ORS 197.644¹
Modification of work program
  • commission jurisdiction and rules

(1) The Land Conservation and Development Commission may direct or, upon request of the local government, the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development may authorize a local government to modify an approved work program when:

(a) Issues of regional or statewide significance arising out of another local government’s periodic review require an enhanced level of coordination;

(b) Issues of goal compliance are raised as a result of completion of a work program task resulting in a need to undertake further review or revisions;

(c) Issues relating to the organization of the work program, coordination with affected agencies or persons, or orderly implementation of work tasks result in a need for further review or revision; or

(d) Issues relating to needed housing, employment, transportation or public facilities and services were omitted from the work program but must be addressed in order to ensure compliance with the statewide planning goals.

(2) The commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction for review of the evaluation, work program and completed work program tasks as set forth in ORS 197.628 (Periodic review) to 197.650 (Appeal to Court of Appeals). The commission shall adopt rules governing standing, the provision of notice, conduct of hearings, adoption of stays, extension of time periods and other matters related to the administration of ORS 197.180 (State agency planning responsibilities), 197.245 (Commission amendment of initial goals), 197.254 (Bar to contesting acknowledgment, appealing or seeking amendment), 197.295 (Definitions for ORS 197.295 to 197.314 and 197.475 to 197.490), 197.320 (Power of commission to order compliance with goals and plans), 197.620 (Who may appeal), 197.625 (When amendment or new regulation considered acknowledged), 197.628 (Periodic review) to 197.650 (Appeal to Court of Appeals), 197.712 (Commission duties), 197.747 (Meaning of "compliance with the goals" for certain purposes), 197.840 (Exceptions to deadline for final decision), 215.416 (Permit application), 227.175 (Application for permit or zone change) and 466.385 (Amendment of comprehensive plan and land use regulations).

(3)(a) Commission action pursuant to subsection (1) or (2) of this section is a final order subject to judicial review in the manner provided in ORS 197.650 (Appeal to Court of Appeals).

(b) Action by the director pursuant to subsection (1) of this section may be appealed to the commission pursuant to rules adopted by the commission. Commission action under this paragraph is a final order subject to judicial review in the manner provided in ORS 197.650 (Appeal to Court of Appeals). [1991 c.612 §6; 1997 c.634 §1; 1999 c.622 §5]

Notes of Decisions

During periodic review process, goal compliance of particular work task decision may be determined without regard to effect on goal compliance of other work task decisions, provided that completed work plan complies with all goals. Hummel v. Land Conserva­tion and Develop­ment Commission, 152 Or App 404, 954 P2d 824 (1998), Sup Ct review denied

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