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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.175 (2026)

Application for permit or zone change; fees; consolidated procedure; hearing; approval criteria; decision without hearing

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

      227.175 Application for permit or zone change; fees; consolidated procedure; hearing; approval criteria; decision without hearing. (1) When required or authorized by a city, an owner of land may apply in writing to the hearings officer, or such other person as the city council designates, for a permit or zone change, upon such forms and in such a manner as the city council prescribes. 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 of the city 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 is subject to the time limitations set out in ORS 227.178. 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 (10) of this section, the hearings officer shall hold at least one public hearing on the application.

      (4)(a) A city may not approve an application unless the proposed development of land would be in compliance with the comprehensive plan for the city and other applicable land use regulation or ordinance provisions, including an ordinance described in ORS 197A.400 (1)(b)(C). The approval may include such conditions as are authorized by ORS 227.215 or any city legislation.

      (b)(A) A city 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 clear and objective design standards contained in the city 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 city 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 city 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 city 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 city 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 may be held only after notice to the applicant and other interested persons and shall otherwise be conducted in conformance with the provisions of ORS 197.797.

      (6) Notice of a public hearing on a zone use application 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 city planning authority; and

      (b) The property subject to the zone 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 zone use hearing need only be provided as set forth in subsection (6) of this section if the permit or zone change would only allow a structure less than 35 feet in height and the property is located outside of the runway “approach surface” as defined by the Oregon Department of Aviation.

      (8) If an application would change the zone of property that includes all or part of a mobile home or manufactured dwelling park as defined in ORS 446.003, the governing body shall give written notice by first class mail to each existing mailing address for tenants of the mobile home or manufactured dwelling park at least 20 days but not more than 40 days before the date of the first hearing on the application. The governing body may require an applicant for such a zone change to pay the costs of such notice.

      (9) The failure of a tenant or an airport owner to receive a notice which was mailed does not invalidate any zone change.

      (10)(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 city’s land use regulations. A city 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 city. 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 may 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 does 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.

      (11) A decision described in ORS 227.160 (2)(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).

      (12) At the option of the applicant, the local government shall provide notice of the decision described in ORS 227.160 (2)(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.

