Final action on permit or zone change application
- refund of application fees
Source:
Section 215.427 — Final action on permit or zone change application; refund of application fees, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors215.html.
Notes of Decisions
Under former similar statute (ORS 215.428)
Mandamus is not available once local governing body has issued land use decision, even if decision is issued after 120-day deadline. Simon v. Bd. of Co. Comm. of Marion Co., 91 Or App 487, 755 P2d 741 (1988); State ex rel Fraley v. Deschutes County Bd. of Commissioners, 151 Or App 201, 948 P2d 1249 (1997), Sup Ct review denied
LUBA erred by concluding that conditional use standards applied without determining whether petitioner’s pre-amendment filings constituted application to which this section relates. Kirpal Light Satsang v. Douglas County, 96 Or App 207, 772 P2d 944 (1989), Sup Ct review denied, on reconsideration 97 Or App 614, 776 P2d 1312 (1989)
Absent county rule establishing when land use decision is final, such decision is final when made, not when mailed. Bigej Enterprises v. Tillamook County, 115 Or App 425, 838 P2d 1095 (1992), as modified by 118 Or App 342, 847 P2d 869 (1993)
Plaintiff’s agreements to waive periods of time constituted request for extensions under provision of this section allowing 120-day period to be extended at request of applicant. Bigej Enterprises v. Tillamook County, 115 Or App 425, 838 P2d 1095 (1992), as modified by 118 Or App 342, 847 P2d 869 (1993)
Standards and criteria do not become “applicable” until acknowledged by LUBA. Von Lubken v. Hood River County, 118 Or App 246, 846 P2d 1178 (1993), Sup Ct review denied
Where zoning change cannot be accomplished without amendment of comprehensive plan, circuit court writ of mandamus is not available to compel decision. Edney v. Columbia County Board of Commissioners, 318 Or 138, 863 P2d 1259 (1993)
County interpretation of county ordinance is not entitled to deference in mandamus proceeding. State ex rel Currier v. Clatsop County, 149 Or App 285, 942 P2d 847 (1997); State ex rel Coastal Management, Inc. v. Washington County, 159 Or App 533, 979 P2d 300 (1999)
Decision to approve preliminary or final plan is wholly within authority and control of county, notwithstanding that other entities may play part in applicant’s fulfillment of county-imposed conditions. State ex rel Aspen Group v. Washington County, 150 Or App 371, 946 P2d 347 (1997), Sup Ct review denied
Discretionary attorney fees under ORS 34.210 are available in action to compel county approval of plan. State ex rel Aspen Group v. Washington County, 150 Or App 371, 946 P2d 347 (1997), Sup Ct review denied
“Writ of mandamus” filed by applicant to compel governing body to issue approval is peremptory writ. Murphy Citizens Advisory Committee v. Josephine County, 325 Or 101, 934 P2d 415 (1997)
Applicant may bring mandamus action notwithstanding that applicant initiated local review procedure that prevents untimely decision from being final action. State ex rel K. B. Recycling, Inc. v. Clackamas County, 171 Or App 46, 14 P3d 643 (2000)
In general
Although law under which application is approved or denied may not change after application filing date, material change in facts underlying application may affect approval or denial of application. Department of Land Conservation and Development v. Jefferson County, 220 Or App 518, 188 P3d 313 (2008), Sup Ct review denied
Criteria and standards established under waiver described in ORS 195.305 are of no effect. Pete’s Mountain Homeowners Association v. Clackamas County, 227 Or App 140, 204 P3d 802 (2009), Sup Ct review denied
County’s failure to give notice of missing information within 30 days’ receipt of application does not affect 180-day time limit specified in subsection (4) of this section for applicant to complete application to prevent application from becoming void. Bora Architects, Inc v. Tillamook County, 291 Or App 537, 422 P3d 412 (2018)
Up to date