Chapter 227
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Fasano
v. Bd. of County Commrs., application to city
governing bodies and planning commissions, (1974) Vol
36, p 960
227.030
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Housewife as
engaged in an occupation, (1975) Vol 37, p 987; four
members of city planning commission engaged in retailing, (1979) Vol 40, p 46
227.160 to 227.185
NOTES OF DECISIONS
References
to application for permits and zone changes do not prevent use of
quasi-judicial proceeding in other types of land use decisions. Department of
Transportation v. City of Mosier, 161 Or App 252, 984 P2d 351 (1999)
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 10 WLJ 395 (1974);
68 OLR 1005 (1989)
227.160
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Exception
from definition of “permit” for decision determining zoning classification for
particular use applies to both discretionary and nondiscretionary decisions. Buckman Community Association v. City of Portland, 168 Or
App 243, 5 P3d 1203 (2000)
227.170
NOTES OF DECISIONS
The
city council’s approval of the conditional use permit was invalid for failure
to comply with the procedures it was required to articulate prior to the
conduct of a process of this sort. Adam v. City of Scappoose, 27 Or App 219,
555 P2d 809 (1976)
227.173
NOTES OF DECISIONS
City
satisfied requirement of this section that development ordinances set forth
reasonably clear standards for discretionary permit applications when, under
several ordinances, applicants were required to demonstrate that conditional
land use was essential to functioning of residential neighborhood and degree to
which use met public need. Lee v. City of Portland, 57 Or App 798, 646 P2d 662
(1982)
Standards
under this provision need only be clear enough for applicant to know what
applicant must show during application process. Oswego Properties, Inc. v. City
of Lake Oswego, 108 Or App 113, 814 P2d 539 (1991)
Cities
may identify standards and criteria applicable to particular permits by
interpreting general provisions set forth in land use legislation where
standards and criteria reasonably follow from general provisions. BCT
Partnership v. City of Portland, 130 Or App 271, 881 P2d 176 (1994)
227.175
NOTES OF DECISIONS
City
council must make findings that proposed subdivision complied with applicable
land use regulations, but court will not reverse plat approval where no
assertion was made that any specific provision was violated. Golf Holding Co.
v. McEachron, 39 Or App 675, 593 P2d 1202 (1979), Sup
Ct review denied
Only
conformity to comprehensive plan, not specific additional showing of public
need or consideration of other available property, is prerequisite to zone
change. Neuberger v. City of Portland, 288 Or 155, 603 P2d 771 (1979)
Requirement
for de novo hearing upon appeal to
LUBA does not prevent local government from imposing prehearing identification
and notice of issues requirement. Johns v. City of Lincoln City, 146 Or App
594, 933 P2d 978 (1997)
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 6 EL 153 (1975)
227.178
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Where
petitioners’ contention that applicant failed to file new application after
city amended ordinance raised only questions of procedure without showing
prejudice to petitioners’ substantial rights, there was no basis for reversing
granting of application. Sunburst II Homeowners Assn. v. City of West Linn, 101
Or App 458, 790 P2d 1213 (1990), Sup Ct review denied
Governing
body cannot avoid mandamus action by issuing application denial after
expiration of 120-day period but prior to mandamus hearing. State ex rel Compass Corp. v. City of Lake Oswego, 319 Or 537, 878
P2d 403 (1994)
Attorney
fee provision of ORS 34.210 applies to action for writ to compel governing body
to approve application. State ex rel Compass Corp. v.
City of Lake Oswego, 135 Or App 148, 898 P2d 198 (1995)
Where
provisions of state rule become applicable to local jurisdiction due to
jurisdiction’s not adopting local legislation, previously filed applications
are not subject to provisions. East Lancaster Neighborhood Assoc. v. City of
Salem, 139 Or App 333, 911 P2d 1283 (1996)
“Permit”
does not include request for annexation. Clark v. City of Albany, 142 Or App
207, 921 P2d 406 (1996)
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)
Application
is not subject to 120-day final action deadline upon remand from Land Use Board
of Appeals. State ex rel Holland v. City of Cannon
Beach, 153 Or App 176, 956 P2d 1039 (1998)
Action
for writ to compel issuance of land use approval is deemed commenced on date
filed with court. Seida v. City of Lincoln City, 160
Or App 499, 982 P2d 31 (1999), Sup Ct review denied
Once
application is deemed complete, action by applicant other than written request
for extension have no effect on date by which city must take final action.
