227.180 Review
of action on permit application; fees.
(1)(a) A party aggrieved by the action of a hearings officer may appeal the
action to the planning commission or council of the city, or both, however the
council prescribes. The appellate authority on its own motion may review the
action. The procedure for such an appeal or review shall be prescribed by the
council, but shall:
(A) Not require
that the appeal be filed within less than seven days after the date the
governing body mails or delivers the decision of the hearings officer to the
parties;
(B) Require a
hearing at least for argument; and
(C) Require that
upon appeal or review the appellate authority consider the record of the
hearings officer’s action. That record need not set forth evidence verbatim.
(b)
Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, the council may provide that
the decision of a hearings officer or other decision-making authority in a
proceeding for a discretionary permit or zone change is the final determination
of the city.
(c) The governing
body may prescribe, by ordinance or regulation, fees to defray the costs
incurred in acting upon an appeal from a hearings officer, planning commission
or other designated person. The amount of the fee shall be reasonable and shall
be no more than the average cost of such appeals or the actual cost of the
appeal, excluding the cost of preparation of a written transcript. The
governing body may establish a fee for the preparation of a written transcript.
The fee shall be reasonable and shall not exceed the actual cost of preparing
the transcript up to $500. In lieu of a transcript prepared by the governing
body and the fee therefor, the governing body shall allow any party to an
appeal proceeding held on the record to prepare a transcript of relevant
portions of the proceedings conducted at a lower level at the party’s own
expense. If an appellant prevails at a hearing or on appeal, the transcript fee
shall be refunded.
(2) A party
aggrieved by the final determination in a proceeding for a discretionary permit
or zone change may have the determination reviewed under ORS 197.830 to
197.845.
(3) No decision
or action of a planning commission or city governing body shall be invalid due
to ex parte contact or bias resulting from ex parte contact with a member of
the decision-making body, if the member of the decision-making body receiving
the contact:
(a) Places on the
record the substance of any written or oral ex parte communications concerning
the decision or action; and
(b) Has a public
announcement of the content of the communication and of the parties’ right to
rebut the substance of the communication made at the first hearing following
the communication where action will be considered or taken on the subject to
which the communication related.
(4) A
communication between city staff and the planning commission or governing body
shall not be considered an ex parte contact for the purposes of subsection (3)
of this section.
(5) Subsection
(3) of this section does not apply to ex parte contact with a hearings officer.
[1973 c.739 §§11,12; 1975 c.767 §9; 1979 c.772 §12; 1981 c.748 §43; 1983 c.656 §2;
1983 c.827 §25; 1991 c.817 §12]
Notes of Decisions
Willamette Oaks, LLC v. City of Eugene, 261 P.3d 85 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 32× “Specifically, LUBA remanded the Willamette Oaks fee challenge to the city to take evidence on whether the fee violates the limit imposed by ORS 227.180(1)(c) on local land use appeal fees.”
Horizon Constr., Inc. v. City of Newberg, 834 P.2d 523 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 6× “ORS 227.180(3) provides: “No decision or action of a planning commission or city governing body shall be invalid due to ex parte contact or bias resulting from ex parte contact with a member of the decision-making body, if the member of the decision-making body receiving the…”
Bienz v. City of Dayton, 566 P.2d 904 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
“ORS 227.180(1) provides: "A party aggrieved by the action of a hearings officer may appeal the action to the planning commission or council for the city, or both, however the council prescribes.”
State ex rel. Compass Corp. v. City of Lake Oswego, 878 P.2d 403 (Or. 1994).
“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 application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change, including resolution of all appeals…”
Trautman v. City of Eugene, 383 P.3d 420 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 3× “]” Accordingly, the City of Eugene prescribes the procedure for an appeal to the planning commission in EC 9.”
Duddles v. City Council of West Linn, 535 P.2d 583 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
“⑦ ORS 227.180(4), enacted by Oregon Laws 1973, ch 739, §§ 11, 12, p 1773, is also conceivably relevant, although not raised in this appeal.”
Carlsen v. City of Portland, 8 P.3d 234 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 3× “215M” A city’s final decision on a permit application is reviewable by LUBA as a land use decision, ORS 227.180(2), in the same manner that a decision applying a land use regulation is.”
