Source: https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/227.180
Timestamp: 2017-01-22 20:17:18
Document Index: 596747068

Matched Legal Cases: ['§11', '§9', '§12', '§43', '§2', '§25', '§12']

ORS 227.180 - Review of action on permit application - 2015 Oregon Revised Statutes
Section 227.180
227.180¹
Review of action on permit application
(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 officers 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 partys 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 (Review procedures) to 197.845 (Stay of decision being reviewed).
(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]
Letter from city attorney to members of governing body, sent after hearing was concluded, was properly excluded from citys record on ap­peal to LUBA and opponent of citys decision had no right to rebut or be apprised of letters 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 members 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
55 OLR 122-140 (1976)