By: Alan Sorem and Emily Rich, Real Estate and Land Use Practice Group
Oregon law already limits local governments to applying clear and objective standards , criteria, and procedures to many housing applications. In general, the framework applies within urban growth boundaries and certain unincorporated areas and non-resource lands. The goal is to reduce discretionary review, shorten timelines, and avoid conditions that add unnecessary cost or delay to housing development.
Oregon House Bill 4037 expands the clear-and-objective framework further by making significant procedural changes which become effective July 1, 2026. HB 4037 limits public participation during the application process and on appeals for qualifying housing applications. These procedural changes affect only the clear and objective review process and not alternative processes such as voluntary planned unit developments.
Among the most important changes are that local governments may only provide notice of an application to owners located within 100 feet of the subject property, or 500 feet for projects with 20 or more units. Local governments generally may not require a public hearing before issuing a decision, and only the applicant will have local appeal rights. HB 4037 also provides that only the applicant may appeal these decisions to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA).
From a developer’s perspective, those changes should reduce opportunities for delay caused by neighbor objections and third-party appeals. However, HB 4037 also raises practical questions. The bill includes notice restrictions, but it does not fully resolve whether common practices such as posting pending applications on a city or county website qualify as providing notice. The City of Salem requires many applicants to present at open houses or Neighborhood Association meetings. These local requirements might not be permitted under the clear and objective review process. Until cities and counties revise their codes and case law provides further guidance, applicants should expect some inconsistency in how jurisdictions administer the new rules.
Developers should also keep in mind that HB 4037 does not eliminate all appeal risk. While the bill restricts appeal rights at Oregon’s Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) to only the applicant, it does not expressly preclude other judicial challenges, such as writ proceedings in circuit court. Writ proceedings may be harder for opponents to pursue since there are generally stricter requirements for who can file an action than under normal LUBA’s procedures, but the proceedings could still potentially increase costs and delays. Unlike LUBA which must issue decisions by set statutory deadlines, circuit courts do not operate under the same schedules or have expedited deadlines for issuing decisions.
Accordingly, housing developers should evaluate early whether a project can and should proceed under the clear and objective review process, and how related approvals should be sequenced when projects require multiple land use approvals.
Bottom line for housing developers: HB 4037 has the potential to make housing entitlements faster, more predictable, and less vulnerable to third-party delay—but it does not eliminate the need for careful planning and strategy or the possibility of lengthy appeals.
In sum, key takeaways of the bill include:
- Qualifying projects may face fewer opportunities for delay from public hearings, broad notice requirements, and third-party appeals
- Local implementation will matter, and jurisdictions may vary until further guidance is provided as to how the new rules should be applied
- Developers should evaluate early whether a project can be positioned to take full advantage of the clear and objective review process
If you would like to assess whether these changes apply to a current or planned project, weigh the pros and cons for a specific project, or discuss how to strategically take advantage of these new rules, please reach out to our Real Estate and Land Use team at (503) 399-1070 or visit sglaw.com.