2015 ORS 197.850¹
Judicial review of board order
  • procedures
  • scope of review
  • attorney fees
  • undertaking

Notes of Decisions

In determining whether order is unlawful in substance, court must defer to LCDC interpreta­tion of land use goal if interpreta­tion and underlying reasoning are consistent with intent and policy of goal. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco County Court, 68 Or App 765, 686 P2d 375 (1984), result modified, 299 Or 344, 703 P2d 207 (1985)

Where dicta in Land Use Board of Appeals opinion remanding city's land use decision does not control city's decision on remand and does not affect LUBA's disposi­tion, it provides no basis for reversal by Court of Appeals. Sokol v. City of Lake Oswego, 100 Or App 594, 786 P2d 1324 (1990)

Comprehensive plan and zoning map amend­ments were unlawful in substance where city and LUBA incorrectly concluded rule permitted decisions for specific loca­tions to be based on characteristics of much larger geographic area, with no particular atten­tion to conflicts or other consequences peculiar to specific loca­tions. Columbia Steel Castings v. City of Portland, 104 Or App 244, 799 P2d 1142 (1990), as modified by 314 Or 424, 840 P2d 71 (1992)

Court of Appeals affirmed local govern­ment's interpreta­tion of local ordinance that proscribed short term rentals because local govern­ment found ordinance consistent with language and policy of comprehensive plan. Cope v. City of Cannon Beach, 115 Or App 11, 836 P2d 775 (1992), aff'd on other grounds, 317 Or 339, 855 P2d 1083 (1993)

Any LUBA order that is "final order" is subject to judicial review under this sec­tion, without regard to whether it orders remand on some or all issues. Beck v. City of Tillamook, 313 Or 148, 831 P2d 678 (1992)

Court of Appeals is authorized under this sec­tion to adopt rules allowing cross-peti­tion for review of LUBA order to be filed within seven days after filing of peti­tion for judicial review and rule allowing any party of record to file cross-peti­tion and brief. State ex rel Dodd v. Joseph, 313 Or 333, 833 P2d 1273 (1992)

Failure to make service by registered or certified mail did not constitute jurisdic­tional defect where actual service was timely made. Choban v. Washington County, 124 Or App 213, 862 P2d 536 (1993)

Where order was sent to and received by peti­tioners, sub­se­quent delivery of duplicate order to peti­tioners did not create new period for filing peti­tion. Ray v. Douglas County, 148 Or App 511, 941 P2d 558 (1997)

Notwithstanding statutory language permitting any party to seek judicial review, party seeking review must meet constitu­tional require­ment of justiciability by showing that court's opinion will have practical effect on that party. Utsey v. Coos County, 176 Or App 524, 32 P3d 933 (2001)

Where party does not place evidence of constitu­tional standing into record before local decision maker, party may submit evidence of constitu­tional standing for first time on judicial review. Friends of Eugene v. City of Eugene, 195 Or App 20, 96 P3d 1256 (2004)

Issuance of order correcting clerical error in earlier order does not alter dead­line for filing peti­tion for review. Friends of Bull Mountain v. City of Tigard, 208 Or App 189, 144 P3d 965 (2006)

Require­ment that copy of peti­tion for judicial review be served on adverse parties by certified or registered mail is jurisdic­tional. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Central Point, 341 Or 393, 144 P3d 914 (2006)

Law Review Cita­tions

36 WLR 431 (2000)

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 I, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors197.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 197, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano197.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
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.