ORS 197.633¹
Two phases of periodic review
  • rules
  • appeal of decision on work program
  • schedule for completion
  • extension of time on appeal

(1) The periodic review process is divided into two phases. Phase one is the evaluation of the existing comprehensive plan, land use regulations and citizen involvement program and, if necessary, the development of a work program to make needed changes to the comprehensive plan or land use regulations. Phase two is the completion of work tasks outlined in the work program.

(2) The Land Conservation and Development Commission shall adopt rules for conducting periodic review. The rules shall provide a process for:

(a) Initiating periodic review;

(b) Citizen participation;

(c) The participation of state agencies;

(d) The preparation, review and approval of an evaluation of a comprehensive plan and land use regulations;

(e) Review of a work program; and

(f) Review of completed work tasks.

(3) A decision by the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development to approve a work program, that no work program is necessary or that no further work is necessary is final and not subject to appeal.

(4) The director:

(a) Shall take action on a work task not later than 120 days after the local government submits the work task for review unless the local government waives the 120-day deadline or the commission grants the director an extension. If the director does not take action within the time period required by this subsection, the work task is deemed approved. The department shall provide a letter to the local government certifying that the work task is approved unless an interested party has filed a timely objection to the work task consistent with administrative rules for conducting periodic review. If a timely objection is filed, the director shall refer the work task to the commission.

(b) May approve or remand a work task or refer the work task to the commission for a decision. A decision by the director to approve or remand a work task may be appealed to the commission.

(5) Except as provided in this subsection, the commission shall take action on the appeal or referral within 90 days of the appeal or referral. Action by the commission in response to an appeal from a decision of the director is a final order subject to judicial review in the manner provided in ORS 197.650 (Appeal to Court of Appeals). The commission may extend the time for taking action on the appeal or referral if the commission finds that:

(a) The appeal or referral is appropriate for mediation;

(b) The appeal or referral raises new or complex issues of fact or law that make it unreasonable for the commission to give adequate consideration to the issues within the 90-day limit; or

(c) The parties to the appeal and the commission agree to an extension, not to exceed an additional 90 days.

(6) The commission and a local government shall attempt to complete periodic review within three years after approval of a work program. In order to promote the timely completion of periodic review, the commission shall establish a system of incentives to encourage local government compliance with timelines in periodic review work programs. [1991 c.612 §3; 1993 c.18 §38; 1999 c.622 §3; 2001 c.527 §1; 2005 c.829 §4]

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. Currency Information