ORS 197.829¹
Board to affirm certain local government interpretations

(1) The Land Use Board of Appeals shall affirm a local government’s interpretation of its comprehensive plan and land use regulations, unless the board determines that the local government’s interpretation:

(a) Is inconsistent with the express language of the comprehensive plan or land use regulation;

(b) Is inconsistent with the purpose for the comprehensive plan or land use regulation;

(c) Is inconsistent with the underlying policy that provides the basis for the comprehensive plan or land use regulation; or

(d) Is contrary to a state statute, land use goal or rule that the comprehensive plan provision or land use regulation implements.

(2) If a local government fails to interpret a provision of its comprehensive plan or land use regulations, or if such interpretation is inadequate for review, the board may make its own determination of whether the local government decision is correct. [1993 c.792 §43; 1995 c.595 §4]

Notes of Decisions

LUBA may affirm county's interpreta­tion of county zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan excep­tion only if record includes language capable of being interpreted. Reeves v. Yamhill County, 132 Or App 263, 888 P2d 79 (1995)

Unless governing body expressly changes interpreta­tion of lower body in affirming lower body's decision, interpreta­tion by lower body shall be treated on ap­peal as interpreta­tion of governing body. Derry v. Douglas County, 132 Or App 386, 888 P2d 588 (1995)

Goal or rule compliance challenge to interpreta­tion that complies with acknowledged plan may not be brought if direct goal or rule compliance challenge to acknowledged plan is unavailable under ORS 197.835 (Scope of review). Friends of Neabeack Hill v. City of Philomath, 139 Or App 39, 911 P2d 350 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

Local body interpreta­tion is to be reviewed to determine whether it is clearly wrong, not whether it is right. Huntzicker v. Washington County, 141 Or App 257, 917 P2d 1051 (1996), Sup Ct review denied; deBardelaben v. Tillamook County, 142 Or App 319, 922 P2d 683 (1996)

Need for or sufficiency of local body excep­tions to state planning goals is ques­tion of state law. Leathers v. Marion County, 144 Or App 123, 925 P2d 148 (1996)

Where local govern­ment does not expressly interpret standard, interpreta­tion may be inferable from applica­tion of standard in decision. Alliance for Responsible Land Use v. Deschutes County, 149 Or App 259, 942 P2d 836 (1997)

Reviewing body's exercise of authority to interpret pre­vi­ously uninterpreted local pro­vi­sion is discre­tionary. Opp v. City of Portland, 153 Or App 10, 955 P2d 768 (1998), Sup Ct review denied

Court will reverse local land use decision for failure to allow addi­tional evidence re­gard­ing interpreta­tion of local legisla­tion only if: 1) interpreta­tion significantly changes existing interpreta­tion or exceeds range of interpreta­tions that could reasonably have been anticipated by parties; and 2) party seeking reversal demonstrates to Land Use Board of Appeals that it can produce specific evidence differing in substance from earlier evidence and directly responsive to unanticipated interpreta­tion. Gutoski v. Lane County, 155 Or App 369, 963 P2d 145 (1998)

Local interpreta­tion of ordinance is not re­quired to follow doctrine of ejusdem generis or other interpretive methodology. Depart­ment of Transporta­tion v. City of Mosier, 161 Or App 252, 984 P2d 351 (1999)

Law Review Cita­tions

36 WLR 441 (2000)

Law Review Cita­tions

19 WLR 109 (1983); 65 OLR 185, 186 (1986); 19 EL 67 (1988)

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