215.422 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 to 197.845.
(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 (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
Redside Restoration v. Deschutes Cnty., 344 Or. App. 383 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 20× “422(3),3 because a Deschutes County commissioner failed to disclose ex parte contacts received during a public 3 ORS 215.422 provides, in part: “(3) No decision or action of a planning commission or county governing body shall be invalid due to ex parte contact or bias resulting…”
Menges v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 621 P.2d 562 (Or. 1980).
· cites it 10× “Petitioners rely upon ORS 215.422, which then provided: "(1) A party aggrieved by the action of a hearings officer may appeal the action to the planning commission or county governing body, or both, however the governing body prescribes.”
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 703 P.2d 207 (Or. 1985).
· cites it 2× “835(11) authorizes LUBA to “reverse or remand a land use decision under review due to ex parte contacts or bias resulting from ex parte contact with a member of the decision-making body if the member of the decision-making body did not comply with ORS 215.422(3).” ORS 215.422(3)…”
Eagle Creek Rock Prods., Inc. v. Clackamas Cnty., 556 P.2d 150 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 4× “If the property owner is dissatisfied with that determination he has the right of judicial review as provided by ORS 215.422 and ORS 34.010 to 34.100, as with any other contested administrative determination in the zoning process.”
Columbia River Television v. Multnomah Cnty., 702 P.2d 1065 (Or. 1985).
· cites it 5× “3 ORS 215.422 provides, in relevant part: “(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.”
Simon v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 755 P.2d 741 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 4× “428 provides: "(1) Except as provided in subsections (3) and (4) of this section, the governing body of a county or its designate shall take final action on an application for a permit or zone change, including resolution of all appeals under ORS 215.422, within 120 days after…”
Clark v. Dagg, 588 P.2d 1298 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 4× “CPO # 7 asserts standing as an aggrieved party under former ORS 215.422, which provided: *1301 "(1) A party aggrieved by the action of a hearings officer taken under subsections (1) to (4) of ORS 215.”
Redside Restoration v. Deschutes Cnty., 344 Or. App. 383 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 20× “422(3),3 because a Deschutes County commissioner failed to disclose ex parte contacts received during a public 3 ORS 215.422 provides, in part: “(3) No decision or action of a planning commission or county governing body shall be invalid due to ex parte contact or bias resulting…”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Clatsop Cnty., 341 P.3d 790 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “OPC relies on ORS 215.422(3), which provides: “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…”
Overton v. Benton Cnty., 658 P.2d 574 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 15× “In this regard, we adopt a portion of the dissent of LUBA referee Bagg: “I believe the allowance for local rules about the conduct of appeals in ORS 215.422 must be read with Oregon Laws 1981, ch 748.”
Smith v. Douglas Cnty., 777 P.2d 1377 (Or. 1989).
· cites it 2× “428, which requires that “the governing body of a county take final action on an application for a permit * * *, including resolution of all appeals under ORS 215.422, within 120 days after the application is deemed complete.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.422(1) — 5 cases
Menges v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 621 P.2d 562 (Or. 1980).
“Petitioners rely upon ORS 215.422, which then provided: "(1) A party aggrieved by the action of a hearings officer may appeal the action to the planning commission or county governing body, or both, however the governing body prescribes.”
Overton v. Benton Cnty., 658 P.2d 574 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
“In this regard, we adopt a portion of the dissent of LUBA referee Bagg: “I believe the allowance for local rules about the conduct of appeals in ORS 215.422 must be read with Oregon Laws 1981, ch 748.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.422(1)(a) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.422(1)(b) — 2 cases
Columbia River Television v. Multnomah Cnty., 702 P.2d 1065 (Or. 1985).
“3 ORS 215.422 provides, in relevant part: “(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.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.422(2) — 3 cases
Columbia River Television v. Multnomah Cnty., 702 P.2d 1065 (Or. 1985).
“3 ORS 215.422 provides, in relevant part: “(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.”
Overton v. Benton Cnty., 658 P.2d 574 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
“In this regard, we adopt a portion of the dissent of LUBA referee Bagg: “I believe the allowance for local rules about the conduct of appeals in ORS 215.422 must be read with Oregon Laws 1981, ch 748.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.422(3) — 4 cases
Redside Restoration v. Deschutes Cnty., 344 Or. App. 383 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“422(3),3 because a Deschutes County commissioner failed to disclose ex parte contacts received during a public 3 ORS 215.422 provides, in part: “(3) No decision or action of a planning commission or county governing body shall be invalid due to ex parte contact or bias resulting…”
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 703 P.2d 207 (Or. 1985).
“835(11) authorizes LUBA to “reverse or remand a land use decision under review due to ex parte contacts or bias resulting from ex parte contact with a member of the decision-making body if the member of the decision-making body did not comply with ORS 215.422(3).” ORS 215.422(3)…”
Redside Restoration v. Deschutes Cnty., 344 Or. App. 383 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“422(3),3 because a Deschutes County commissioner failed to disclose ex parte contacts received during a public 3 ORS 215.422 provides, in part: “(3) No decision or action of a planning commission or county governing body shall be invalid due to ex parte contact or bias resulting…”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Clatsop Cnty., 341 P.3d 790 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“OPC relies on ORS 215.422(3), which provides: “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…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.422(4) — 2 cases
Eagle Creek Rock Prods., Inc. v. Clackamas Cnty., 556 P.2d 150 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
“If the property owner is dissatisfied with that determination he has the right of judicial review as provided by ORS 215.422 and ORS 34.010 to 34.100, as with any other contested administrative determination in the zoning process.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.422(f) — 1 case
Overton v. Benton Cnty., 658 P.2d 574 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
“In this regard, we adopt a portion of the dissent of LUBA referee Bagg: “I believe the allowance for local rules about the conduct of appeals in ORS 215.422 must be read with Oregon Laws 1981, ch 748.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.422(l)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.422(l)(b) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.422(l)(c) — 1 case
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.