2015 ORS 197.040¹
Duties of commission
  • rules

(1) The Land Conservation and Development Commission shall:

(a) Direct the performance by the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development and the director’s staff of their functions under ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197.

(b) In accordance with the provisions of ORS chapter 183, adopt rules that it considers necessary to carry out ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197. Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, in designing its administrative requirements, the commission shall:

(A) Allow for the diverse administrative and planning capabilities of local governments;

(B) Consider the variation in conditions and needs in different regions of the state and encourage regional approaches to resolving land use problems;

(C) Assess what economic and property interests will be, or are likely to be, affected by the proposed rule;

(D) Assess the likely degree of economic impact on identified property and economic interests; and

(E) Assess whether alternative actions are available that would achieve the underlying lawful governmental objective and would have a lesser economic impact.

(c)(A) Adopt by rule in accordance with ORS chapter 183 or by goal under ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197 any statewide land use policies that it considers necessary to carry out ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197.

(B) Adopt by rule in accordance with ORS chapter 183 any procedures necessary to carry out ORS 215.402 (Definitions for ORS 215.402 to 215.438 and 215.700 to 215.780) (4)(b) and 227.160 (Definitions for ORS 227.160 to 227.186) (2)(b).

(C) Review decisions of the Land Use Board of Appeals and land use decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court within 120 days of the date the decisions are issued to determine if goal or rule amendments are necessary.

(d) Cooperate with the appropriate agencies of the United States, this state and its political subdivisions, any other state, any interstate agency, any person or groups of persons with respect to land conservation and development.

(e) Appoint advisory committees to aid it in carrying out ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197 and provide technical and other assistance, as it considers necessary, to each such committee.

(2) Pursuant to ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197, the commission shall:

(a) Adopt, amend and revise goals consistent with regional, county and city concerns;

(b) Prepare, collect, provide or cause to be prepared, collected or provided land use inventories;

(c) Prepare statewide planning guidelines;

(d) Review comprehensive plans for compliance with goals;

(e) Coordinate planning efforts of state agencies to assure compliance with goals and compatibility with city and county comprehensive plans;

(f) Insure widespread citizen involvement and input in all phases of the process;

(g) Review and recommend to the Legislative Assembly the designation of areas of critical state concern;

(h) Report periodically to the Legislative Assembly and to the committee;

(i) Review the land use planning responsibilities and authorities given to the state, regions, counties and cities, review the resources available to each level of government and make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly to improve the administration of the statewide land use program; and

(j) Perform other duties required by law.

(3) The requirements of subsection (1)(b) of this section shall not be interpreted as requiring an assessment for each lot or parcel that could be affected by the proposed rule. [1973 c.80 §§9,11; 1977 c.664 §5; 1981 c.748 §22; 1991 c.817 §19; 1993 c.792 §51; 1995 c.299 §1; 2009 c.873 §2]

Notes of Decisions

In statutory scheme, statewide planning goals occupy preferred posi­tion over rules, and legislative intent is that goals cannot be indirectly repealed or amended by exercise of LCDC's general rulemaking power. Willamette University v. LCDC, 45 Or App 355, 608 P2d 1178 (1980)

Rulemaking authority does not prevent LCDC from selecting specific remedy without first adopting remedy by rule. Jackson County v. LCDC, 132 Or App 302, 888 P2d 98 (1995), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Prepara­tion of land use inventories, (1976) Vol 37, p 1324

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 414-421, 474, 475 (1974); 56 OLR 270 (1977)

Chapter 197

Notes of Decisions

A comprehensive plan, although denominated a "resolu­tion," 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)

Procedural require­ments of the state-wide planning goals adopted by the Land Conserva­tion and Develop­ment Commission are not applicable to ordinances adopted before the effective date of the goals. Schmidt v. Land Conserva­tion and Develop­ment Comm., 29 Or App 665, 564 P2d 1090 (1977)

This chapter, es­tab­lishing LCDC and granting it authority to es­tab­lish state-wide land use planning goals, does not unconstitu­tionally delegate legislative power where both standards (ORS chapter 215) and safeguards ([former] ORS 197.310) exist. Meyer v. Lord, 37 Or App 59, 586 P2d 367 (1978)

Where county's comprehensive plan and land use regula­tions had not been acknowledged by LCDC, it was proper for county to apply state-wide planning standards directly to individual request for parti­tion. Alexanderson v. Polk County Commissioners, 289 Or 427, 616 P2d 459 (1980)

Issuance of a building permit was a "land conserva­tion and develop­ment ac­tion" where county had no acknowledged comprehensive plan, land was not zoned and no pre­vi­ous land use decision had been made re­gard­ing the land. Columbia Hills v. LCDC, 50 Or App 483, 624 P2d 157 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Nothing in this chapter grants the Land Conserva­tion and Develop­ment Depart­ment authority to challenge local land use decisions made after comprehensive plan acknowledg­ment. Ochoco Const. v. LCDC, 295 Or 422, 667 P2d 499 (1983)

LCDC has authority in periodic review process to require local govern­ment to add specific language or pro­vi­sions to its land use legisla­tion to assure compliance with statewide goals and LCDC rules. Oregonians in Ac­tion v. LCDC, 121 Or App 497, 854 P2d 1010 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Authority of a land conserva­tion and develop­ment com­mis­sion to bind the state in an interstate compact or agree­ment, (1973) Vol 36, p 361; applica­tion of Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., (1974) Vol 36, p 960; state-wide planning goal in conjunc­tion with interim Willamette River Greenway boundaries, (1975) Vol 37, p 894; binding effect on govern­mental agencies of the adop­tion of interim Willamette River Greenway boundaries, (1975) Vol 37, p 894; applica­tion to state agencies, (1976) Vol 37, p 1129; preexisting ordinances during the interim imple­menting stage, (1976) Vol 37, p 1329; constitu­tionality of delega­tion to LCDC of authority to prescribe and enforce statewide planning goals, (1977) Vol 38, p 1130; effect of situa­tion where similar peti­tion is filed before both com­mis­sion and a court, (1977) Vol 38, p 1268; considera­tion of availability of public school facilities in determina­tion of whether to approve subdivision, (1978) Vol 38, p 1956

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 99 (1973); 53 OLR 129 (1974); 5 EL 673 (1975); 54 OLR 203-223 (1975); 56 OLR 444 (1977); 18 WLR 49 (1982); 61 OLR 351 (1982); 20 WLR 764 (1984); 14 EL 661, 693, 713, 779, 843 (1984); 25 WLR 259 (1989); 31 WLR 147, 449, 817 (1995); 36 EL 25 (2006); 49 WLR 411 (2013)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 197—Comprehensive Land Use Planning I, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors197.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 197, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano197.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.