Johns v. City of Lincoln City, 933 P.2d 978 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“830(ll)(c) (specification of *600 issues to be reviewed required in petitions for review to LUBA); ORS 227.180(l)(a) (procedures for appeals to higher city bodies of permit decisions by city hearings officers may be prescribed by city governing bodies).”
Opp v. City of Portland, 955 P.2d 768 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“See ORS 227.180(3). No disclosure was made of the contact with Cooley, and no opportunity for rebuttal was provided by the city in its proceedings on the application.”
Link v. City of Coos Bay, 543 P.2d 1082 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
“That body, without reviewing the proceedings before the commission, adopted a motion “that the Planning Commission had the power to take the action that they did in this case.”
Miller v. Council of City of Grants Pass, 592 P.2d 1088 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 3× “Citing ORS 227.180(1) and Section 16 of the City of Grants Pass Land Use Hearing Rules, petitioners first contend that the council’s review was procedurally incorrect because it failed to consider the record of the proceedings before the hearings officer.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.180(1) — 3 cases
Bienz v. City of Dayton, 566 P.2d 904 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
“ORS 227.180(1) provides: "A party aggrieved by the action of a hearings officer may appeal the action to the planning commission or council for the city, or both, however the council prescribes.”
Miller v. Council of City of Grants Pass, 592 P.2d 1088 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
“Citing ORS 227.180(1) and Section 16 of the City of Grants Pass Land Use Hearing Rules, petitioners first contend that the council’s review was procedurally incorrect because it failed to consider the record of the proceedings before the hearings officer.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.180(1)(c) — 1 case
Willamette Oaks, LLC v. City of Eugene, 261 P.3d 85 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“Specifically, LUBA remanded the Willamette Oaks fee challenge to the city to take evidence on whether the fee violates the limit imposed by ORS 227.180(1)(c) on local land use appeal fees.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.180(2) — 2 cases
Carlsen v. City of Portland, 8 P.3d 234 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“215M” A city’s final decision on a permit application is reviewable by LUBA as a land use decision, ORS 227.180(2), in the same manner that a decision applying a land use regulation is.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.180(3) — 5 cases
Horizon Constr., Inc. v. City of Newberg, 834 P.2d 523 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“ORS 227.180(3) provides: “No decision or action of a planning commission or city governing body shall be invalid due to ex parte contact or bias resulting from ex parte contact with a member of the decision-making body, if the member of the decision-making body receiving the…”
Carlsen v. City of Portland, 8 P.3d 234 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“215M” A city’s final decision on a permit application is reviewable by LUBA as a land use decision, ORS 227.180(2), in the same manner that a decision applying a land use regulation is.”
Opp v. City of Portland, 955 P.2d 768 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“See ORS 227.180(3). No disclosure was made of the contact with Cooley, and no opportunity for rebuttal was provided by the city in its proceedings on the application.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.180(3)(b) — 1 case
Horizon Constr., Inc. v. City of Newberg, 834 P.2d 523 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“ORS 227.180(3) provides: “No decision or action of a planning commission or city governing body shall be invalid due to ex parte contact or bias resulting from ex parte contact with a member of the decision-making body, if the member of the decision-making body receiving the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.180(4) — 3 cases
Duddles v. City Council of West Linn, 535 P.2d 583 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
“⑦ ORS 227.180(4), enacted by Oregon Laws 1973, ch 739, §§ 11, 12, p 1773, is also conceivably relevant, although not raised in this appeal.”
Link v. City of Coos Bay, 543 P.2d 1082 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
“That body, without reviewing the proceedings before the commission, adopted a motion “that the Planning Commission had the power to take the action that they did in this case.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.180(l)(a) — 2 cases
Trautman v. City of Eugene, 383 P.3d 420 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“]” Accordingly, the City of Eugene prescribes the procedure for an appeal to the planning commission in EC 9.”
Johns v. City of Lincoln City, 933 P.2d 978 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“830(ll)(c) (specification of *600 issues to be reviewed required in petitions for review to LUBA); ORS 227.180(l)(a) (procedures for appeals to higher city bodies of permit decisions by city hearings officers may be prescribed by city governing bodies).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.180(l)(c) — 1 case
Willamette Oaks, LLC v. City of Eugene, 261 P.3d 85 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“Specifically, LUBA remanded the Willamette Oaks fee challenge to the city to take evidence on whether the fee violates the limit imposed by ORS 227.180(1)(c) on local land use appeal fees.”
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.