2007 ORS 197.195¹
Limited land use decision
  • procedures

(1) A "limited land use decision" shall be consistent with applicable provisions of city or county comprehensive plans and land use regulations. Such a decision may include conditions authorized by law. Within two years of September 29, 1991, cities and counties shall incorporate all comprehensive plan standards applicable to limited land use decisions into their land use regulations. A decision to incorporate all, some, or none of the applicable comprehensive plan standards into land use regulations shall be undertaken as a post-acknowledgment amendment under ORS 197.610 (Local government notice of proposed amendment or new regulation) to 197.625 (When amendment or new regulation considered acknowledged). If a city or county does not incorporate its comprehensive plan provisions into its land use regulations, the comprehensive plan provisions may not be used as a basis for a decision by the city or county or on appeal from that decision.

(2) A limited land use decision is not subject to the requirements of ORS 197.763 (Conduct of local quasi-judicial land use hearings).

(3) A limited land use decision is subject to the requirements of paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection.

(a) In making a limited land use decision, the local government shall follow the applicable procedures contained within its acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations and other applicable legal requirements.

(b) For limited land use decisions, the local government shall provide written notice to owners of property within 100 feet of the entire contiguous site for which the application is made. The list shall be compiled from the most recent property tax assessment roll. For purposes of review, this requirement shall be deemed met when the local government can provide an affidavit or other certification that such notice was given. Notice shall also be provided to any neighborhood or community organization recognized by the governing body and whose boundaries include the site.

(c) The notice and procedures used by local government shall:

(A) Provide a 14-day period for submission of written comments prior to the decision;

(B) State that issues which may provide the basis for an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals shall be raised in writing prior to the expiration of the comment period. Issues shall be raised with sufficient specificity to enable the decision maker to respond to the issue;

(C) List, by commonly used citation, the applicable criteria for the decision;

(D) Set forth the street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property;

(E) State the place, date and time that comments are due;

(F) State that copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for review, and that copies can be obtained at cost;

(G) Include the name and phone number of a local government contact person;

(H) Provide notice of the decision to the applicant and any person who submits comments under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph. The notice of decision must include an explanation of appeal rights; and

(I) Briefly summarize the local decision making process for the limited land use decision being made.

(4) Approval or denial of a limited land use decision shall be based upon and accompanied by a brief statement that explains the criteria and standards considered relevant to the decision, states the facts relied upon in rendering the decision and explains the justification for the decision based on the criteria, standards and facts set forth.

(5) A local government may provide for a hearing before the local government on appeal of a limited land use decision under this section. The hearing may be limited to the record developed pursuant to the initial hearing under subsection (3) of this section or may allow for the introduction of additional testimony or evidence. A hearing on appeal that allows the introduction of additional testimony or evidence shall comply with the requirements of ORS 197.763 (Conduct of local quasi-judicial land use hearings). Written notice of the decision rendered on appeal shall be given to all parties who appeared, either orally or in writing, before the hearing. The notice of decision shall include an explanation of the rights of each party to appeal the decision. [1991 c.817 §3; 1995 c.595 §1; 1997 c.844 §1]

Notes of Decisions

For decisions that cannot be based on comprehensive plan pro­vi­sions, "ap­peal from that decision" refers to ap­peals to LUBA or courts from final city or county decision. Holland v. City of Cannon Beach, 142 Or App 5, 920 P2d 562 (1996)

1995 amend­ment proscribing LUBA considera­tion of plan pro­vi­sions not incorporated into local govern­ment regula­tion applies to ap­peal from local govern­ment decision rendered prior to effective date of amend­ment. Holland v. City of Cannon Beach, 142 Or App 5, 920 P2d 562 (1996)

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 414-421, 474, 475 (1974); 56 OLR 270 (1977)

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 (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)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 197—Comprehensive Land Use Planning Coordination, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­197.­html (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 197, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­197ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
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.