215.427
Deadlines for completeness determination and final action on application;
procedure; exceptions; refund of fees.
(1) Except as provided in subsections (3), (5) and (10) of this section, the
governing body of a county or its designee shall take final action on an
application, including resolution of all appeals under ORS 215.422, within the
shortest applicable period of the following periods, all of which begin on the
date that the application is deemed complete:
(a) 150 days;
(b) 120 days, for
land within an urban growth boundary or for applications for mineral aggregate
extraction;
(c) 100 days, for
an application for the development of affordable housing as provided in ORS
197A.470; or
(d) 63 days, for
an expedited land division under ORS 197A.140.
(2) If an
application is incomplete, the governing body or its designee shall notify the
applicant in writing of exactly what information is missing within 30 days of
receipt of the application and allow the applicant to submit the missing
information. The application is deemed complete for the purpose of subsection
(1) of this section upon receipt by the governing body or its designee of:
(a) All of the
missing information;
(b) Some of the
missing information and written notice from the applicant that no other
information will be provided; or
(c) Written
notice from the applicant that none of the missing information will be
provided.
(3)(a) Approval
or denial of an application that was complete when first submitted or deemed
complete pursuant to subsection (2) of this section must be based:
(A) Upon the
standards and criteria that were applicable at the time the application was
first submitted; or
(B) For an
application relating to development of housing within an urban growth boundary,
upon the request of the applicant, those standards and criteria that are
operative at the time of the request.
(b) If an
applicant requests review under different standards as provided in paragraph
(a)(B) of this subsection:
(A) For the
purposes of this section, any applicable timelines for completeness review and
final decisions restart as if a new application were submitted on the date of
the request;
(B) For the
purposes of this section, the application is not deemed complete until:
(i) The county
determines that additional information is not required under subsection (2) of
this section; or
(ii) The
applicant makes a submission under subsection (2) of this section in response
to a county’s request;
(C) A county may
deny a request under paragraph (a)(B) of this subsection if:
(i) The county
has issued a public notice of the application; or
(ii) A request
under paragraph (a)(B) of this subsection was previously made; and
(D) The county
may not require that the applicant:
(i) Pay a fee,
except to cover additional costs incurred by the county to accommodate the
request;
(ii) Submit a new
application or duplicative information, unless information resubmittal is
required because the request affects or changes information in other locations
in the application or additional narrative is required to understand the
request in context; or
(iii) Repeat
redundant processes or hearings that are inapplicable to the change in
standards or criteria.
(4) On the 181st
day after first being submitted, the application is void if the applicant has
been notified of the missing information as required under subsection (2) of
this section and has not submitted:
(a) All of the
missing information;
(b) Some of the
missing information and written notice that no other information will be
provided; or
(c) Written
notice that none of the missing information will be provided.
(5) The period
set in subsection (1) of this section may be extended for a specified period of
time at the written request of the applicant. The total of all extensions,
except as provided in subsection (10) of this section for mediation, may not
exceed 215 days.
(6) The period
set in subsection (1) of this section applies:
(a) Only to
decisions wholly within the authority and control of the governing body of the
county; and
(b) Unless the
parties have agreed to mediation as described in subsection (10) of this
section or ORS 197.319 (2)(b).
(7)
Notwithstanding subsection (6) of this section, the period set in subsection
(1) of this section does not apply to:
(a) A decision of
the county making a change to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or a land use
regulation that is submitted to the Director of the Department of Land
Conservation and Development under ORS 197.610; or
(b) A decision of
a county involving an application for the development of residential structures
within an urban growth boundary, where the county has tentatively approved the
application and extends these periods by no more than seven days in order to assure
the sufficiency of its final order.
(8) If the
governing body of the county or its designee does not take final action on an
application within the applicable periods allowed under subsections (1) and (5)
of this section, the county shall refund to the applicant either the unexpended
portion of any application fees or deposits previously paid or 50 percent of
the total amount of such fees or deposits, whichever is greater. The applicant
is not liable for additional governmental fees incurred subsequent to the
payment of such fees or deposits. However, the applicant is responsible for the
costs of providing sufficient additional information to address relevant issues
identified in the consideration of the application.
