197.195
Limited land use decision; procedures.
(1) A limited land use decision shall be consistent with applicable provisions
of city or county comprehensive plans and land use regulations. Such a decision
may include conditions authorized by law. Within two years of September 29,
1991, cities and counties shall incorporate all comprehensive plan standards
applicable to limited land use decisions into their land use regulations. A
decision to incorporate all, some, or none of the applicable comprehensive plan
standards into land use regulations shall be undertaken as a
post-acknowledgment amendment under ORS 197.610 to 197.625. If a city or county
does not incorporate its comprehensive plan provisions into its land use
regulations, the comprehensive plan provisions may not be used as a basis for a
decision by the city or county or on appeal from that decision.
(2) A limited
land use decision is not subject to the requirements of ORS 197.797.
(3) A limited
land use decision is subject to the requirements of paragraphs (a) to (c) of
this subsection.
(a) In making a
limited land use decision, the local government shall follow the applicable
procedures contained within its acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use
regulations and other applicable legal requirements.
(b) For limited
land use decisions, the local government shall provide written notice to owners
of property within 100 feet of the entire contiguous site for which the
application is made. The list shall be compiled from the most recent property
tax assessment roll. For purposes of review, this requirement shall be deemed
met when the local government can provide an affidavit or other certification
that such notice was given. Notice shall also be provided to any neighborhood
or community organization recognized by the governing body and whose boundaries
include the site.
(c) The notice
and procedures used by local government shall:
(A) Provide a
14-day period for submission of written comments prior to the decision;
(B) State that
issues which may provide the basis for an appeal to the Land Use Board of
Appeals shall be raised in writing prior to the expiration of the comment
period. Issues shall be raised with sufficient specificity to enable the
decision maker to respond to the issue;
(C) List, by
commonly used citation, the applicable criteria for the decision;
(D) Set forth the
street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject
property;
(E) State the
place, date and time that comments are due;
(F) State that
copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for review,
and that copies can be obtained at cost;
(G) Include the
name and phone number of a local government contact person;
(H) Provide
notice of the decision to the applicant and any person who submits comments
under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph. The notice of decision must include
an explanation of appeal rights; and
(I) Briefly
summarize the local decision making process for the limited land use decision
being made.
(4) Approval or
denial of a limited land use decision 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.
(5) A local
government may provide for a hearing before the local government on appeal of a
limited land use decision under this section. The hearing may be limited to the
record developed pursuant to the initial hearing under subsection (3) of this
section or may allow for the introduction of additional testimony or evidence.
A hearing on appeal that allows the introduction of additional testimony or
evidence shall comply with the requirements of ORS 197.797. Written notice of
the decision rendered on appeal shall be given to all parties who appeared,
either orally or in writing, before the hearing. The notice of decision shall
include an explanation of the rights of each party to appeal the decision.
(6) A city shall
apply the procedures in this section, and only the procedures in this section,
to a limited land use decision, even if the city has not incorporated limited
land use decisions into land use regulations, as required by ORS 197.646 (3),
except that a limited land use decision that is made under land use standards
that do not require interpretation or the exercise of policy or legal judgment
may be made by city staff using a ministerial process. [1991 c.817 §3; 1995
c.595 §1; 1997 c.844 §1; 2024 c.110 §45]
Note: Sections 45a, 46 and 47, chapter
110, Oregon Laws 2024, provide:
Sec. 45a. Section 46 of this 2024 Act is
added to and made a part of ORS chapter 197. [2024 c.110 §45a]
Sec. 46. (1) The Housing Accountability and
Production Office may approve a hardship exemption or time extension to ORS
197.195 (6), during which time ORS 197.195 (6) does not apply to decisions by a
local government.
(2) The office
may grant an exemption or time extension only if the local government
demonstrates that a substantial hardship would result from the increased costs
or staff capacity needed to implement procedures as required under ORS 197.195
(6).
(3) The office
shall review exemption or time extension requests under the deadlines provided
in section 39 (3) of this 2024 Act. [2024 c.110 §46]
Sec. 47. Section 46 of this 2024 Act is
repealed on January 2, 2032. [2024 c.110 §47]
197.200 [1995 c.595 §15; 2025 c.476 §29;
renumbered 197A.212 in 2025]
GOALS COMPLIANCE
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
27
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1994–2023 · leading case:
Hammer v. Clackamas Cnty., 79 P.3d 394 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
Hammer v. Clackamas Cnty., 79 P.3d 394 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 14× “015(12), but petitioners claim that they were entitled to notice of the proposed final approval under ORS 197.195. That statute sets out particular requirements for limited land use decisions.”
Stewart v. City of Salem, 219 P.3d 46 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 6× “835 provides, in part: “(3) Issues shall be limited to those raised by any participant before the local hearings body as provided by ORS 197.195 or 197.763, whichever is applicable.”
Holland v. City of Cannon Beach, 920 P.2d 562 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 8× “” We quote the responsive argument from the city’s brief in its entirety: “The portions of ORS 197.195 upon which petitioner relies in this assignment did not take effect until six months after the city rendered its decision in this case.”
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Oregon City, 129 P.3d 702 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 5× “See ORS 197.195. As a limited land use decision, following a determination that the application was complete, notice was sent to nearby property owners, and those receiving notice were advised of a statutory 14-day limit to submit comments on the pending application.”
