision to the parties.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, the governing body may provide that the decision of a hearings officer or other decision-making authority is the final determination of the county.

(c) The governing body may prescribe, by ordinance or regulation, fees to defray the costs incurred in acting upon an appeal from a hearings officer, planning commission or other designated person. The amount of the fee shall be reasonable and shall be no more than the average cost of such appeals or the actual cost of the appeal, excluding the cost of preparation of a written transcript. The governing body may establish a fee for the preparation of a written transcript. The fee shall be reasonable and shall not exceed the actual cost of preparing the transcript up to $500. In lieu of a transcript prepared by the governing body and the fee therefor, the governing body shall allow any party to an appeal proceeding held on the record to prepare a transcript of relevant portions of the proceedings conducted at a lower level at the party’s own expense. If an appellant prevails at a hearing or on appeal, the transcript fee shall be refunded.

(2) A party aggrieved by the final determination may have the determination reviewed in the manner provided in ORS 197.830 (Review procedures) to 197.845 (Stay of decision being reviewed).

(3) No decision or action of a planning commission or county governing body shall be invalid due to ex parte contact or bias resulting from ex parte contact with a member of the decision-making body, if the member of the decision-making body receiving the contact:

(a) Places on the record the substance of any written or oral ex parte communications concerning the decision or action; and

(b) Has a public announcement of the content of the communication and of the parties’ right to rebut the substance of the communication made at the first hearing following the communication where action will be considered or taken on the subject to which the communication related.

(4) A communication between county staff and the planning commission or governing body shall not be considered an ex parte contact for the purposes of subsection (3) of this section.

(5) Subsection (3) of this section does not apply to ex parte contact with a hearings officer approved under ORS 215.406 (Planning and zoning hearings officers) (1). [1973 c.552 §§17,18; 1977 c.766 §13; 1979 c.772 §11; 1981 c.748 §42; 1983 c.656 §1; 1983 c.827 §21; 1991 c.817 §9]

Notes of Decisions

Under this sec­tion and ORS 34.040 (When allowed), community organiza­tion lacked standing to obtain review under representa­tional theory where it had shown no particular injury to interests of members or itself, except in respect to one member who could not es­tab­lish injury of some substantial right, nor could organiza­tion obtain standing under a de jure theory where organiza­tion was an unofficially formed group without defined membership. Clark v. Dagg, 38 Or App 71, 588 P2d 1298 (1979), Sup Ct review denied

County may not limit ap­peals by narrowing class of parties qualifying as being "aggrieved" by ac­tion of hearing of­fi­cer. Overton v. Benton County, 61 Or App 667, 658 P2d 574 (1983)

Person has standing to ap­peal to Lane County Board of Commissioners from quasi-judicial land use decision made by county hearings of­fi­cer where per­son's interest in decision was recognized by local land use decision-making body; per­son asserted posi­tion on the merits; and local land use decision-making body reached decision contrary to posi­tion asserted by per­son. Lamb v. Lane County, 70 Or App 364, 689 P2d 1049 (1984)

Remand by Land Use Board of Appeals to county board was appropriate because although opponents had not ap­pealed to LUBA, six asserted errors not decided by county board opponents had not waived undecided issues. Smith v. Douglas County, 308 Or 191, 777 P2d 1377 (1989)

Law Review Cita­tions

54 OLR 396 (1975); 55 OLR 122-140 (1976)

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.