(9) A county may
not compel an applicant to waive the period set in subsection (1) of this
section or to waive the provisions of subsection (8) of this section or ORS
215.429 as a condition for taking any action on an application, except when
such applications are filed concurrently and considered jointly with a plan
amendment.
(10) The periods
set forth in subsections (1) and (5) of this section may be extended by up to
90 additional days, if the applicant and the county agree that a dispute
concerning the application will be mediated.
(11) As used in
this section, “application” means an application for:
(a) A permit;
(b) A limited
land use decision;
(c) A zone
change;
(d) A
consolidated zone change and permit described under ORS 215.416;
(e) An expedited
land division under ORS 197A.140; or
(f) A plat
consisting of a land division and middle housing land division as described in
ORS 92.044 (1)(c)(C). [1997 c.414 §2; 1999 c.393 §§3,3a; enacted in lieu of
215.428 in 1999; 2003 c.800 §30; 2007 c.232 §1; 2009 c.873 §15; 2011 c.280 §10;
2017 c.745 §10; 2023 c.223 §3; 2024 c.102 §7; 2024 c.110 §8; 2025 c.38 §4; 2025
c.476 §16; 2025 c.530 §1]
215.428 [1983 c.827 §23; 1989 c.761 §15;
1991 c.817 §14; 1995 c.812 §2; 1997 c.844 §7; repealed by 1999 c.393 §2
(215.427 enacted in lieu of 215.428)]
Notes of Decisions
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Clatsop Cnty., 341 P.3d 790 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 18× “835(10)(a)(B), 2 LUBA should have reinstated the board’s original approval of the application because the county took actions after that approval that were “for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of ORS 215.427.” In relevant part, ORS 215.427 requires a governing body to…”
Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev. v. Jefferson Cnty., 188 P.3d 313 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 9× “He nevertheless argued that he was entitled to the full benefit of Burk’s waivers by virtue of ORS 215.427(3)(a), commonly referred to as a “goal-post statute.”
Setniker v. Polk Cnty., 260 P.3d 800 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 11× “LUBA explained, “ORS 215.427 is almost entirely directed at requiring counties to render a final decision on an ‘application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change’ within 150 days.”
West Linn Corp. Park, L.L.C. v. City of West Linn, 240 P.3d 29 (Or. 2010).
· cites it 2× “"* * * * * "(6) This section applies to appeals by the applicant of a condition of approval and claims filed in state court seeking damages for the unlawful imposition of conditions of approval in a land use decision, limited land use decision, expedited land division or permit…”
Friends of Yamhill Cnty., Inc. v. Bd. of Commissioners, 238 P.3d 1016 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“, 227 Or App 140, 151 , 204 P3d 802 , rev den, 346 Or 589 (2009) (Measure 49 as abrogating the continued application of the “goalpost” statute, ORS 215.427(3)(a), to development allowed by Measure 37 waiver); Cyrus v.”
Biggerstaff v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 245 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“, 227 Or App 140 , 204 P3d 802 , rev den, 346 Or 589 (2009) (rejecting asserted application of “goal-post statute,” ORS 215.427(3)(a), in this context). We decline, as a prudential matter, to address and resolve those alternative bases for affirmance that the court has not…”
State ex rel. Coastal Mgmt., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 36 P.3d 993 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 3× “015(10)(e)(B) excludes from the definition of a “land use decision” subject to LUBA’s review, “[a]ny local decision or action taken on an application subject to ORS 215.427 or 227.178 after a petition for a writ of mandamus has been filed under ORS 215.”
State ex rel. Willamette Cmty. Health Solutions v. Lane Cnty., 361 P.3d 613 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “429 provides, in pertinent part: “(1) Except when an applicant requests an extension under ORS 215.427, 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…”
W. Land & Cattle, Inc. v. Umatilla Cnty., 214 P.3d 68 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“ORS 215.427(3)(a). The referenced county ordinances are those in effect on November 10, 2005, the date of the application for the conditional use permit.”