State ex rel Stewart v. City of Salem, 241 Or App
528, 251 P3d 783 (2011)
227.179
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Applicant
does not waive right to mandamus action when applicant continues application
process after 120-day deadline. State ex rel West
Main Townhomes v. City of Medford, 233 Or App 41, 225 P3d 56 (2009), modified
234 Or App 343, 228 P3d 607 (2010)
227.180
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Letter
from city attorney to members of governing body, sent after hearing was
concluded, was properly excluded from city’s record on appeal to LUBA and
opponent of city’s decision had no right to rebut or be apprised of letter’s
contents. Dickas v. City of Beaverton, 92 Or App 168,
757 P2d 451 (1988)
This
section requires that parties to proceeding have greatest possible opportunity
to prepare for and present rebuttal in response to evidence included in ex parte communication and city council
member’s failure to disclose ex parte
communication at first council meeting following communication deprived
petitioner of substantive right and required new hearing before council.
Horizon Construction, Inc. v. City of Newberg, 114 Or App 249, 835 P2d 523
(1992)
Adequate
remedy under this section for ex parte
communication is remand that ensures that: 1) interested persons are made aware
of substance of ex parte
communication; 2) interested persons are given opportunity to prepare and
present evidentiary and rhetorical responses to substance of ex parte communication; and 3) deciding
body reevaluates original decision and issues appropriate new written decision
that takes into account evidence and argument in original record viewed
together with evidence and argument presented on remand. Opp
v. City of Portland, 171 Or App 417, 16 P3d 520 (2000), Sup Ct review denied
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 55 OLR 122-140
(1976)
227.210 to 227.300
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 10 WLJ 362, 385
(1974)
227.215
See
also annotations under ORS 227.220, 227.230 and 227.240 in permanent
edition.
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Under former similar statutes (ORS
227.220, 227.230)
Once
a planned unit development is approved, the developer is bound by it unless
changes are approved pursuant to the applicable ordinance. Frankland
v. City of Lake Oswego, 267 Or 452, 517 P2d 1042 (1973)
A
properly enacted comprehensive plan, although denominated a “resolution,”
controls zoning decisions in a city. Baker v. City of Milwaukie, 271 Or 500,
533 P2d 772 (1975)
A
comprehensive plan is the controlling land use planning instrument for a city;
upon its passage, the city assumes responsibility to effectuate the plan and
conform zoning ordinances, including prior existing zoning ordinances, to it.
Baker v. City of Milwaukie, 271 Or 500, 533 P2d 772 (1975)
In
determining whether a municipal action is an ordinance rather than a
resolution, it is necessary to look beyond the title to determine whether it is
legislative and permanent rather than administrative and temporary. Baker v.
City of Milwaukie, 271 Or 500, 533 P2d 772 (1975)
The
party seeking a zoning change did not show that the proposed change was
required by public need. So. Cen. Assn. of Neighbors v. Lindsey, 21 Or App 578,
535 P2d 1381 (1975)
The
city council was authorized to adopt a change in its comprehensive plan.
Tierney v. Duris, PayLess Prop. Corp., 21 Or App 613,
536 P2d 435 (1975)
The
city council could adopt supplemental findings of facts supporting its earlier
plan-change decision. Tierney v. Duris, PayLess Prop.
Corp., 21 Or App 613, 536 P2d 435 (1975)
The
power to regulate, restrict and segregate different classes of businesses in a
city by ordinance is reserved to the city council. Link v. City of Coos Bay, 23
Or App 648, 543 P2d 1082 (1975)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS
In general
City
granting conditional zone change, (1979) Vol 39, p
467
227.220
NOTE:
Repealed September 13, 1975; ORS 227.215 enacted in lieu
See
annotations under ORS 227.215.
227.230
NOTE:
Repealed September 13, 1975; ORS 227.215 enacted in lieu
See
annotations under ORS 227.215.