2015 ORS 197.620¹
Appeal of certain comprehensive plan or land use regulation decision-making

(1) A decision to not adopt a legislative amendment or a new land use regulation is not appealable unless the amendment is necessary to address the requirements of a new or amended goal, rule or statute.

(2) Notwithstanding the requirements of ORS 197.830 (Review procedures) (2) that a person have appeared before the local government orally or in writing to seek review of a land use decision, the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development or any other person may appeal the decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals if:

(a) The local government failed to submit all of the materials described in ORS 197.610 (Submission of proposed comprehensive plan or land use regulation changes to Department of Land Conservation and Development) (3) or, if applicable, ORS 197.610 (Submission of proposed comprehensive plan or land use regulation changes to Department of Land Conservation and Development) (6), and the failure to submit the materials prejudiced substantial rights of the Department of Land Conservation and Development or the person;

(b) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, the local government submitted the materials described in ORS 197.610 (Submission of proposed comprehensive plan or land use regulation changes to Department of Land Conservation and Development) (3) or, if applicable, ORS 197.610 (Submission of proposed comprehensive plan or land use regulation changes to Department of Land Conservation and Development) (6), after the deadline specified in ORS 197.610 (Submission of proposed comprehensive plan or land use regulation changes to Department of Land Conservation and Development) (1) or (6) or rules of the Land Conservation and Development Commission, whichever is applicable; or

(c) The decision differs from the proposed changes submitted under ORS 197.610 (Submission of proposed comprehensive plan or land use regulation changes to Department of Land Conservation and Development) to such an extent that the materials submitted under ORS 197.610 (Submission of proposed comprehensive plan or land use regulation changes to Department of Land Conservation and Development) do not reasonably describe the decision.

(3) Subsection (2)(b) of this section does not authorize an appeal if the local government cures an untimely submission of materials as provided in this subsection. A local government may cure the untimely submission of materials by either:

(a) Postponing the date for the final evidentiary hearing by the greater of 10 days or the number of days by which the submission was late; or

(b) Holding the evidentiary record open for an additional period of time equal to 10 days or the number of days by which the submission was late, whichever is greater. Additionally, the local government shall provide notice of the postponement or record extension to the Department of Land Conservation and Development. [1981 c.748 §5a; 1983 c.827 §8; 1989 c.761 §21; 1991 c.612 §13a; 2011 c.280 §3]

Notes of Decisions

Preserva­tion require­ment of this sec­tion was not satisfied by inclusion in record of pro­ceed­ings leading to adop­tion of two earlier ordinances, in connec­tion with which objectors asserted grounds relied on, where grounds were not raised in connec­tion with pro­ceed­ings leading to adop­tion of the ordinance under review. Maresh v. Yamhill County, 68 Or App 471, 683 P2d 124 (1984)

Person that merely files appearance in local govern­ment pro­ceed­ings has not participated in pro­ceed­ings. Century Properties, LLC v. City of Corvallis, 207 Or App 8, 139 P3d 990 (2006)

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 countys 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.