ORS 215.416
Permit application

fees
consolidated procedures
hearings
notice
approval criteria
decision without hearing

Text
Annotations 9

(1)

When required or authorized by the ordinances, rules and regulations of a county, an owner of land may apply in writing to such persons as the governing body designates, for a permit, in the manner prescribed by the governing body. 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 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 shall be subject to the time limitations set out in ORS 215.427 (Final action on permit or zone change application). 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 (11) of this section, the hearings officer shall hold at least one public hearing on the application.

(4)

Intentionally left blank —Ed.

(a)

A county may not approve an application if the proposed use of land is found to be in conflict with the comprehensive plan of the county and other applicable land use regulation or ordinance provisions. The approval may include such conditions as are authorized by statute or county legislation.

(b)

Intentionally left blank —Ed.

(A)

A county 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 but not limited to clear and objective design standards contained in the county 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 197.307 (Needed housing policy) (5); or

(ii)

Applications or permits reviewed under an alternative approval process adopted under ORS 197.307 (Needed housing policy) (6).

(c)

A county 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 county 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 county 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 (Burden of persuasion or proof in appeal to board or commission), the county 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 shall be held only after notice to the applicant and also notice to other persons as otherwise provided by law and shall otherwise be conducted in conformance with the provisions of ORS 197.797 (Local quasi-judicial land use hearings).

(6)

Notice of a public hearing on an application submitted under this section 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 county planning authority; and

(b)

The property subject to the land 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 land use hearing need not be provided as set forth in subsection (6) of this section if the zoning permit would only allow a structure less than 35 feet in height and the property is located outside the runway “approach surface” as defined by the Oregon Department of Aviation.

(8)

Intentionally left blank —Ed.

(a)

Approval or denial of a permit application shall be based on standards and criteria which shall be set forth in the zoning ordinance or other appropriate ordinance or regulation of the county and which shall relate approval or denial of a permit application to the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan for the area in which the proposed use of land would occur and to the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan for the county as a whole.

(b)

When an ordinance establishing approval standards is required under ORS 197.307 (Needed housing policy) to provide only clear and objective standards, the standards must be clear and objective on the face of the ordinance.

(9)

Approval or denial of a permit or expedited land division shall 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.

(10)

Written notice of the approval or denial shall be given to all parties to the proceeding.

(11)(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 (Local quasi-judicial land use hearings) (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 county’s land use regulations. A county 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 (Review procedures).

(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 county. 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 (Local quasi-judicial land use hearings) 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 shall 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 shall not apply to appeals made by neighborhood or community organizations recognized by the governing body and whose boundaries include the site.

(c)

Intentionally left blank —Ed.

(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.

(12)

A decision described in ORS 215.402 (Definitions for ORS 215.402 to 215.438 and 215.700 to 215.780) (4)(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 (Review procedures) (5)(b).

(13)

At the option of the applicant, the local government shall provide notice of the decision described in ORS 215.402 (Definitions for ORS 215.402 to 215.438 and 215.700 to 215.780) (4)(b) in the manner required by ORS 197.797 (Local quasi-judicial land use hearings) (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.

(14)

Notwithstanding the requirements of this section, a limited land use decision shall be subject to the requirements set forth in ORS 197.195 (Limited land use decision) and 197.828 (Board review of limited land use decision). [1973 c.552 §§15, 16; 1977 c.654 §2; 1977 c.766 §12; 1979 c.772 §10a; 1983 c.827 §20; 1987 c.106 §2; 1987 c.729 §17; 1991 c.612 §20; 1991 c.817 §5; 1995 c.595 §27; 1995 c.692 §1; 1997 c.844 §4; 1999 c.357 §2; 1999 c.621 §1; 1999 c.935 §23; 2001 c.397 §1; 2017 c.745 §2; 2019 c.640 §17]

Source: Section 215.416 — Permit application; fees; consolidated procedures; hearings; notice; approval criteria; decision without hearing, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors215.html.

Notes of Decisions

Under provisions of this section concerning county procedures for authorizing land use development, including subdivisions, proposed subdivision was required to comply with county comprehensive framework plan. Commonwealth Properties v. Washington County, 35 Or App 387, 582 P2d 1384 (1978)

Specificity requirements of this section were not met by board of county commissioners’ denial of tentative approval of proposed subdivision plat where denial was couched in general language and failed to specify what criteria were used to determine that proposed plat did not comply with county comprehensive plan. Commonwealth Properties v. Washington County, 35 Or App 387, 582 P2d 1384 (1978)

County ordinance which required that appeals of land use decisions be taken within ten days of oral decision of hearings officer was invalid since it conflicted with provision in this section requiring written notice of decision to be given to parties. Bryant v. Clackamas County, 56 Or App 442, 643 P2d 649 (1982)

County’s decision whether to allow construction of primary farm dwelling on land zoned for exclusive farm use entailed issuance of permit requiring discretionary approval under ORS 215.402 and was subject to notice, hearing and other procedural requirements of this section. Doughton v. Douglas County, 88 Or App 198, 744 P2d 1299 (1987)

Where petitioners contended in appeal to LUBA that county failed to hold hearing and give notice as required by this section, petitioners were not required to satisfy appearance provision of ORS 197.830 and are “aggrieved” within meaning of ORS 197.830 for purposes of standing. Flowers v. Klamath County, 98 Or App 384, 780 P2d 227 (1989), Sup Ct review denied; Hugo v. Columbia County, 157 Or App 1, 967 P2d 895 (1998)

It was beyond county’s legislative power to require as part of conditional use permit that skydiving company be strictly liable for any damages resulting from its activities. Skydive Oregon, Inc. v. Clackamas County, 122 Or App 342, 857 P2d 879 (1993)

Where petitioner files appeal seeking local review, direct appeal to LUBA under ORS 197.830 is not available. Tarjoto v. Lane County, 137 Or App 305, 904 P2d 641 (1995)

Listing of categories of persons entitled to notice imposes cumulative notice requirement, not alternative notice requirement. Wilbur Residents v. Douglas County, 151 Or App 523, 950 P2d 368 (1997), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Citations

6 EL 151 (1975)

California:	Codes
Colorado:	C.R.S.
Nevada:	NRS
New York:	Laws
Oregon:	OAR, ORS
Texas:	Statutes
World:	Rome Statute, International Dictionary

ORS 215.416 Permit application

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(a)

(b)

(A)

(B)

(i)

(ii)

(c)

(A)

(B)

(d)

(A)

(B)

(C)

(e)

(f)

(A)

(B)

(C)

(5)

(6)

(a)

(b)

(A)

(B)

(7)

(8)

(a)

(b)

(9)

(10)

(B)

(C)

(D)

(E)

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(b)

(c)

(A)

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(B)

(C)

(12)

(a)

(A)

(B)

(C)

(b)

(c)

(13)

(14)

Notes of Decisions

Law Review Citations

ORS 215.416
Permit application