2017 ORS 197.659¹
Commission approval of certain changes in comprehensive plans or land use regulations

(1) The Land Conservation and Development Commission shall grant, deny or remand approval of proposed changes to a comprehensive plan or land use regulations adopted pursuant to ORS 197.652 (Regional problem-solving process) to 197.658 (Modifying local work plan) or 215.788 (Legislative review of lands zoned for farm and forest use) to 215.794 (Review of county rezoning designations) within 120 days after the date that the local government submits the proposed changes.

(2) The Department of Land Conservation and Development shall prepare a report stating whether the proposed changes comply with applicable statutes, goals and commission rules. The department shall provide a reasonable opportunity for persons to prepare and submit written comments or objections to the report; however a person may not:

(a) Submit written comments or objections to the report unless the person participated orally or in writing in the local government proceedings leading to the adoption of the proposed changes.

(b) Produce new evidence.

(3) After reviewing the proposed changes, the report and any written comments and objections to the report, the commission shall prepare a proposed final order. The commission shall afford the local government and persons who submitted written comments or objections to the report a reasonable opportunity to file written exceptions to the proposed final order. If timely exceptions are not filed, the proposed order becomes final.

(4) The commission’s review under this section is confined to the record of proceedings before the local government, the report of the department and any comments, objections and exceptions filed under subsection (2) or (3) of this section and the proposed final order of the commission, including any responses to exceptions. The commission may entertain oral argument from the department and from persons who filed exceptions, and may consider new issues raised by its review. The commission may not allow additional evidence, argument or testimony that could have been presented to the local government but was not presented.

(5) A commission order granting, denying or remanding proposed changes must include a clear statement of findings that sets forth the basis for the approval, denial or remand, including:

(a) Identifying the statutes, goals and rules applicable to the proposed changes; and

(b) Supporting the determinations of compliance and noncompliance.

(6) A commission order granting approval may be limited to an identified geographic area described in the order if:

(a) The identified geographic area is the only area that is the subject of the proposed changes; or

(b) Specific geographic areas do not comply with the applicable statutes, goals or rules, and the requirements are not technical or minor in nature.

(7) The commission may issue a limited approval order if a previously issued approval order is reversed or remanded by an appellate court. The limited approval order may deny approval of that part of the comprehensive plan or land use regulations that the court found not in compliance with the applicable statutes, goals or rules and grant approval of other parts of the proposed changes.

(8) A limited approval order is an approval for all purposes and is a final order for purposes of judicial review with respect to the approved geographic area. A limited order may be adopted in conjunction with a remand. [2009 c.873 §13]

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.