2017 ORS 197.726¹
Jurisdiction on appeal
  • standing

(1) The Land Use Board of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to consider decisions, aspects of decisions or actions taken under ORS 197.722 (Definitions for ORS 197.722 to 197.728) to 197.728 (Rules).

(2) An appeal of a decision on an application for an expedited industrial land use permit made under ORS 197.724 (Review of application for land use permit within regionally significant industrial area) may be made in the manner set forth in ORS 197.375 (Appeal of decision on application for expedited land division) for appeal of a decision on an expedited land division. Notwithstanding ORS 197.375 (Appeal of decision on application for expedited land division):

(a) The applicant and a person who filed written comments in the time period established under ORS 197.365 (Application for expedited land division) may file an appeal;

(b) If an appeal is filed, the referee shall hold a hearing on the appeal; and

(c) The referee shall issue a written decision within 56 days after the appeal was filed.

(3) A party to a proceeding before a referee under this section may seek judicial review of the referee’s decision in the manner provided for review of final orders of the Land Use Board of Appeals under ORS 197.850 (Judicial review of board order) and 197.855 (Deadline for final court order). The Court of Appeals shall review decisions of the referee in the manner provided for review of final orders of the Land Use Board of Appeals in ORS 197.850 (Judicial review of board order) and 197.855 (Deadline for final court order). However, notwithstanding ORS 197.850 (Judicial review of board order) (9) or any other provision of law, the court shall reverse or remand the decision only if the court finds that:

(a) The local government’s decision clearly does not concern an application for an expedited industrial land use permit as described in ORS 197.724 (Review of application for land use permit within regionally significant industrial area) and the appellant raised this issue in proceedings before the referee;

(b) The referee’s decision contains a clear, material error of fact based on the record, and the appellant raised the issue in proceedings before the referee;

(c) The referee’s decision contains a clear, material error of law, giving deference to any interpretations of law by the referee, and the appellant raised the issue in proceedings before the referee; or

(d) The decision of the local government or the referee is unconstitutional. [2011 c.564 §9]

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.