2017 ORS 197.311¹
Final action on application for certain residential developments required within 100 days

(1) As used in this section:

(a) “Affordable housing” means housing that is affordable to households with incomes equal to or less than 60 percent of the median family income for the county in which the development is built or for the state, whichever is greater.

(b) “Multifamily residential building” means a building in which three or more residential units each have space for eating, living and sleeping and permanent provisions for cooking and sanitation.

(2) Notwithstanding ORS 215.427 (Final action on permit or zone change application) (1) or 227.178 (Final action on certain applications required within 120 days) (1), a city with a population greater than 5,000 or a county with a population greater than 25,000 shall take final action on an application qualifying under subsection (3) of this section, including resolution of all local appeals under ORS 215.422 (Review of decision of hearings officer or other authority) or 227.180 (Review of action on permit application), within 100 days after the application is deemed complete.

(3) An application qualifies for final action within the timeline described in subsection (2) of this section if:

(a) The application is submitted to the city or the county under ORS 215.416 (Permit application) or 227.175 (Application for permit or zone change);

(b) The application is for development of a multifamily residential building containing five or more residential units within the urban growth boundary;

(c) At least 50 percent of the residential units included in the development will be sold or rented as affordable housing; and

(d) The development is subject to a covenant appurtenant that restricts the owner and each successive owner of the development or a residential unit within the development from selling or renting any residential unit described in paragraph (c) of this subsection as housing that is not affordable housing for a period of 60 years from the date of the certificate of occupancy.

(4) A city or a county shall take final action within the time allowed under ORS 215.427 (Final action on permit or zone change application) or 227.178 (Final action on certain applications required within 120 days) on any application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change that does not qualify for review and decision under subsection (3) of this section, including resolution of all appeals under ORS 215.422 (Review of decision of hearings officer or other authority) or 227.180 (Review of action on permit application), as provided by ORS 215.427 (Final action on permit or zone change application) and 215.435 (Deadline for final action by county on remand of land use decision) or by ORS 227.178 (Final action on certain applications required within 120 days) and 227.181 (Final action required within 120 days following remand of land use decision). [2017 c.745 §1]

Note: 197.311 (Final action on application for certain residential developments required within 100 days) was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 197 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

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.