2017 ORS 215.429¹
Mandamus proceeding when county fails to take final action on land use application within specified time
  • jurisdiction
  • notice
  • peremptory writ

(1) Except when an applicant requests an extension under ORS 215.427 (Final action on permit or zone change application), if the governing body of the county or its designee does not take final action on an application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change within 120 days or 150 days, as appropriate, after the application is deemed complete, the applicant may file a petition for a writ of mandamus under ORS 34.130 (Petition for writ) in the circuit court of the county where the application was submitted to compel the governing body or its designee to issue the approval.

(2) The governing body shall retain jurisdiction to make a land use decision on the application until a petition for a writ of mandamus is filed. Upon filing a petition under ORS 34.130 (Petition for writ), jurisdiction for all decisions regarding the application, including settlement, shall be with the circuit court.

(3) A person who files a petition for a writ of mandamus under this section shall provide written notice of the filing to all persons who would be entitled to notice under ORS 197.763 (Conduct of local quasi-judicial land use hearings) and to any person who participated orally or in writing in any evidentiary hearing on the application held prior to the filing of the petition. The notice shall be mailed or hand delivered on the same day the petition is filed.

(4) If the governing body does not take final action on an application within 120 days or 150 days, as appropriate, of the date the application is deemed complete, the applicant may elect to proceed with the application according to the applicable provisions of the county comprehensive plan and land use regulations or to file a petition for a writ of mandamus under this section. If the applicant elects to proceed according to the local plan and regulations, the applicant may not file a petition for a writ of mandamus within 14 days after the governing body makes a preliminary decision, provided a final written decision is issued within 14 days of the preliminary decision.

(5) The court shall issue a peremptory writ unless the governing body or any intervenor shows that the approval would violate a substantive provision of the county comprehensive plan or land use regulations as those terms are defined in ORS 197.015 (Definitions for ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and ORS 197A.300 to 197A.325). The writ may specify conditions of approval that would otherwise be allowed by the county comprehensive plan or land use regulations. [1999 c.533 §7; 1999 c.393 §5]

Notes of Decisions

Landowner’s applica­tion to county to broaden categories of commercial uses permitted on landowner’s land was applica­tion for proposed develop­ment of land. State ex rel Schrodt v. Jackson County, 262 Or App 437, 324 P3d 615 (2014)

Where plaintiff filed mandamus peti­tion 11 days after hearings official issued final written decision to deny plaintiff’s land use permit applica­tion, plaintiff’s filing was premature because “governing body” as used in this sec­tion includes designee of governing body and this sec­tion requires plaintiff to wait 14 days after written decision to file mandamus peti­tion. State ex rel Willamette Community Health Solu­tions v. Lane County, 274 Or App 545, 361 P3d 613 (2015)

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 (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 215, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano215.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
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.