2017 ORS 197.625¹
Acknowledgment of comprehensive plan or land use regulation changes
  • application prior to acknowledgment

(1) A local decision adopting a change to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or a land use regulation is deemed to be acknowledged when the local government has complied with the requirements of ORS 197.610 (Submission of proposed comprehensive plan or land use regulation changes to Department of Land Conservation and Development) and 197.615 (Submission of adopted comprehensive plan or land use regulation changes to Department of Land Conservation and Development) and either:

(a) The 21-day appeal period set out in ORS 197.830 (Review procedures) (9) has expired and a notice of intent to appeal has not been filed; or

(b) If an appeal has been timely filed, the Land Use Board of Appeals affirms the local decision or, if an appeal of the decision of the board is timely filed, an appellate court affirms the decision.

(2) If the local decision adopting a change to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or a land use regulation is affirmed on appeal under ORS 197.830 (Review procedures) to 197.855 (Deadline for final court order), the comprehensive plan or the land use regulation, as modified, is deemed to be acknowledged upon the date the decision of the board or the decision of an appellate court becomes final.

(3) Prior to acknowledgment of a change to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or a land use regulation:

(a) The change is effective at the time specified by local government charter or ordinance; and

(b) If the change was adopted in substantial compliance with ORS 197.610 (Submission of proposed comprehensive plan or land use regulation changes to Department of Land Conservation and Development) and 197.615 (Submission of adopted comprehensive plan or land use regulation changes to Department of Land Conservation and Development), the local government shall apply the change to land use decisions, expedited land divisions and limited land use decisions unless a stay is granted under ORS 197.845 (Stay of decision being reviewed).

(4) Approval of a land use decision, expedited land division or limited land use decision that is subject to an effective but unacknowledged provision of a comprehensive plan or a land use regulation must include findings of compliance with land use statutes, statewide land use planning goals and administrative rules of the Land Conservation and Development Commission implementing the statutes or goals that apply to the decision and that the unacknowledged provision implements.

(5) If an effective but unacknowledged provision of a comprehensive plan or a land use regulation fails to gain acknowledgment, a permit or zone change approved, in whole or in part, on the basis of the change does not justify retention of the improvements that were authorized by the permit or zone change.

(6) If requested by a local government, the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development shall issue certification of the acknowledgment upon receipt of an affidavit from:

(a) The local government, attesting that the change to the acknowledged comprehensive plan or the land use regulation was accomplished in compliance with ORS 197.610 (Submission of proposed comprehensive plan or land use regulation changes to Department of Land Conservation and Development) and 197.615 (Submission of adopted comprehensive plan or land use regulation changes to Department of Land Conservation and Development); and

(b) The Land Use Board of Appeals, stating either:

(A) That no notice of appeal was filed within the 21 days allowed under ORS 197.830 (Review procedures) (9); or

(B) The date the decision of the board or the decision of an appellate court affirming the change to the acknowledged comprehensive plan or the land use regulation became final.

(7) The board shall issue an affidavit for the purposes of subsection (6) of this section within five days after receiving a valid request from the local government. [1981 c.748 §5b; 1983 c.827 §10; 1987 c.729 §6; 1989 c.761 §23; 1991 c.612 §14; 1993 c.792 §44; 1995 c.595 §25; 1999 c.348 §9; 1999 c.621 §5; 2003 c.793 §3; 2011 c.280 §4]

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.