197.620 Appeal
of certain comprehensive plan or land use regulation decision-making. (1) A decision to not adopt a
legislative amendment or a new land use regulation is not appealable unless the
amendment is necessary to address the requirements of a new or amended goal,
rule or statute.
(2)
Notwithstanding the requirements of ORS 197.830 (2) that a person have appeared
before the local government orally or in writing to seek review of a land use
decision, the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development
or any other person may appeal the decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals
if:
(a) The local
government failed to submit all of the materials described in ORS 197.610 (3)
or, if applicable, ORS 197.610 (6), and the failure to submit the materials
prejudiced substantial rights of the Department of Land Conservation and
Development or the person;
(b) Except as
provided in subsection (3) of this section, the local government submitted the
materials described in ORS 197.610 (3) or, if applicable, ORS 197.610 (6),
after the deadline specified in ORS 197.610 (1) or (6) or rules of the Land
Conservation and Development Commission, whichever is applicable; or
(c) The decision
differs from the proposed changes submitted under ORS 197.610 to such an extent
that the materials submitted under ORS 197.610 do not reasonably describe the
decision.
(3) Subsection
(2)(b) of this section does not authorize an appeal if the local government
cures an untimely submission of materials as provided in this subsection. A
local government may cure the untimely submission of materials by either:
(a) Postponing
the date for the final evidentiary hearing by the greater of 10 days or the
number of days by which the submission was late; or
(b) Holding the
evidentiary record open for an additional period of time equal to 10 days or
the number of days by which the submission was late, whichever is greater.
Additionally, the local government shall provide notice of the postponement or
record extension to the Department of Land Conservation and Development. [1981
c.748 §5a; 1983 c.827 §8; 1989 c.761 §21; 1991 c.612 §13a; 2011 c.280 §3]
Notes of Decisions
Foland v. Jackson Cnty., 807 P.2d 801 (Or. 1991).
· cites it 2× “ORS 197.620; ORS 197.830. Filing of an appeal delays acknowledgement of an amendment unless and until LUBA or the appellate courts affirm the decision.”
Just v. City of Lebanon, 88 P.3d 312 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“830, the statute concerning a person’s standing to appeal to LUBA, provides: “(2) Except as provided in ORS 197.620(1) and (2), a person may petition the board for review of a land use decision or limited land use decision if the person: “(a) Filed a notice of intent to appeal…”
Brentmar v. Jackson Cnty., 900 P.2d 1030 (Or. 1995).
““(2) Except as provided in ORS 197.620(1) and (2), a person may petition [LUBA] for review of a land use decision or limited land use decision if the person: “(a) Filed a notice of intent to appeal the decision as provided in subsection (1) of this section; and “(b) Appeared…”
Century Props., LLC v. City of Corvallis, 139 P.3d 990 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 17× “The city relied on ORS 197.620(1), which permits only “persons who participated either orally or in writing in the local government proceedings” to appeal a post-acknowledgment plan amendment to LUBA.”
Flowers v. Klamath Cnty., 780 P.2d 227 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“830(3) provides: “Except as provided in ORS 197.620(1), a person may petition the board for review of a quasi-judicial land use decision if the person: “(a) Filed a notice of intent to appeal the decision as provided in subsection (1) of this section; “(b) Appeared before the…”
Valley & Siletz R.R. v. Laudahl, 681 P.2d 109 (Or. 1984).
“…from the Commission when local governments amend acknowledged plans or ordinances or enact new ordinances. ORS 197.620, 197.835 (1983).”
Woodard v. City of Cottage Grove, 201 P.3d 210 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
““(2) Except as provided in ORS 197.620(1) and (2), a person may petition the board for review of a land use decision or limited land use decision if the person: *286 “(a) Filed a notice of intent to appeal the decision as provided in subsection (1) of this section; and “(b)…”
Aleali v. City of Sherwood, 325 P.3d 747 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“830(9) (appeal of plan and land use regulation amendments controlled exclusively by state law as decided in Orenco Neighborhood, 135 Or App at 432); ORS 197.620(2) (appeals of PAPAs to LUBA because of defective prehearing submittals under state law); ORS 215.”
Volny v. City of Bend, 4 P.3d 768 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“Rather, it plays a role that is advisory to the local government, ORS 197.”
Conte v. City of Eugene, 425 P.3d 494 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 5× “620, a person may petition the board for review of a land use decision or limited land use decision if the person: "(a) Filed a notice of intent to appeal the decision as provided in subsection (1) of this section; and *632 "(b) Appeared before the local government, special…”
Apalategui v. Washington Cnty., 723 P.2d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“830(3) provides: “Except as provided in ORS 197.620(1), a person may petition the board for review of a quasi-judicial land use decision if the person: “(a) Filed a notice of intent to appeal the decision as provided in subsection (1) of this section; and “(b) Appeared before…”
Maresh v. Yamhill Cnty., 683 P.2d 124 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “Former ORS 197.620(4) (a) (repealed by Or Laws 1983, ch 827, § 8) provided: “Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, neither the director nor a person appealing by filing an objection may appeal on grounds which that party did not raise in the local government…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.620(1) — 8 cases
Just v. City of Lebanon, 88 P.3d 312 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“830, the statute concerning a person’s standing to appeal to LUBA, provides: “(2) Except as provided in ORS 197.620(1) and (2), a person may petition the board for review of a land use decision or limited land use decision if the person: “(a) Filed a notice of intent to appeal…”
Brentmar v. Jackson Cnty., 900 P.2d 1030 (Or. 1995).
““(2) Except as provided in ORS 197.620(1) and (2), a person may petition [LUBA] for review of a land use decision or limited land use decision if the person: “(a) Filed a notice of intent to appeal the decision as provided in subsection (1) of this section; and “(b) Appeared…”
Century Props., LLC v. City of Corvallis, 139 P.3d 990 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“The city relied on ORS 197.620(1), which permits only “persons who participated either orally or in writing in the local government proceedings” to appeal a post-acknowledgment plan amendment to LUBA.”
Flowers v. Klamath Cnty., 780 P.2d 227 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“830(3) provides: “Except as provided in ORS 197.620(1), a person may petition the board for review of a quasi-judicial land use decision if the person: “(a) Filed a notice of intent to appeal the decision as provided in subsection (1) of this section; “(b) Appeared before the…”
Woodard v. City of Cottage Grove, 201 P.3d 210 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
““(2) Except as provided in ORS 197.620(1) and (2), a person may petition the board for review of a land use decision or limited land use decision if the person: *286 “(a) Filed a notice of intent to appeal the decision as provided in subsection (1) of this section; and “(b)…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.620(2) — 1 case
Aleali v. City of Sherwood, 325 P.3d 747 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“830(9) (appeal of plan and land use regulation amendments controlled exclusively by state law as decided in Orenco Neighborhood, 135 Or App at 432); ORS 197.620(2) (appeals of PAPAs to LUBA because of defective prehearing submittals under state law); ORS 215.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.620(4) — 1 case
Maresh v. Yamhill Cnty., 683 P.2d 124 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“Former ORS 197.620(4) (a) (repealed by Or Laws 1983, ch 827, § 8) provided: “Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, neither the director nor a person appealing by filing an objection may appeal on grounds which that party did not raise in the local government…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.620(4)(a) — 1 case
Maresh v. Yamhill Cnty., 683 P.2d 124 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“Former ORS 197.620(4) (a) (repealed by Or Laws 1983, ch 827, § 8) provided: “Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, neither the director nor a person appealing by filing an objection may appeal on grounds which that party did not raise in the local government…”
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.