2017 ORS 197.723¹
Designation of regionally significant industrial areas
  • rules

(1) Within three years after June 28, 2011, in cooperation with local governments and private industry, the Economic Recovery Review Council, by rule, shall designate at least five and not more than 15 regionally significant industrial areas. The council shall base the designation of regionally significant industrial areas on the criteria in the definition of “regionally significant industrial area” and the judgment of the council concerning the relative importance of the areas in terms of potential, long-term job creation.

(2) A local government may nominate a regionally significant industrial area for designation by the council.

(3) An area containing multiple sites certified by the Oregon Business Development Department as ready for development within six months or less is eligible for designation by the council if the area is a regionally significant industrial area.

(4) In addition to demonstrating compliance with other provisions of law, including, but not limited to, a statewide land use planning goal concerning economic development and rules implementing the goal, the future employment potential of a regionally significant industrial area shall be protected from conflicting development in the following ways:

(a) A local government may not adopt a provision of a comprehensive plan or land use regulation that prevents industrial uses within the area.

(b) A local government may not adopt a provision of a comprehensive plan or land use regulation that allows new nonindustrial uses within the area that conflict with existing or planned industrial uses.

(c) A local government may not decrease the land area planned or zoned for industrial uses within the regionally significant industrial area.

(d) A local government may adopt a provision of a comprehensive plan or land use regulation, including development standards or overlay zones, that restricts the type or extent of current or future industrial uses within the area, but only if the local government mitigates at the same time the effect of the new provision by:

(A) Clearly maintaining or increasing the industrial employment potential of the area; and

(B) Clearly maintaining the important site characteristics and functions that led to the designation of the site as a regionally significant industrial area.

(5) Subsection (4) of this section does not apply to a provision of a comprehensive plan or land use regulation that is necessary:

(a) To protect public health or safety; or

(b) To implement federal law.

(6) If 50 percent of the developable land within a regionally significant industrial area has not been developed within 10 years after designation of the area, the council shall remove the designation, unless landowners representing a majority of the land within the area request that the designation be continued.

(7) Within a regionally significant industrial area, a new industrial use or the expansion of an existing industrial use is eligible for an expedited industrial land use permit issued under ORS 197.724 (Review of application for land use permit within regionally significant industrial area) if the new or expanded use does not require a change to the acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulations.

(8) In addition to other criteria for distribution of available funds, the Oregon Infrastructure Finance Authority and the Oregon Transportation Commission may consider the designation of an area as a regionally significant industrial area in prioritizing funding for transportation and other public infrastructure.

(9) ORS 197.722 (Definitions for ORS 197.722 to 197.728) to 197.728 (Rules) do not apply to land in the Willamette River Greenway Plan boundary between river mile 1 and river mile 11. [2011 c.564 §7]

Note: See note under 197.722 (Definitions for ORS 197.722 to 197.728).

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.