Source: https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/2007/197.251
Timestamp: 2020-05-29 20:58:53
Document Index: 632455311

Matched Legal Cases: ['§18', '§3', '§7', '§5', '§13', '§23', '§2']

ORS 197.251 - Compliance acknowledgment - 2007 Oregon Revised Statutes
2007 ORS Vol. 5 Chapter 197 Section 197.251
ORS 197.251¹
Compliance acknowledgment
• commission review
• limited acknowledgment
• compliance schedule
(1) Upon the request of a local government, the Land Conservation and Development Commission shall by order grant, deny or continue acknowledgment of compliance of comprehensive plan and land use regulations with the goals. A commission order granting, denying or continuing acknowledgment shall be entered within 90 days of the date of the request by the local government unless the commission finds that due to extenuating circumstances a period of time greater than 90 days is required.
(2) In accordance with rules of the commission, the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development shall prepare a report for the commission stating whether the comprehensive plan and land use regulations for which acknowledgment is sought are in compliance with the goals. The rules of the commission shall:
(a) Provide a reasonable opportunity for persons to prepare and to submit to the director written comments and objections to the acknowledgment request; and
(b) Authorize the director to investigate and in the report to resolve issues raised in the comments and objections or by the director’s own review of the comprehensive plan and land use regulations.
(3) Upon completion of the report and before the commission meeting at which the director’s report is to be considered, the director shall afford the local government and persons who submitted written comments or objections a reasonable opportunity to file written exceptions to the report.
(4) The commission’s review of the acknowledgment request shall be confined to the record of proceedings before the local government, any comments, objections and exceptions filed under subsections (2) and (3) of this section and the report of the director. Upon its consideration of an acknowledgment request, the commission may entertain oral argument from the director and from persons who filed written comments, objections or exceptions. However, the commission shall not allow additional evidence or testimony that could have been presented to the local government or to the director but was not.
(5) A commission order granting, denying or continuing acknowledgment shall include a clear statement of findings which sets forth the basis for the approval, denial or continuance of acknowledgment. The findings shall:
(a) Identify the goals applicable to the comprehensive plan and land use regulations; and
(b) Include a clear statement of findings in support of the determinations of compliance and noncompliance.
(6) A commission order granting acknowledgment shall be limited to an identifiable geographic area described in the order if:
(a) Only the identified geographic area is the subject of the acknowledgment request; or
(b) Specific geographic areas do not comply with the applicable goals, and the goal requirements are not technical or minor in nature.
(7) The commission may issue a limited acknowledgment order when a previously issued acknowledgment order is reversed or remanded by the Court of Appeals or the Oregon Supreme Court. Such a limited acknowledgment order may deny or continue acknowledgment of that part of the comprehensive plan or land use regulations that the court found not in compliance or not consistent with the goals and grant acknowledgment of all other parts of the comprehensive plan and land use regulations.
(8) A limited acknowledgment order shall be considered an acknowledgment for all purposes and shall be a final order for purposes of judicial review with respect to the acknowledged geographic area. A limited order may be adopted in conjunction with a continuance or denial order.
(9) The director shall notify the Real Estate Agency, the local government and all persons who filed comments or objections with the director of any grant, denial or continuance of acknowledgment.
(10) The commission may grant a planning extension, which shall be a grant of additional time for a local government to comply with the goals in accordance with a compliance schedule. A compliance schedule shall be a listing of the tasks which the local government must complete in order to bring its comprehensive plan, land use regulations, land use decisions and limited land use decisions into initial compliance with the goals, including a generalized time schedule showing when the tasks are estimated to be completed and when a comprehensive plan or land use regulations which comply with the goals are estimated to be adopted. In developing a compliance schedule, the commission shall consider the population, geographic area, resources and capabilities of the city or county.
(a) "Continuance" means a commission order that:
(A) Certifies that all or part of a comprehensive plan, land use regulations or both a comprehensive plan and land use regulations do not comply with one or more goals;
(B) Specifies amendments or other action that must be completed within a specified time period for acknowledgment to occur; and
(C) Is a final order for purposes of judicial review of the comprehensive plan, land use regulations or both the comprehensive plan and land use regulations as to the parts found consistent or in compliance with the goals.
