Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.173 (2026)

Basis for decision on permit application; statement of reasons for approval or denial

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

227.173 Basis for decision on permit application; statement of reasons for approval or denial. (1) Approval or denial of a discretionary permit application must be based on standards and criteria that are set forth in the development ordinance and that relate approval or denial of a discretionary permit application to the development ordinance and the comprehensive plan for the area in which the development would occur and to the development ordinance and comprehensive plan for the city as a whole.

(2) 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.

(3) Approval or denial of a permit application 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.

(4) Written notice of the approval or denial must be given to all parties to the proceeding. [1977 c.654 §5; 1979 c.772 §10b; 1991 c.817 §16; 1995 c.595 §29; 1997 c.844 §6; 1999 c.357 §3; 2025 c.476 §44]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1979–2023 · leading case: BCT P'ship v. City of Portland, 881 P.2d 176 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

BCT P'ship v. City of Portland, 881 P.2d 176 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 16× “” There would be no need for such an explanation in the process of acting on particular applications, if the ordinance itself were required to be as specific in its articulation of applicable standards and criteria as LUBA indicated and, thereby, to leave nothing to be…”

Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach, 504 P.3d 1249 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “307(6) (2009) apply with equal force to their claims under ORS 227.173.”). 312 Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach Legacy Dev.”

Wicks-Snodgrass v. City of Reedsport, 939 P.2d 625 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “The city’s decision became final on November 6, 1995, but notice of it was not mailed to the parties pursuant to ORS 227.173(3) 2 until the next day. ORS 197.”

Oswego Props., Inc. v. City of Lake Oswego, 814 P.2d 539 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 8× “Petitioner also contends that the city’s decision does not comply with ORS 227.173, which provides, in part: “(1) Approval or denial of a discretionary permit application shall be based on standards and criteria, which shall be set forth in the development ordinance and which…”

Rudell v. City of Bandon, 275 P.3d 1010 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 7× “ORS 227.173 requires, in part: “(1) Approval or denial of a discretionary permit application shall be based on standards and criteria, which shall be set forth in the development ordinance and which shall relate approval or denial of a discretionary permit application to the…”

State ex rel. West Main Townhomes, LLC v. City of Medford, 225 P.3d 56 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 9× “453, which imposes requirements on development proposals, was impermissibly vague in violation of ORS 227.173. 3 The court took the matter under advisement and subsequently issued a letter opinion ruling that the ordinance was not impermissibly vague.”

Lee v. City of Portland, 646 P.2d 662 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 14× “In their eight assignments of error, petitioners raise four basic issues: (1) whether the relevant city ordinances provide sufficient standards to satisfy the requirements of ORS 227.173(1), (2) whether the city’s findings satisfy the requirements of ORS 227.”

Oakleigh-McClure Neighbors v. City of Eugene, 344 P.3d 503 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “7335(l)(d) and ORS 227.173(4). 3 Others appealed the hearings official’s decision to the Eugene Planning Commission.”

State Ex Rel. West Main Townhomes, LLC v. City of Medford, 228 P.3d 607 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “453, was impermissibly vague under ORS 227.173. MC 10.453 provides: “All development shall be consistent with an adopted neighborhood circulation plan when such a plan is available for the project area.”

ZIRKER v. City of Bend, 227 P.3d 1174 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 22× “We concluded: “ORS 227.173 allows cities to identify the standards and criteria that apply to particular permits by interpreting more general provisions that are ‘set forth’ in their land use legislation, and from which the specific applications reasonably follow.”

Stop Dump Coalition v. Yamhill Cnty., 391 P.3d 932 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “307(4) (requiring approval standards for certain types of housing within urban growth boundaries to be “clear and objective”); ORS 197.”

Botts Marsh LLC v. City of Wheeler, 532 P.3d 544 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “On the latter point, applicant argued, “Contrary to ORS 227.173(3) and [Commonwealth], the City has also failed to explain how [applicant] could comply.”

Show all 19 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.173(1) — 8 cases

BCT P'ship v. City of Portland, 881 P.2d 176 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “” There would be no need for such an explanation in the process of acting on particular applications, if the ordinance itself were required to be as specific in its articulation of applicable standards and criteria as LUBA indicated and, thereby, to leave nothing to be…”

Rudell v. City of Bandon, 275 P.3d 1010 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “ORS 227.173 requires, in part: “(1) Approval or denial of a discretionary permit application shall be based on standards and criteria, which shall be set forth in the development ordinance and which shall relate approval or denial of a discretionary permit application to the…”

Oswego Props., Inc. v. City of Lake Oswego, 814 P.2d 539 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). “Petitioner also contends that the city’s decision does not comply with ORS 227.173, which provides, in part: “(1) Approval or denial of a discretionary permit application shall be based on standards and criteria, which shall be set forth in the development ordinance and which…”

Lee v. City of Portland, 646 P.2d 662 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “In their eight assignments of error, petitioners raise four basic issues: (1) whether the relevant city ordinances provide sufficient standards to satisfy the requirements of ORS 227.173(1), (2) whether the city’s findings satisfy the requirements of ORS 227.”

ZIRKER v. City of Bend, 227 P.3d 1174 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “We concluded: “ORS 227.173 allows cities to identify the standards and criteria that apply to particular permits by interpreting more general provisions that are ‘set forth’ in their land use legislation, and from which the specific applications reasonably follow.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.173(2) — 10 cases

Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach, 504 P.3d 1249 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “307(6) (2009) apply with equal force to their claims under ORS 227.173.”). 312 Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach Legacy Dev.”

Heilman v. City of Roseburg, 591 P.2d 390 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.173(3) — 3 cases

Wicks-Snodgrass v. City of Reedsport, 939 P.2d 625 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “The city’s decision became final on November 6, 1995, but notice of it was not mailed to the parties pursuant to ORS 227.173(3) 2 until the next day. ORS 197.”

Botts Marsh LLC v. City of Wheeler (Or. Ct. App. 2023).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.173(4) — 1 case

Oakleigh-McClure Neighbors v. City of Eugene, 344 P.3d 503 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “7335(l)(d) and ORS 227.173(4). 3 Others appealed the hearings official’s decision to the Eugene Planning Commission.”

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.