2017 ORS 197.230¹
Considerations
  • finding of need required for adoption or amendment of goal

(1) In preparing, adopting and amending goals and guidelines, the Department of Land Conservation and Development and the Land Conservation and Development Commission shall:

(a) Assess:

(A) What economic and property interests will be, or are likely to be, affected by the proposed goal or guideline;

(B) The likely degree of economic impact on identified property and economic interests; and

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

(b) Consider the existing comprehensive plans of local governments and the plans and programs affecting land use of state agencies and special districts in order to preserve functional and local aspects of land conservation and development.

(c) Give consideration to the following areas and activities:

(A) Lands adjacent to freeway interchanges;

(B) Estuarine areas;

(C) Tide, marsh and wetland areas;

(D) Lakes and lakeshore areas;

(E) Wilderness, recreational and outstanding scenic areas;

(F) Beaches, dunes, coastal headlands and related areas;

(G) Wild and scenic rivers and related lands;

(H) Floodplains and areas of geologic hazard;

(I) Unique wildlife habitats; and

(J) Agricultural land.

(d) Make a finding of statewide need for the adoption of any new goal or the amendment of any existing goal.

(e) Design goals to allow a reasonable degree of flexibility in the application of goals by state agencies, cities, counties and special districts.

(2) Goals shall not be land management regulations for specified geographic areas established through designation of an area of critical state concern under ORS 197.405 (Designation of areas of critical state concern).

(3) The requirements of subsection (1)(a) of this section shall not be interpreted as requiring an assessment for each lot or parcel that could be affected by the proposed rule.

(4) The commission may exempt cities with a population less than 10,000, or those areas of a county inside an urban growth boundary that contain a population less than 10,000, from all or any part of land use planning goals, guidelines and administrative rules that relate to transportation planning. [1973 c.80 §34; 1977 c.664 §17; 1981 c.748 §17; 1983 c.740 §50; 1995 c.299 §2; 1999 c.784 §1]

Notes of Decisions

This sec­tion, enacted in 1977, was inapplicable to LCDC goal effective in 1975. Meyer v. Lord, 37 Or App 59, 586 P2d 367 (1978)

Amend­ment to land use goal which designated all land within municipal boundaries of a city as urban or urbanizable land regardless of actual nature of use of the land was invalid in requiring local govern­ments to make all land within city available for develop­ment without regard to general policies of land use planning scheme. 1000 Friends v. LCDC, 292 Or 735, 642 P2d 1158 (1982)

Law Review Cita­tions

31 WLR 449 (1995); 77 OLR 813 (1998)

Notes of Decisions

Where county did not treat identifiable and apparent conflicting uses as being such and did not undertake necessary analysis, conflict resolu­tion and program develop­ment that would follow from their identifica­tion, but essentially avoided that process by assuming chain of events beyond its control would occur and might prevent or limit conflicting uses without regulatory interven­tion by county, county did not follow process that Goal 5 and OAR 660-16-000 et seq. require. Audubon Society of Portland v. LCDC, 92 Or App 496, 760 P2d 271 (1988), Sup Ct review denied

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, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors197.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 197, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano197.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
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.