County Planning

ORS 215.406
Planning and zoning hearings officers

  • duties and powers
  • authority of governing body or planning commission to conduct hearings


(1)

A county governing body may authorize appointment of one or more planning and zoning hearings officers, to serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. The hearings officer shall conduct hearings on applications for such classes of permits and contested cases as the county governing body designates.

(2)

In the absence of a hearings officer a planning commission or the governing body may serve as hearings officer with all the powers and duties of a hearings officer. [1973 c.552 §13; 1977 c.766 §10]

Notes of Decisions

Board of Commissioners could properly hold full hearing on contested quasi-judicial plan change, and preceding action either by hearings officer or planning commission was not required. Sunnyside Neighborhood v. Clackamas County Commissioners, 280 Or 3, 569 P2d 1063 (1977)

§§ 215.402 to 215.422

Notes of Decisions

Petitioner who attempted to appeal county planning director's decision to county planning commission, where no local appeal was provided in county ordinance, could not challenge procedures or merits of director's decision in appeal to LUBA from commissioner's refusal to consider matter, after failing to bring direct timely appeal to LUBA from first decision. Smith v. Douglas County, 98 Or App 379, 780 P2d 232 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Citations

10 WLJ 395 (1974)

Chapter 215

Notes of Decisions

Published notice is adequate if property owners can reasonably ascertain that property in which they hold interest may be affected. Clackamas County v. Emmert, 14 Or App 493, 513 P2d 532 (1973), Sup Ct review denied

Statutory scheme establishing LCDC and granting it authority to establish state-wide land use planning goals does not unconstitutionally delegate legislative power where both standards (under this chapter) and safeguards ([former] ORS 197.310) exist. Meyer v. Lord, 37 Or App 59, 586 P2d 367 (1978)

Where county had not yet adopted comprehensive plan but had zoned certain portions "primarily agricultural," county had not enacted adequate interim measures to protect its agricultural land until exclusive farm use zoning was completed. Columbia County v. LCDC, 44 Or App 749, 606 P2d 1184 (1980)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., application to county governing bodies and planning commissions, (1974) Vol 36, p 960; binding effect on governmental agencies of the adoption of interim Willamette River Greenway boundaries, (1975) Vol 37, p 894

Law Review Citations

36 EL 25 (2006)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021