215.416 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. 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)(a) A county
may not approve an application 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.
(b)(A) A county
may not deny an application for a housing development located within the urban
growth boundary if the development complies with clear and objective standards,
including but not limited to clear and objective design standards contained in the
county comprehensive plan or land use regulations.
(B) This
paragraph does not apply to:
(i) Applications
or permits for residential development in areas described in ORS 197A.400 (2);
or
(ii) Applications
or permits reviewed under an alternative approval process adopted under ORS
197A.400 (3).
(c) A county may
not condition an application for a housing development on a reduction in
density if:
(A) The density
applied for is at or below the authorized density level under the local land
use regulations; and
(B) At least 75
percent of the floor area applied for is reserved for housing.
(d) A county may
not condition an application for a housing development on a reduction in height
if:
(A) The height
applied for is at or below the authorized height level under the local land use
regulations;
(B) At least 75
percent of the floor area applied for is reserved for housing; and
(C) Reducing the
height has the effect of reducing the authorized density level under local land
use regulations.
(e)
Notwithstanding paragraphs (c) and (d) of this subsection, a county may
condition an application for a housing development on a reduction in density or
height only if the reduction is necessary to resolve a health, safety or
habitability issue or to comply with a protective measure adopted pursuant to a
statewide land use planning goal. Notwithstanding ORS 197.350, the county must
adopt findings supported by substantial evidence demonstrating the necessity of
the reduction.
(f) As used in
this subsection:
(A) “Authorized
density level” means the maximum number of lots or dwelling units or the
maximum floor area ratio that is permitted under local land use regulations.
(B) “Authorized
height level” means the maximum height of a structure that is permitted under
local land use regulations.
(C) “Habitability”
means being in compliance with the applicable provisions of the state building
code under ORS chapter 455 and the rules adopted thereunder.
(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 197.797.
(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 must be based on standards and criteria that
are 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 197A.400 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 must 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 must 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 197.797 (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.
(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 197.797 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 (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 (5)(b).
(13) At the
option of the applicant, the local government shall provide notice of the
decision described in ORS 215.402 (4)(b) in the manner required by ORS 197.797
(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 and 197.828. [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; 2017 c.745 §2; 2019 c.640 §17; 2025 c.476 §40]
Notes of Decisions
League of Women Voters v. Coos Cnty., 729 P.2d 588 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 18× “We held that the ordinance violated the statute, because “* * * subsection (7) specifically requires that ‘[w]ritten notice of the approval or denial shall be given to all parties to *676 the proceeding.’ It would make that requirement a nullity if a county were allowed to…”
Just v. City of Lebanon, 88 P.3d 312 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 7× “*145 “(3) If a local government makes a land use decision without providing a hearing, except as provided under ORS 215.416(11) or 227.175(10), or the local government makes a land use decision that is different from the proposal described in the notice of hearing to such a…”
Waveseer of Oregon, LLC v. Deschutes Cnty., 482 P.3d 212 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 14× “LUBA reversed, concluding, among other things, that the county’s interpretation and application of the term “youth activity center” rested on uncodified criteria in violation of the codification requirement in ORS 215.416(8)(a). On judicial review, the county assigns error to,…”
Anderson v. Peden, 587 P.2d 59 (Or. 1978).
· cites it 4× “[12] ORS 215.416 provides: (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.”
Tarjoto v. Lane Cnty., 904 P.2d 641 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 12× “Coos County, 82 Or App 673 , 729 P2d 588 (1986), and authorities there cited (holding that the time for appealing a local permit decision to LUBA is tolled by the county’s failure to give notice of the decision as required by ORS 215.416). LUBA also indicated, in a footnote,…”
Flowers v. Klamath Cnty., 780 P.2d 227 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 8× “1 Petitioners contended before LUBA that county failed to conduct a hearing and to give notice as required by ORS 215.416. LUBA concluded, inter alia, that petitioners had exhausted available county remedies, ORS 197.”