Aleali v. City of Sherwood, 325 P.3d 747 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 10× ““(b) May not exceed 10 years after the date of the decision if notice of a hearing or an administrative decision made pursuant to ORS 197.195 or ORS 197.763 is required but has not been provided.”
Holland v. City of Cannon Beach, 915 P.2d 407 (Or. 1996).
· cites it 3× “After the case had been argued to LUBA, but before that body decided the issues, an amendment to ORS 197.195(1), relating to “limited land use decisions” by cities and counties, went into effect.”
Johnson v. Landwatch Lane Cnty., 327 Or. App. 485 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
““(b) May not exceed 10 years after the date of the decision if notice of a hearing or an administrative decision made pursuant to ORS 197.195 or 197.797 is required but has not been provided.”
VanSpeybroeck v. Tillamook Cnty., 191 P.3d 712 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“That statutory framework suggests that issues he preserved at the local government level for board review, and at LUBA level for judicial review, in sufficient detail to allow a thorough examination of the issue by the decision-maker, so as to potentially obviate the need for…”
Hallmark Inns & Resorts, Inc. v. City of Lake Oswego, 88 P.3d 284 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“835(3) (in general, issues raised to LUBA “shall be limited to those raised by any participant before the local hearings body as provided by ORS 197.195 or ORS 197.763, whichever is applicable”).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.195(1) — 4 cases
Holland v. City of Cannon Beach, 920 P.2d 562 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“” We quote the responsive argument from the city’s brief in its entirety: “The portions of ORS 197.195 upon which petitioner relies in this assignment did not take effect until six months after the city rendered its decision in this case.”
Holland v. City of Cannon Beach, 915 P.2d 407 (Or. 1996).
“After the case had been argued to LUBA, but before that body decided the issues, an amendment to ORS 197.195(1), relating to “limited land use decisions” by cities and counties, went into effect.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.195(3) — 1 case
Hammer v. Clackamas Cnty., 79 P.3d 394 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“015(12), but petitioners claim that they were entitled to notice of the proposed final approval under ORS 197.195. That statute sets out particular requirements for limited land use decisions.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.195(3)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.195(3)(b) — 2 cases
Hammer v. Clackamas Cnty., 79 P.3d 394 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“015(12), but petitioners claim that they were entitled to notice of the proposed final approval under ORS 197.195. That statute sets out particular requirements for limited land use decisions.”
Aleali v. City of Sherwood, 325 P.3d 747 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
““(b) May not exceed 10 years after the date of the decision if notice of a hearing or an administrative decision made pursuant to ORS 197.195 or ORS 197.763 is required but has not been provided.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.195(3)(c) — 4 cases
Hammer v. Clackamas Cnty., 79 P.3d 394 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“015(12), but petitioners claim that they were entitled to notice of the proposed final approval under ORS 197.195. That statute sets out particular requirements for limited land use decisions.”
Stewart v. City of Salem, 219 P.3d 46 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“835 provides, in part: “(3) Issues shall be limited to those raised by any participant before the local hearings body as provided by ORS 197.195 or 197.763, whichever is applicable.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.195(3)(c)(A) — 1 case
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Oregon City, 129 P.3d 702 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“See ORS 197.195. As a limited land use decision, following a determination that the application was complete, notice was sent to nearby property owners, and those receiving notice were advised of a statutory 14-day limit to submit comments on the pending application.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.195(3)(c)(B) — 4 cases
VanSpeybroeck v. Tillamook Cnty., 191 P.3d 712 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“That statutory framework suggests that issues he preserved at the local government level for board review, and at LUBA level for judicial review, in sufficient detail to allow a thorough examination of the issue by the decision-maker, so as to potentially obviate the need for…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.195(3)(c)(H) — 1 case
Hammer v. Clackamas Cnty., 79 P.3d 394 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“015(12), but petitioners claim that they were entitled to notice of the proposed final approval under ORS 197.195. That statute sets out particular requirements for limited land use decisions.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.195(3)(e) — 1 case
Aleali v. City of Sherwood, 325 P.3d 747 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
““(b) May not exceed 10 years after the date of the decision if notice of a hearing or an administrative decision made pursuant to ORS 197.195 or ORS 197.763 is required but has not been provided.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.195(4) — 2 cases
Hammer v. Clackamas Cnty., 79 P.3d 394 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“015(12), but petitioners claim that they were entitled to notice of the proposed final approval under ORS 197.195. That statute sets out particular requirements for limited land use decisions.”
Stewart v. City of Salem, 219 P.3d 46 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“835 provides, in part: “(3) Issues shall be limited to those raised by any participant before the local hearings body as provided by ORS 197.195 or 197.763, whichever is applicable.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.195(5) — 2 cases
Stewart v. City of Salem, 219 P.3d 46 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“835 provides, in part: “(3) Issues shall be limited to those raised by any participant before the local hearings body as provided by ORS 197.195 or 197.763, whichever is applicable.”
Aleali v. City of Sherwood, 325 P.3d 747 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
““(b) May not exceed 10 years after the date of the decision if notice of a hearing or an administrative decision made pursuant to ORS 197.195 or ORS 197.763 is required but has not been provided.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.