2017 ORS 197.615¹
Submission of adopted comprehensive plan or land use regulation changes to Department of Land Conservation and Development

(1) When a local government adopts a proposed change to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or a land use regulation, the local government shall submit the decision to the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development within 20 days after making the decision.

(2) The submission must contain the following materials:

(a) A copy of the signed decision, the findings and the text of the change to the comprehensive plan or land use regulation;

(b) If a comprehensive plan map or zoning map is created or altered by the proposed change, a copy of the map that is created or altered;

(c) A brief narrative summary of the decision, including a summary of substantive differences from the proposed change submitted under ORS 197.610 (Submission of proposed comprehensive plan or land use regulation changes to Department of Land Conservation and Development) and any supplemental information that the local government believes may be useful to inform the director or members of the public of the effect of the actual change; and

(d) A statement by the individual transmitting the submission, identifying the date of the decision and the date of the submission.

(3) The director shall cause notice of the decision and an explanation of the requirements for appealing the land use decision under ORS 197.830 (Review procedures) to 197.845 (Stay of decision being reviewed) to be provided to:

(a) Persons that have requested notice of changes to the acknowledged comprehensive plan of the particular local government, using electronic mail, electronic bulletin board, electronic mailing list server or similar electronic method; and

(b) Persons that are generally interested in changes to acknowledged comprehensive plans, by posting notices periodically on a public website using the Internet or a similar electronic method.

(4) On the same day the local government submits the decision to the director, the local government shall mail, or otherwise deliver, notice to persons that:

(a) Participated in the local government proceedings that led to the decision to adopt the change to the acknowledged comprehensive plan or the land use regulation; and

(b) Requested in writing that the local government give notice of the change to the acknowledged comprehensive plan or the land use regulation.

(5) The notice required by subsection (4) of this section must state how and where the materials described in subsection (2) of this section may be obtained and must:

(a) Include a statement by the individual delivering the notice that identifies the date on which the notice was delivered and the individual delivering the notice;

(b) List the locations and times at which the public may review the decision and findings; and

(c) Explain the requirements for appealing the land use decision under ORS 197.830 (Review procedures) to 197.845 (Stay of decision being reviewed). [1981 c.748 §5; 1983 c.827 §9; 1999 c.255 §1; 2011 c.280 §2]

Notes of Decisions

On remand, where peti­tioners who were entitled to notice of land use decision did not receive notice from county, time under ORS 197.830 (Review procedures) for their filing of intent to ap­peal to LUBA was tolled until they had knowledge of decision. Ludwick v. Yamhill County, 72 Or App 224, 696 P2d 536 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

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.