      (13) Notwithstanding other requirements of this section, limited land use decisions are subject to the requirements set forth in ORS 197.195 and 197.828. [1973 c.739 §§9,10; 1975 c.767 §8; 1983 c.827 §24; 1985 c.473 §15; 1987 c.106 §3; 1987 c.729 §18; 1989 c.648 §63; 1991 c.612 §21; 1991 c.817 §6; 1995 c.692 §2; 1997 c.844 §5; 1999 c.621 §2; 1999 c.935 §24; 2001 c.397 §2; 2017 c.745 §3; 2019 c.640 §18; 2024 c.111 §5; 2025 c.476 §44a]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case: Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach, 504 P.3d 1249 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach, 504 P.3d 1249 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 33× “City of Cannon Beach ORS 227.175 sets out procedural and substantive requirements for a city’s consideration of applications for “a permit or zone change.”
Johns v. City of Lincoln City, 933 P.2d 978 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 9× “In our discussion of the context of ORS 227.175-(10)(a), we referred to statutes that require the initiating party to define in advance and/or to provide notice to other parties of the issues that the party will raise and that will require response at various levels in the land…”
Braidwood v. City of Portland, 546 P.2d 777 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “ORS 227.175(3) 1 requires that in the absence of a comprehensive plan, a decision by a city on a request for a change in zoning requires that the proposed use "be in compliance with generally accepted land use planning standards.”
Aleali v. City of Sherwood, 325 P.3d 747 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 8× “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 governing body for an evidentiary hearing and a new…”
Neuberger v. City of Portland, 603 P.2d 771 (Or. 1979). “Although that legislation was not in effect on the day the rezoning ordinance in this case was approved, it does indicate that the legislature had given attention, prior to that date, to the problem of the prerequisites for such a zone change and had chosen to require only…”
Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach (A184314), 334 Or. App. 762 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 5× “307(4) and ORS 227.175(4) include provisions relating unambiguously to housing regulations.”
Corp. of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. City of West Linn, 86 P.3d 1140 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “19 The city is authorized to impose conditions of approval under ORS 227.175(4) and ORS 227.215. We note that we are unaware of any authority under which a city may require, as a condition of approval, that an applicant purchase or use a larger parcel than that identified in its…”
Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach (A184314), 557 P.3d 1143 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 5× “307(4) and ORS 227.175(4) include provisions relating unambiguously to housing regulations.”
Friends of Jacksonville v. City of Jacksonville, 76 P.3d 121 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “We conclude therefore that the city council’s meeting of December 3, 2002, constituted a “hearing” as the term is used in ORS 227.175 and ORS 197.830. It follows that the time limits for appeal under ORS 197.”
North East Medford Neighborhood Coalition v. City of Medford, 162 P.3d 1059 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “Specifically, petitioners argue that, by its terms, ORS 227.175(2) allows consolidation of applications filed “at one time,” not consolidation of applications filed a year apart.”
Trautman v. City of Eugene, 383 P.3d 420 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “180(l)(a) provides, “The procedure for such an appeal or review shall be prescribed by the council [.”
Golf Holding Co. v. McEachron, 593 P.2d 1202 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “ORS 227.175(3) specifically provides that "[an application for development of land] shall not be approved unless the proposed development of land would be in compliance with the comprehensive plan for the city.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.175(1) — 1 case
Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach, 504 P.3d 1249 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “City of Cannon Beach ORS 227.175 sets out procedural and substantive requirements for a city’s consideration of applications for “a permit or zone change.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.175(10) — 1 case
Aleali v. City of Sherwood, 325 P.3d 747 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “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 governing body for an evidentiary hearing and a new…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.175(10)(a) — 1 case
Johns v. City of Lincoln City, 933 P.2d 978 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “In our discussion of the context of ORS 227.175-(10)(a), we referred to statutes that require the initiating party to define in advance and/or to provide notice to other parties of the issues that the party will raise and that will require response at various levels in the land…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.175(10)(a)(A) — 1 case
Wilcox v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 107 P.3d 637 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.175(11) — 2 cases
Aleali v. City of Sherwood, 325 P.3d 747 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “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 governing body for an evidentiary hearing and a new…”
Buckman Cmty. Ass'n v. City of Portland, 5 P.3d 1203 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.175(2) — 2 cases
Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach, 504 P.3d 1249 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “City of Cannon Beach ORS 227.175 sets out procedural and substantive requirements for a city’s consideration of applications for “a permit or zone change.”
North East Medford Neighborhood Coalition v. City of Medford, 162 P.3d 1059 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “Specifically, petitioners argue that, by its terms, ORS 227.175(2) allows consolidation of applications filed “at one time,” not consolidation of applications filed a year apart.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.175(3) — 5 cases
Braidwood v. City of Portland, 546 P.2d 777 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “ORS 227.175(3) 1 requires that in the absence of a comprehensive plan, a decision by a city on a request for a change in zoning requires that the proposed use "be in compliance with generally accepted land use planning standards.”
Neuberger v. City of Portland, 603 P.2d 771 (Or. 1979). “Although that legislation was not in effect on the day the rezoning ordinance in this case was approved, it does indicate that the legislature had given attention, prior to that date, to the problem of the prerequisites for such a zone change and had chosen to require only…”
Golf Holding Co. v. McEachron, 593 P.2d 1202 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “ORS 227.175(3) specifically provides that "[an application for development of land] shall not be approved unless the proposed development of land would be in compliance with the comprehensive plan for the city.”
Friends of Jacksonville v. City of Jacksonville, 76 P.3d 121 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “We conclude therefore that the city council’s meeting of December 3, 2002, constituted a “hearing” as the term is used in ORS 227.175 and ORS 197.830. It follows that the time limits for appeal under ORS 197.”
Lee v. City of Portland, 646 P.2d 662 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.175(4) — 6 cases
Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach, 504 P.3d 1249 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “City of Cannon Beach ORS 227.175 sets out procedural and substantive requirements for a city’s consideration of applications for “a permit or zone change.”
Corp. of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. City of West Linn, 86 P.3d 1140 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “19 The city is authorized to impose conditions of approval under ORS 227.175(4) and ORS 227.215. We note that we are unaware of any authority under which a city may require, as a condition of approval, that an applicant purchase or use a larger parcel than that identified in its…”
Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach (A184314), 334 Or. App. 762 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “307(4) and ORS 227.175(4) include provisions relating unambiguously to housing regulations.”
Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach (A184314), 557 P.3d 1143 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “307(4) and ORS 227.175(4) include provisions relating unambiguously to housing regulations.”
Willamette Oaks, LLC v. City of Eugene, 220 P.3d 445 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.175(4)(b)(A) — 2 cases
Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach (A184314), 334 Or. App. 762 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “307(4) and ORS 227.175(4) include provisions relating unambiguously to housing regulations.”
Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach (A184314), 557 P.3d 1143 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “307(4) and ORS 227.175(4) include provisions relating unambiguously to housing regulations.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.175(4)(c) — 1 case
Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach, 504 P.3d 1249 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “City of Cannon Beach ORS 227.175 sets out procedural and substantive requirements for a city’s consideration of applications for “a permit or zone change.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.175(4)(d) — 1 case
Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach, 504 P.3d 1249 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “City of Cannon Beach ORS 227.175 sets out procedural and substantive requirements for a city’s consideration of applications for “a permit or zone change.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.175(4)(e) — 1 case
Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach, 504 P.3d 1249 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “City of Cannon Beach ORS 227.175 sets out procedural and substantive requirements for a city’s consideration of applications for “a permit or zone change.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.175(4)(f)(A) — 1 case
Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach, 504 P.3d 1249 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “City of Cannon Beach ORS 227.175 sets out procedural and substantive requirements for a city’s consideration of applications for “a permit or zone change.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.175(5) — 3 cases
BCT P'ship v. City of Portland, 881 P.2d 176 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
Friends of Jacksonville v. City of Jacksonville, 76 P.3d 121 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “We conclude therefore that the city council’s meeting of December 3, 2002, constituted a “hearing” as the term is used in ORS 227.175 and ORS 197.830. It follows that the time limits for appeal under ORS 197.”
Aleali v. City of Sherwood, 325 P.3d 747 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “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 governing body for an evidentiary hearing and a new…”
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.