(b) "Denial" means a commission order that:
(A) Certifies that a comprehensive plan, land use regulations or both a comprehensive plan and land use regulations do not comply with one or more goals;
(B) Specifies amendments or other action that must be completed for acknowledgment to occur; and
(C) Is used when the amendments or other changes required in the comprehensive plan, land use regulations or both the comprehensive plan and land use regulations affect many goals and are likely to take a substantial period of time to complete. [1977 c.766 §18; 1979 c.242 §3; 1981 c.748 §7; 1983 c.827 §5; 1985 c.811 §13; 1991 c.817 §23; 1993 c.438 §2]
Acknowledg­ment pro­vi­sions of this sec­tion were not controlled by time limita­tion of former ORS 197.300 (2), so LCDC review of goal excep­tion granted more than 60 days prior to filing of ap­peal in Court of Appeals was proper. Woodcock v. LCDC, 51 Or App 577, 626 P2d 901 (1981), Sup Ct review denied
LCDC acknowledg­ment orders issued pursuant to this sec­tion are neither "contested case" orders nor "rules" for purposes of judicial review and are properly classified as "orders other than contested cases" which are subject to judicial review by the circuit court. Oregon Business Planning Council v. LCDC, 290 Or 741, 626 P2d 350 (1981)
Where continuance order specifies whether plan or imple­menting regula­tions or both comply with certain state-wide planning goals, only that express finding of compliance is reviewable and court will not search supporting docu­ment to ascertain an implied finding of compliance. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Marion Co., 56 Or App 755, 643 P2d 652 (1982)
Judicial review of continuance order is authorized with respect to one or more state-wide planning goals only where entire plan or all regula­tions, or both, are ex­plic­itly found to comply. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 56 Or App 759, 643 P2d 654 (1982)
LCDC may only acknowledge comprehensive plan if it finds that plan fully complies with all applicable goals. Marion County v. Federa­tion for Sound Planning, 64 Or App 226, 668 P2d 406 (1983)
LCDC must respond to objec­tions to an acknowledg­ment request that are properly made and timely filed. Marion County v. Federa­tion for Sound Planning, 64 Or App 226, 668 P2d 406 (1983)
It is implicit in authority of this sec­tion that LCDC may satisfy self that entity seeking compliance review is a formally incorporated city at time review is requested, however LCDC does not have authority to decide in acknowledg­ment pro­ceed­ing how city may sub­se­quently lose corporate status or what consequences of that loss would be. City of Rajneeshpuram v. LCDC, 76 Or App 55, 708 P2d 1152 (1985)
City could not rely on adopted urban growth boundary in converting agricultural land to urban uses before comprehensive plan containing urban growth boundary was acknowledged by LCDC. Perkins v. City of Rajneeshpuram, 300 Or 1, 706 P2d 949 (1985)
Continuance order is not final order for purpose of judicial review with respect to part of plan and regula­tions not complying with goals. Products Manage­ment Corp. v. LCDC, 78 Or App 204, 715 P2d 1125 (1986), Sup Ct review denied
Land Conserva­tion and Develop­ment Commission's promulgating goals of agency and monitoring compliance did not comport with judicial role, but supported finding that these activities were executive func­tions for purposes of determining absolute immunity from prop­erty owners' ac­tion. Zamsky v. Hansell, 933 F2d 677 (9th Cir. 1991)
Effect of LCDC's granting partial acknowledg­ment of comprehensive plan, (1980) Vol 40, p 274
197.015
Defini­tions for ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197
197.045
State agency planning responsibilities
197.656
Commission acknowledg­ment of comprehensive plans not in compliance with goals
197.732
Goal excep­tions
Meaning of "compliance with the goals" for certain purposes
197.757
Acknowledg­ment dead­line for newly incorporated cities
223.317
Appor­tion­ment of special assess­ment among parcels in sub­se­quent parti­tion of tract
227.110
City approval prior to recording of subdivision plats and plats or deeds dedicating land to public use within six miles of city
Final ac­tion on certain applica­tions re­quired within 120 days
285C.500
Defini­tions for ORS 285C.500 to 285C.506
308A.350
Defini­tions for ORS 308A.350 to 308A.383
308A.700
Defini­tions for ORS 308A.700 to 308A.733
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).