227.178 Deadlines
for completeness determination and final action on application; procedure;
exceptions; refund of fees.
(1) Except as provided in subsections (3), (5) and (11) of this section, the
governing body of a city or its designee shall take final action on an
application, including resolution of all appeals under ORS 227.180, within the
shortest applicable period of the following periods, all of which begin on the
date that the application is deemed complete:
(a) 120 days;
(b) 100 days, for
an application for the development of affordable housing as provided in ORS
197A.470; or
(c) 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 city
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 city’s request;
(C) A city may
deny a request under paragraph (a)(B) of this subsection if:
(i) The city 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 city may
not require that the applicant:
(i) Pay a fee,
except to cover additional costs incurred by the city 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 (11) of this section for mediation, may not
exceed 245 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
city; and
(b) Unless the
parties have agreed to mediation as described in subsection (11) 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 city 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 city involving an application for the development of residential structures
within an urban growth boundary, where the city 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 city or its designee does not take final action on an
application within the period set in subsection (1) of this section, the city
shall refund to the applicant, subject to the provisions of subsection (9) of
this section, 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) To obtain
a refund under subsection (8) of this section, the applicant may either:
(A) Submit a
written request for payment, either by mail or in person, to the city or its
designee; or
(B) Include the
amount claimed in a mandamus petition filed under ORS 227.179. The court shall
award an amount owed under this section in its final order on the petition.
(b) Within seven
calendar days of receiving a request for a refund, the city or its designee
shall determine the amount of any refund owed. Payment, or notice that no
payment is due, shall be made to the applicant within 30 calendar days of
receiving the request. Any amount due and not paid within 30 calendar days of
receipt of the request shall be subject to interest charges at the rate of one
percent per month, or a portion thereof.
(c) If payment
due under paragraph (b) of this subsection is not paid within 120 days after
the city or its designee receives the refund request, the applicant may file an
action for recovery of the unpaid refund. In an action brought by a person
under this paragraph, the court shall award to a prevailing applicant, in
addition to the relief provided in this section, reasonable attorney fees and
costs at trial and on appeal. If the city or its designee prevails, the court
shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs at trial and on appeal if the
court finds the petition to be frivolous.
(10) A city 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
227.179 as a condition for taking any action on an application, except when
such applications are filed concurrently and considered jointly with a plan
amendment.
(11) 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 city agree that a dispute
concerning the application will be mediated.
(12) 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 227.175;
(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). [1983 c.827 §27; 1989 c.761 §16; 1991 c.817 §15; 1995
c.812 §3; 1997 c.844 §8; 1999 c.533 §8; 2003 c.150 §1; 2003 c.800 §31; 2009
c.873 §16; 2011 c.280 §12; 2017 c.745 §11; 2023 c.223 §4; 2024 c.102 §8; 2024
c.110 §9; 2025 c.38 §5; 2025 c.476 §17; 2025 c.530 §2]
Notes of Decisions
State ex rel. Compass Corp. v. City of Lake Oswego, 878 P.2d 403 (Or. 1994).
· cites it 25× “On January 14, 1992, relator filed a petition for an alternative writ of mandamus under ORS 227.178, which provides, in part: “(1) Except as provided in subsections (3) and (4) of this section, the governingbody of a city or its designate shall take final action on an…”
Seida v. City of Lincoln City, 982 P.2d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 16× “*502 The city moved to dismiss the mandamus action, arguing that the planning commission’s decision constituted final city action for purposes of ORS 227.178, notwithstanding the pending appeal to the city council.”
State Ex Rel. Stewart v. City of Salem, 251 P.3d 783 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 21× “The *533 court reasoned that relator must not have actually considered the application complete on December 2, 2008, “or he would not have submitted a second tentative plan on December 4 * * The court read ORS 227.178 as a delegation of authority to the city to determine the…”
Clark v. City of Albany, 921 P.2d 406 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 5× “According to the city, “annexation” refers not to development itself, but to the determination of which governmental authority will have jurisdiction to determine whether development will be allowed.”
State Ex Rel. Fraley v. Deschutes Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 948 P.2d 1249 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 6× “Under our analysis, the absence of wording in ORS 227.178 or the LUBA statutes addressing the effect of a belated denial does not create an ambiguity regarding the court’s authority to issue a writ of mandamus.”
State ex rel. Stewart v. City of Salem, 343 P.3d 264 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 9× “” Relator asserted that the 120-day deadline for the city to take a “final action” had passed because, under ORS 227.178 (2), 2 his application was “deemed complete” for purposes of ORS 227.”
Davenport v. City of Tigard, 854 P.2d 483 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 6× “6 Rather, petitioners contend in their first assignment to us that LUBA erred in concluding that the amended map contained “standards and criteria,” within the meaning of ORS 227.178. They assert that the amendments contain no rules “for determining whether to approve or deny a…”
State ex rel. Schrodt v. Jackson Cnty., 324 P.3d 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “, we explained that, under former ORS 227.178(7) 8 (the analog of ORS 215.429 applicable to cities), a city “loses [its] discretion entirely” to approve or deny a permit when the city fails to timely act, and that, once a city fails to act on a permit application within…”
Sunburst II Homeowners Ass'n v. City of West Linn, 790 P.2d 1213 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 5× “ORS 227.178(3) provides: “If the application was complete when first submitted or the applicant submits the requested additional information within 180 days of the date the application was first submitted and the city has a comprehensive plan and land use regulations…”
Stewart v. City of Salem, 219 P.3d 46 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “105 subjects a city council to the decision-making deadline imposed by ORS 227.178 “in taking final action on an application for approval of a tentative plan for a * * * partition located within an acknowledged urban growth boundary.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.178(1) — 10 cases
State ex rel. Compass Corp. v. City of Lake Oswego, 878 P.2d 403 (Or. 1994).