Waveseer of Oregon, LLC v. Deschutes Cnty., 482 P.3d 212 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “LUBA acknowledged that it did not need to reach the issue of the plausibility of the county’s interpretation of the phrase 2 LUBA also addressed the goal-post standard of ORS 215.427(3), which requires that an application for a land-use permit be evaluated under the stan- dards…”
Fischer v. Benton Cnty., 260 P.3d 647 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 3× “5 The Fischers also appealed the board’s decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), contending that LUBA had jurisdiction because, “in addition to their Measure 49 vested rights claim,” they had asserted before the county that “they had a vested right to approval of the…”
Fountain Vill. Dev. Co. v. Multnomah Cnty., 31 P.3d 458 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“As an example of such a “vesting statute,” petitioner points to ORS 215.427(3), which requires that, in certain circumstances, approval or denial of a land use application “shall be based upon the standards and criteria that were applicable at the time the application was first…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.427(1) — 8 cases
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Clatsop Cnty., 341 P.3d 790 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“835(10)(a)(B), 2 LUBA should have reinstated the board’s original approval of the application because the county took actions after that approval that were “for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of ORS 215.427.” In relevant part, ORS 215.427 requires a governing body to…”
State ex rel. Willamette Cmty. Health Solutions v. Lane Cnty., 361 P.3d 613 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“429 provides, in pertinent part: “(1) Except when an applicant requests an extension under ORS 215.427, 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…”
Setniker v. Polk Cnty., 260 P.3d 800 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“LUBA explained, “ORS 215.427 is almost entirely directed at requiring counties to render a final decision on an ‘application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change’ within 150 days.”
State ex rel. Coastal Mgmt., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 36 P.3d 993 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“015(10)(e)(B) excludes from the definition of a “land use decision” subject to LUBA’s review, “[a]ny local decision or action taken on an application subject to ORS 215.427 or 227.178 after a petition for a writ of mandamus has been filed under ORS 215.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.427(2) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.427(3) — 9 cases
Waveseer of Oregon, LLC v. Deschutes Cnty., 482 P.3d 212 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“LUBA acknowledged that it did not need to reach the issue of the plausibility of the county’s interpretation of the phrase 2 LUBA also addressed the goal-post standard of ORS 215.427(3), which requires that an application for a land-use permit be evaluated under the stan- dards…”
Fountain Vill. Dev. Co. v. Multnomah Cnty., 31 P.3d 458 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“As an example of such a “vesting statute,” petitioner points to ORS 215.427(3), which requires that, in certain circumstances, approval or denial of a land use application “shall be based upon the standards and criteria that were applicable at the time the application was first…”
Fischer v. Benton Cnty., 260 P.3d 647 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“5 The Fischers also appealed the board’s decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), contending that LUBA had jurisdiction because, “in addition to their Measure 49 vested rights claim,” they had asserted before the county that “they had a vested right to approval of the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.427(3)(a) — 14 cases
Friends of Yamhill Cnty., Inc. v. Bd. of Commissioners, 238 P.3d 1016 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“, 227 Or App 140, 151 , 204 P3d 802 , rev den, 346 Or 589 (2009) (Measure 49 as abrogating the continued application of the “goalpost” statute, ORS 215.427(3)(a), to development allowed by Measure 37 waiver); Cyrus v.”
Biggerstaff v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 245 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“, 227 Or App 140 , 204 P3d 802 , rev den, 346 Or 589 (2009) (rejecting asserted application of “goal-post statute,” ORS 215.427(3)(a), in this context). We decline, as a prudential matter, to address and resolve those alternative bases for affirmance that the court has not…”
W. Land & Cattle, Inc. v. Umatilla Cnty., 214 P.3d 68 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“ORS 215.427(3)(a). The referenced county ordinances are those in effect on November 10, 2005, the date of the application for the conditional use permit.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.427(4) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.427(5) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.427(6) — 1 case
Setniker v. Polk Cnty., 260 P.3d 800 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“LUBA explained, “ORS 215.427 is almost entirely directed at requiring counties to render a final decision on an ‘application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change’ within 150 days.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.427(8) — 1 case
Setniker v. Polk Cnty., 260 P.3d 800 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“LUBA explained, “ORS 215.427 is almost entirely directed at requiring counties to render a final decision on an ‘application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change’ within 150 days.”
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.