Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.160 (2026)

Definitions for ORS 227.160 to 227.186

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      227.160 Definitions for ORS 227.160 to 227.186. As used in ORS 227.160 to 227.186:

      (1) “Hearings officer” means a planning and zoning hearings officer appointed or designated by a city council under ORS 227.165.

      (2) “Permit” means discretionary approval of a proposed development of land, under ORS 227.215 or city legislation or regulation. “Permit” does not include:

      (a) A limited land use decision as defined in ORS 197.015;

      (b) A decision which determines the appropriate zoning classification for a particular use by applying criteria or performance standards defining the uses permitted within the zone, and the determination applies only to land within an urban growth boundary;

      (c) A decision which determines final engineering design, construction, operation, maintenance, repair or preservation of a transportation facility which is otherwise authorized by and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land use regulations; or

      (d) An expedited land division, as described in ORS 197A.140. [1973 c.739 §6; 1975 c.767 §5; 1991 c.817 §8a; 1995 c.595 §13; 2015 c.260 §5; 2025 c.476 §43]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Neuberger v. City of Portland, 586 P.2d 351 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Neuberger v. City of Portland, 586 P.2d 351 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 8× “[5] It is clear from the definitions of "contested case" and "hearing," as provided in former ORS 227.160, [6] that former ORS 227.170 has no application to a legislative action of the nature at issue here.”
Carlsen v. City of Portland, 8 P.3d 234 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 13× “” The council further concluded that the application of the city’s siting policy was not independently subject to land use review procedures or to the procedural requirements for *8 “discretionary permits” under ORS 227.160 et seq. The order explains: “The Council finds the…”
State ex rel. Schrodt v. Jackson Cnty., 324 P.3d 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “402(4) and its analog, ORS 227.160(2). Schrodt’s application requested that the county issue an interpretive ruling approving a change in the use of his residentially zoned property from one previously approved nonconforming use (bird-feeder manufacturing) to a broad range of…”
State Ex Rel. Compass Corp. v. City of Lake Oswego, 898 P.2d 198 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “178(7), the city must approve the application unless it can be demonstrated that approval would violate the comprehensive plan or other specified land use regulations.”
Bienz v. City of Dayton, 566 P.2d 904 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “ORS 227.160 to 227.180 enables cities to employ hearings officers in land use decisions.”
State ex rel. Compass Corp. v. City of Lake Oswego, 878 P.2d 403 (Or. 1994). “178(7) and other related statutes that address the review of land use applications by cities, ORS 227.160 to ORS 227.185, discloses no basis for concluding that ORS 227.”
Dep't of Transp. v. City of Mosier, 984 P.2d 351 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 5× “763 and ORS 227.160 etseq. “[authorize] cities to conduct hearings on applications for permits, zone changes, and limited land use decisions and expedited land divisions within an urban growth boundary.”
City of Mosier v. Hood River Sand, Gravel & Ready-Mix, Inc., 136 P.3d 1160 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “090; and establish certain requirements for city planning and zoning hearings, ORS 227.160 to 227.187. Some provisions are mirrored in both chapters.”
Clark v. City of Albany, 921 P.2d 406 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “According to Clark, ORS 227.160(2) provides that the term “permit” means “discretionary approval of a proposed development of land.”
Trautman v. City of Eugene, 383 P.3d 420 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “180 (review of decision of hearings officer by planning commission as “appellate authority”).”
Buckman Cmty. Ass'n v. City of Portland, 5 P.3d 1203 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 11× “ORS 227.160 et seq. requires cities to provide notice, hearing, and other procedural protections in rendering permit decisions.”
Hillyer's Mid-City Ford, Inc. v. City of Woodburn, 965 P.2d 474 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “, ORS 227.160 to ORS 227.180. Correspondingly, there was no final land use decision approving or denying the applications that was — or could have been — before LUBA.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.160(2) — 13 cases
State ex rel. Schrodt v. Jackson Cnty., 324 P.3d 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “402(4) and its analog, ORS 227.160(2). Schrodt’s application requested that the county issue an interpretive ruling approving a change in the use of his residentially zoned property from one previously approved nonconforming use (bird-feeder manufacturing) to a broad range of…”
State Ex Rel. Compass Corp. v. City of Lake Oswego, 898 P.2d 198 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “178(7), the city must approve the application unless it can be demonstrated that approval would violate the comprehensive plan or other specified land use regulations.”
Clark v. City of Albany, 921 P.2d 406 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “According to Clark, ORS 227.160(2) provides that the term “permit” means “discretionary approval of a proposed development of land.”
Trautman v. City of Eugene, 383 P.3d 420 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “180 (review of decision of hearings officer by planning commission as “appellate authority”).”
Carlsen v. City of Portland, 8 P.3d 234 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “” The council further concluded that the application of the city’s siting policy was not independently subject to land use review procedures or to the procedural requirements for *8 “discretionary permits” under ORS 227.160 et seq. The order explains: “The Council finds the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.160(2)(a) — 1 case
ZIRKER v. City of Bend, 227 P.3d 1174 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.160(2)(b) — 1 case
Buckman Cmty. Ass'n v. City of Portland, 5 P.3d 1203 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “ORS 227.160 et seq. requires cities to provide notice, hearing, and other procedural protections in rendering permit decisions.”
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.