“On January 14, 1992, relator filed a petition for an alternative writ of mandamus under ORS 227.178, which provides, in part: “(1) Except as provided in subsections (3) and (4) of this section, the governingbody of a city or its designate shall take final action on an…”
State ex rel. Stewart v. City of Salem, 343 P.3d 264 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“” Relator asserted that the 120-day deadline for the city to take a “final action” had passed because, under ORS 227.178 (2), 2 his application was “deemed complete” for purposes of ORS 227.”
Stewart v. City of Salem, 219 P.3d 46 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“105 subjects a city council to the decision-making deadline imposed by ORS 227.178 “in taking final action on an application for approval of a tentative plan for a * * * partition located within an acknowledged urban growth boundary.”
State Ex Rel. Fraley v. Deschutes Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 948 P.2d 1249 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“Under our analysis, the absence of wording in ORS 227.178 or the LUBA statutes addressing the effect of a belated denial does not create an ambiguity regarding the court’s authority to issue a writ of mandamus.”
Seida v. City of Lincoln City, 982 P.2d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“*502 The city moved to dismiss the mandamus action, arguing that the planning commission’s decision constituted final city action for purposes of ORS 227.178, notwithstanding the pending appeal to the city council.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.178(2) — 5 cases
State ex rel. Compass Corp. v. City of Lake Oswego, 878 P.2d 403 (Or. 1994).
“On January 14, 1992, relator filed a petition for an alternative writ of mandamus under ORS 227.178, which provides, in part: “(1) Except as provided in subsections (3) and (4) of this section, the governingbody of a city or its designate shall take final action on an…”
State Ex Rel. Stewart v. City of Salem, 251 P.3d 783 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“The *533 court reasoned that relator must not have actually considered the application complete on December 2, 2008, “or he would not have submitted a second tentative plan on December 4 * * The court read ORS 227.178 as a delegation of authority to the city to determine the…”
State ex rel. Stewart v. City of Salem, 343 P.3d 264 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“” Relator asserted that the 120-day deadline for the city to take a “final action” had passed because, under ORS 227.178 (2), 2 his application was “deemed complete” for purposes of ORS 227.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.178(2)(a) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Stewart v. City of Salem, 251 P.3d 783 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“The *533 court reasoned that relator must not have actually considered the application complete on December 2, 2008, “or he would not have submitted a second tentative plan on December 4 * * The court read ORS 227.178 as a delegation of authority to the city to determine the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.178(2)(b) — 2 cases
State Ex Rel. Stewart v. City of Salem, 251 P.3d 783 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“The *533 court reasoned that relator must not have actually considered the application complete on December 2, 2008, “or he would not have submitted a second tentative plan on December 4 * * The court read ORS 227.178 as a delegation of authority to the city to determine the…”
State ex rel. Stewart v. City of Salem, 343 P.3d 264 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“” Relator asserted that the 120-day deadline for the city to take a “final action” had passed because, under ORS 227.178 (2), 2 his application was “deemed complete” for purposes of ORS 227.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.178(3) — 10 cases
Davenport v. City of Tigard, 854 P.2d 483 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“6 Rather, petitioners contend in their first assignment to us that LUBA erred in concluding that the amended map contained “standards and criteria,” within the meaning of ORS 227.178. They assert that the amendments contain no rules “for determining whether to approve or deny a…”
Sunburst II Homeowners Ass'n v. City of West Linn, 790 P.2d 1213 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
“ORS 227.178(3) provides: “If the application was complete when first submitted or the applicant submits the requested additional information within 180 days of the date the application was first submitted and the city has a comprehensive plan and land use regulations…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.178(3)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.178(4) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.178(5) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel. Stewart v. City of Salem, 251 P.3d 783 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“The *533 court reasoned that relator must not have actually considered the application complete on December 2, 2008, “or he would not have submitted a second tentative plan on December 4 * * The court read ORS 227.178 as a delegation of authority to the city to determine the…”
State ex rel. Stewart v. City of Salem, 343 P.3d 264 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“” Relator asserted that the 120-day deadline for the city to take a “final action” had passed because, under ORS 227.178 (2), 2 his application was “deemed complete” for purposes of ORS 227.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.178(7) — 22 cases
State ex rel. Compass Corp. v. City of Lake Oswego, 878 P.2d 403 (Or. 1994).
“On January 14, 1992, relator filed a petition for an alternative writ of mandamus under ORS 227.178, which provides, in part: “(1) Except as provided in subsections (3) and (4) of this section, the governingbody of a city or its designate shall take final action on an…”
Clark v. City of Albany, 921 P.2d 406 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“According to the city, “annexation” refers not to development itself, but to the determination of which governmental authority will have jurisdiction to determine whether development will be allowed.”
State ex rel. Schrodt v. Jackson Cnty., 324 P.3d 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“, we explained that, under former ORS 227.178(7) 8 (the analog of ORS 215.429 applicable to cities), a city “loses [its] discretion entirely” to approve or deny a permit when the city fails to timely act, and that, once a city fails to act on a permit application within…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.178(7)(b) — 3 cases
Seida v. City of Lincoln City, 982 P.2d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“*502 The city moved to dismiss the mandamus action, arguing that the planning commission’s decision constituted final city action for purposes of ORS 227.178, notwithstanding the pending appeal to the city council.”
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.