2017 ORS 197.656¹
Commission approval of comprehensive plans not in compliance with goals
  • written statement of disapproval
  • participation by state agencies
  • use of resource lands
  • rules

(1) After the adoption of changes to comprehensive plans and land use regulations to implement a regional problem-solving agreement under ORS 197.652 (Regional problem-solving process) to 197.658 (Modifying local work plan), the local governments that are participants shall submit the changes to the Land Conservation and Development Commission for review in the manner set forth in this section.

(2) Following the procedures set forth in this subsection, the commission may approve changes to comprehensive plans and land use regulations that do not fully comply with the statewide land use planning goals, without taking an exception under ORS 197.732 (Goal exceptions), upon a determination that the changes:

(a) Conform, on the whole, with the purposes of the goals, and any failure to meet individual goal requirements is technical or minor in nature;

(b) Are needed to achieve the regional goals specified by the participants; and

(c) In combination with other actions agreed upon by the participants, are reasonably likely to achieve the regional goals.

(3) The commission:

(a) Shall review changes to the comprehensive plans or land use regulations adopted by a local government to implement a regional problem-solving agreement under ORS 197.652 (Regional problem-solving process) to 197.658 (Modifying local work plan) pursuant to the procedures set forth in this section and ORS 197.659 (Commission approval of certain changes in comprehensive plans or land use regulations).

(b) Has exclusive jurisdiction for review of changes to comprehensive plans or land use regulations adopted by a local government to implement a regional problem-solving agreement under ORS 197.652 (Regional problem-solving process) to 197.658 (Modifying local work plan).

(4) A participant in the regional problem-solving process or a person who participated in the proceedings leading to the adoption of changes to the comprehensive plans or land use regulations may not raise an issue on review before the commission that was not raised in the local proceedings for adoption of the changes to the plans or regulations.

(5) If the commission disapproves changes to the comprehensive plans or land use regulations adopted by a local government to implement a regional problem-solving agreement under ORS 197.652 (Regional problem-solving process) to 197.658 (Modifying local work plan), the commission shall issue a written statement describing the reasons for the disapproval and suggesting alternative methods for accomplishing the goals on a timely basis.

(6) If, in order to resolve regional land use problems, the participants in a collaborative regional problem-solving process decide to devote agricultural land or forestland, as defined in the statewide planning goals, to uses not authorized by those goals, the participants shall choose land that is not part of the region’s commercial agricultural or forestland base, or take an exception to those goals pursuant to ORS 197.732 (Goal exceptions). To identify land that is not part of the region’s commercial agricultural or forestland base, the participants shall consider the recommendation of a committee of persons appointed by the affected county, with expertise in appropriate fields, including but not limited to farmers, ranchers, foresters and soils scientists and representatives of the State Department of Agriculture, the State Forestry Department and the Department of Land Conservation and Development.

(7) The Governor may require all appropriate state agencies to participate in the collaborative regional problem-solving process.

(8) The commission may adopt rules to establish additional procedural and substantive requirements for review of changes to comprehensive plans and land use regulations adopted by local governments to implement a regional problem-solving agreement under ORS 197.652 (Regional problem-solving process) to 197.658 (Modifying local work plan). [1996 c.6 §5; 2001 c.672 §11; 2009 c.873 §10]

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.