Wicks-Snodgrass v. City of Reedsport, 939 P.2d 625 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 6× “830(7)) must be read together with the notice requirement in ORS 215.416(10) (which was then codified as ORS 215.”
Gould v. Deschutes Cnty., 206 P.3d 1106 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 8× “ORS 215.416(9) requires that the county’s decision approving the CMP explain ‘the *606 justification for the decision based on the criteria, standards and facts set forth’ in the decision.”
Aleali v. City of Sherwood, 325 P.3d 747 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 20× “” At the time of the adoption of HB 2288, ORS 215.416 and ORS 227.175 provided a process for counties and cities to make permit and zoning change decisions through a notice and comment process, with the right to appeal the administrative decision to the planning commission or…”
Gould v. Deschutes Cnty., 171 P.3d 1017 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “3 ORS 215.416 states the process and justification for the discretionary approval by a county of a proposed development of land.”
Bryant v. Clackamas Cnty., 643 P.2d 649 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 5× “LUBA concluded that Goal 2 and ORS 215.416 read together require that land use decisions become final only when they are reduced to writing and are supported by findings and that the time for appeal may begin to run only when the decision is final.”
Commonwealth Props., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 582 P.2d 1384 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 4× “ORS 215.416(3), which deals with the procedures to be followed by comities in authorizing various types of land development including subdivisions, see ORS ch 215, specifically states that: "The application shall not be approved if the proposed use of land is found to be in…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.416(1) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.416(10) — 4 cases
Wicks-Snodgrass v. City of Reedsport, 939 P.2d 625 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“830(7)) must be read together with the notice requirement in ORS 215.416(10) (which was then codified as ORS 215.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.416(11) — 8 cases
Just v. City of Lebanon, 88 P.3d 312 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“*145 “(3) If a local government makes a land use decision without providing a hearing, except as provided under ORS 215.416(11) or 227.175(10), or the local government makes a land use decision that is different from the proposal described in the notice of hearing to such a…”
Tarjoto v. Lane Cnty., 904 P.2d 641 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
“Coos County, 82 Or App 673 , 729 P2d 588 (1986), and authorities there cited (holding that the time for appealing a local permit decision to LUBA is tolled by the county’s failure to give notice of the decision as required by ORS 215.416). LUBA also indicated, in a footnote,…”
Aleali v. City of Sherwood, 325 P.3d 747 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“” At the time of the adoption of HB 2288, ORS 215.416 and ORS 227.175 provided a process for counties and cities to make permit and zoning change decisions through a notice and comment process, with the right to appeal the administrative decision to the planning commission or…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.416(11)(a) — 4 cases
Tarjoto v. Lane Cnty., 904 P.2d 641 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
“Coos County, 82 Or App 673 , 729 P2d 588 (1986), and authorities there cited (holding that the time for appealing a local permit decision to LUBA is tolled by the county’s failure to give notice of the decision as required by ORS 215.416). LUBA also indicated, in a footnote,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.416(11)(a)(A) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.416(11)(a)(B) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.416(11)(c) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.416(11)(c)(A) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.416(12) — 1 case
Aleali v. City of Sherwood, 325 P.3d 747 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“” At the time of the adoption of HB 2288, ORS 215.416 and ORS 227.175 provided a process for counties and cities to make permit and zoning change decisions through a notice and comment process, with the right to appeal the administrative decision to the planning commission or…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.416(2) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.416(3) — 3 cases
Commonwealth Props., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 582 P.2d 1384 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
“ORS 215.416(3), which deals with the procedures to be followed by comities in authorizing various types of land development including subdivisions, see ORS ch 215, specifically states that: "The application shall not be approved if the proposed use of land is found to be in…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.416(4) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.416(4)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.416(5) — 6 cases
Anderson v. Peden, 587 P.2d 59 (Or. 1978).
“[12] ORS 215.416 provides: (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.”
