2007 ORS 197.625¹
When amendment or new regulation considered acknowledged
  • • application prior to acknowledgment

(1) If a notice of intent to appeal is not filed within the 21-day period set out in ORS 197.830 (Review procedures) (9), the amendment to the acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation or the new land use regulation shall be considered acknowledged upon the expiration of the 21-day period. An amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation is not considered acknowledged unless the notices required under ORS 197.610 (Local government notice of proposed amendment or new regulation) and 197.615 (Local government notice of adopted amendment or new regulation) have been submitted to the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development and:

(a) The 21-day appeal period has expired; or

(b) If an appeal is timely filed, the board affirms the decision or the appellate courts affirm the decision.

(2) If the decision adopting an amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation or a new land use regulation is affirmed on appeal under ORS 197.830 (Review procedures) to 197.855 (Deadline for final court order), the amendment or new regulation shall be considered acknowledged upon the date the appellate decision becomes final.

(3)(a) Prior to its acknowledgment, the adoption of a new comprehensive plan provision or land use regulation or an amendment to a comprehensive plan or land use regulation is effective at the time specified by local government charter or ordinance and is applicable to land use decisions, expedited land divisions and limited land use decisions if the amendment was adopted in substantial compliance with ORS 197.610 (Local government notice of proposed amendment or new regulation) and 197.615 (Local government notice of adopted amendment or new regulation) unless a stay is granted under ORS 197.845 (Stay of decision being reviewed).

(b) Any approval of a land use decision, expedited land division or limited land use decision subject to an unacknowledged amendment to a comprehensive plan or land use regulation shall include findings of compliance with those land use goals applicable to the amendment.

(c) The issuance of a permit under an effective but unacknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation shall not be relied upon to justify retention of improvements so permitted if the comprehensive plan provision or land use regulation does not gain acknowledgment.

(d) The provisions of this subsection apply to applications for land use decisions, expedited land divisions and limited land use decisions submitted after February 17, 1993, and to comprehensive plan and land use regulation amendments adopted:

(A) After June 1, 1991, pursuant to periodic review requirements under ORS 197.628 (Periodic review), 197.633 (Two phases of periodic review) and 197.636 (Procedures and actions for failure to meet periodic review deadlines);

(B) After June 1, 1991, to meet the requirements of ORS 197.646 (Implementation of new or amended goals, rules or statutes); and

(C) After November 4, 1993.

(4) The director shall issue certification of the acknowledgment upon receipt of an affidavit from the board stating either:

(a) That no appeal was filed within the 21 days allowed under ORS 197.830 (Review procedures) (9); or

(b) The date the appellate decision affirming the adoption of the amendment or new regulation became final.

(5) The board shall issue an affidavit for the purposes of subsection (4) of this section within five days of receiving a valid request from the local government.

(6) After issuance of the notice provided in ORS 197.633 (Two phases of periodic review), nothing in this section shall prevent the Land Conservation and Development Commission from entering an order pursuant to ORS 197.633 (Two phases of periodic review), 197.636 (Procedures and actions for failure to meet periodic review deadlines) or 197.644 (Modification of work program) to require a local government to respond to the standards of ORS 197.628 (Periodic review). [1981 c.748 §5b; 1983 c.827 §10; 1987 c.729 §6; 1989 c.761 §23; 1991 c.612 §14; 1993 c.792 §44; 1995 c.595 §25; 1999 c.348 §9; 1999 c.621 §5; 2003 c.793 §3]

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.