2017 ORS 197.840¹
Exceptions to deadline for final decision

(1) The following periods of delay shall be excluded from the 77-day period within which the board must make a final decision on a petition under ORS 197.830 (Review procedures) (14):

(a) Any period of delay up to 120 days resulting from the board’s deferring all or part of its consideration of a petition for review of a land use decision or limited land use decision that allegedly violates the goals if the decision has been:

(A) Submitted for acknowledgment under ORS 197.251 (Compliance acknowledgment); or

(B) Submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and Development as part of a periodic review work program task pursuant to ORS 197.628 (Periodic review) to 197.651 (Appeal to Court of Appeals for judicial review of final order of Land Conservation and Development Commission) and not yet acknowledged.

(b) Any period of delay resulting from a motion, including but not limited to, a motion disputing the constitutionality of the decision, standing, ex parte contacts or other procedural irregularities not shown in the record.

(c) Any reasonable period of delay resulting from a request for a stay under ORS 197.845 (Stay of decision being reviewed).

(d) Any reasonable period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by a member of the board on the member’s own motion or at the request of one of the parties, if the member granted the continuance on the basis of findings that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the parties in having a decision within 77 days.

(2) No period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the board under subsection (1)(d) of this section shall be excludable under this section unless the board sets forth in the record, either orally or in writing, its reasons for finding that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the other parties in a decision within the 77 days. The factors the board shall consider in determining whether to grant a continuance under subsection (1)(d) of this section in any case are as follows:

(a) Whether the failure to grant a continuance in the proceeding would be likely to make a continuation of the proceeding impossible or result in a miscarriage of justice; or

(b) Whether the case is so unusual or so complex, due to the number of parties or the existence of novel questions of fact or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate consideration of the issues within the 77-day time limit.

(3) No continuance under subsection (1)(d) of this section shall be granted because of general congestion of the board calendar or lack of diligent preparation or attention to the case by any member of the board or any party.

(4) The board may defer all or part of its consideration of a land use decision or limited land use decision described in subsection (1)(a) of this section until the Land Conservation and Development Commission has disposed of the acknowledgment proceeding described in subsection (1)(a) of this section. If the board deferred all or part of its consideration of a decision under this subsection, the board may grant a stay of the comprehensive plan provision, land use regulation, limited land use decision or land use decision under ORS 197.845 (Stay of decision being reviewed). [1983 c.827 §33; 1989 c.761 §25; 1991 c.612 §19; 1991 c.817 §27; 1995 c.595 §18; 1999 c.348 §18; 1999 c.621 §8]

Notes of Decisions

To bring inverse condemna­tion ac­tion in state court, landowner must exhaust available local administrative remedies, but is not re­quired to ap­peal local administrative determina­tions to Land Use Board of Appeals. West Linn Corporate Park, L.L.C. v. City of West Linn, 349 Or 58, 240 P3d 29 (2010)

Law Review Cita­tions

19 WLR 109 (1983); 65 OLR 185, 186 (1986); 19 EL 67 (1988)

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.