2007 ORS 197.455¹
Siting of destination resorts
  • sites from which destination resort excluded

(1) A destination resort must be sited on lands mapped as eligible for destination resort siting by the affected county. The county may not allow destination resorts approved pursuant to ORS 197.435 (Definitions for ORS 197.435 to 197.467) to 197.467 (Conservation easement to protect resource site) to be sited in any of the following areas:

(a) Within 24 air miles of an urban growth boundary with an existing population of 100,000 or more unless residential uses are limited to those necessary for the staff and management of the resort.

(b)(A) On a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farmland identified and mapped by the United States Natural Resources Conservation Service, or its predecessor agency.

(B) On a site within three miles of a high value crop area unless the resort complies with the requirements of ORS 197.445 (Destination resort criteria) (6) in which case the resort may not be closer to a high value crop area than one-half mile for each 25 units of overnight lodging or fraction thereof.

(c) On predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forestlands as determined by the State Forestry Department, which are not subject to an approved goal exception.

(d) In the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area as defined by the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Act, P.L. 99-663.

(e) In an especially sensitive big game habitat area as determined by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife in July 1984 or as designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan.

(2) In carrying out subsection (1) of this section, a county shall adopt, as part of its comprehensive plan, a map consisting of eligible lands within the county. The map must be based on reasonably available information and may be amended pursuant to ORS 197.610 (Local government notice of proposed amendment or new regulation) to 197.625 (When amendment or new regulation considered acknowledged), but not more frequently than once every 30 months. The county shall develop a process for collecting and processing concurrently all map amendments made within a 30-month planning period. A map adopted pursuant to this section shall be the sole basis for determining whether tracts of land are eligible for destination resort siting pursuant to ORS 197.435 (Definitions for ORS 197.435 to 197.467) to 197.467 (Conservation easement to protect resource site). [1987 c.886 §6; 1993 c.590 §3; 1997 c.249 §57; 2003 c.812 §3; 2005 c.22 §142; 2005 c.205 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Determina­tion of whether area consists of 50 or more acres of contiguous prime farmland may be based on later soil capability studies, rather than being limited to local jurisdic­tion's adopted destina­tion resort siting map. Foland v. Jackson County, 101 Or App 632, 792 P2d 1228 (1990), aff'd 311 Or 167, 807 P2d 801 (1991)

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.