Commonwealth Props., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 582 P.2d 1384 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
“ORS 215.416(3), which deals with the procedures to be followed by comities in authorizing various types of land development including subdivisions, see ORS ch 215, specifically states that: "The application shall not be approved if the proposed use of land is found to be in…”
Aleali v. City of Sherwood, 325 P.3d 747 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“” At the time of the adoption of HB 2288, ORS 215.416 and ORS 227.175 provided a process for counties and cities to make permit and zoning change decisions through a notice and comment process, with the right to appeal the administrative decision to the planning commission or…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.416(6) — 4 cases
Commonwealth Props., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 582 P.2d 1384 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
“ORS 215.416(3), which deals with the procedures to be followed by comities in authorizing various types of land development including subdivisions, see ORS ch 215, specifically states that: "The application shall not be approved if the proposed use of land is found to be in…”
Bryant v. Clackamas Cnty., 643 P.2d 649 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
“LUBA concluded that Goal 2 and ORS 215.416 read together require that land use decisions become final only when they are reduced to writing and are supported by findings and that the time for appeal may begin to run only when the decision is final.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.416(7) — 2 cases
League of Women Voters v. Coos Cnty., 729 P.2d 588 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“We held that the ordinance violated the statute, because “* * * subsection (7) specifically requires that ‘[w]ritten notice of the approval or denial shall be given to all parties to *676 the proceeding.’ It would make that requirement a nullity if a county were allowed to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.416(8) — 7 cases
League of Women Voters v. Coos Cnty., 729 P.2d 588 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“We held that the ordinance violated the statute, because “* * * subsection (7) specifically requires that ‘[w]ritten notice of the approval or denial shall be given to all parties to *676 the proceeding.’ It would make that requirement a nullity if a county were allowed to…”
Wicks-Snodgrass v. City of Reedsport, 939 P.2d 625 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“830(7)) must be read together with the notice requirement in ORS 215.416(10) (which was then codified as ORS 215.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.416(8)(a) — 5 cases
Waveseer of Oregon, LLC v. Deschutes Cnty., 482 P.3d 212 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“LUBA reversed, concluding, among other things, that the county’s interpretation and application of the term “youth activity center” rested on uncodified criteria in violation of the codification requirement in ORS 215.416(8)(a). On judicial review, the county assigns error to,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.416(8)(b) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.416(9) — 7 cases
Gould v. Deschutes Cnty., 206 P.3d 1106 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“ORS 215.416(9) requires that the county’s decision approving the CMP explain ‘the *606 justification for the decision based on the criteria, standards and facts set forth’ in the decision.”
Gould v. Deschutes Cnty., 171 P.3d 1017 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“3 ORS 215.416 states the process and justification for the discretionary approval by a county of a proposed development of land.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.416(ll)(a) — 4 cases
Just v. City of Lebanon, 88 P.3d 312 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“*145 “(3) If a local government makes a land use decision without providing a hearing, except as provided under ORS 215.416(11) or 227.175(10), or the local government makes a land use decision that is different from the proposal described in the notice of hearing to such a…”
Aleali v. City of Sherwood, 325 P.3d 747 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“” At the time of the adoption of HB 2288, ORS 215.416 and ORS 227.175 provided a process for counties and cities to make permit and zoning change decisions through a notice and comment process, with the right to appeal the administrative decision to the planning commission or…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.416(ll)(a)(A) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.416(ll)(c) — 2 cases
Just v. City of Lebanon, 88 P.3d 312 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“*145 “(3) If a local government makes a land use decision without providing a hearing, except as provided under ORS 215.416(11) or 227.175(10), or the local government makes a land use decision that is different from the proposal described in the notice of hearing to such a…”
Aleali v. City of Sherwood, 325 P.3d 747 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“” At the time of the adoption of HB 2288, ORS 215.416 and ORS 227.175 provided a process for counties and cities to make permit and zoning change decisions through a notice and comment process, with the right to appeal the administrative decision to the planning commission or…”
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.