Source: https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/2007/197.175
Timestamp: 2020-01-28 03:15:51
Document Index: 771555236

Matched Legal Cases: ['§17', '§12', '§15', '§3', '§18', '§21', '§45', '§4']

ORS 197.175 - Cities' and counties' planning responsibilities - 2007 Oregon Revised Statutes
2007 ORS Vol. 5 Chapter 197 Section 197.175
2007 ORS 197.175¹
• rules on incorporations
• compliance with goals
(1) Cities and counties shall exercise their planning and zoning responsibilities, including, but not limited to, a city or special district boundary change which shall mean the annexation of unincorporated territory by a city, the incorporation of a new city and the formation or change of organization of or annexation to any special district authorized by ORS 198.705 (Definitions for ORS 198.705 to 198.955) to 198.955 (Disposition of assets), 199.410 (Policy) to 199.534 (Legislative annexation of territory to cities and districts) or 451.010 (Facilities and services counties may provide by service districts) to 451.620 (Procedures for district formed subject to dissolution), in accordance with ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197 and the goals approved under ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197. The Land Conservation and Development Commission shall adopt rules clarifying how the goals apply to the incorporation of a new city. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 15, chapter 827, Oregon Laws 1983, the rules shall take effect upon adoption by the commission. The applicability of rules promulgated under this section to the incorporation of cities prior to August 9, 1983, shall be determined under the laws of this state.
(2) Pursuant to ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197, each city and county in this state shall:
(a) Prepare, adopt, amend and revise comprehensive plans in compliance with goals approved by the commission;
(b) Enact land use regulations to implement their comprehensive plans;
(c) If its comprehensive plan and land use regulations have not been acknowledged by the commission, make land use decisions and limited land use decisions in compliance with the goals;
(d) If its comprehensive plan and land use regulations have been acknowledged by the commission, make land use decisions and limited land use decisions in compliance with the acknowledged plan and land use regulations; and
(e) Make land use decisions and limited land use decisions subject to an unacknowledged amendment to a comprehensive plan or land use regulation in compliance with those land use goals applicable to the amendment.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, the commission shall not initiate by its own action any annexation of unincorporated territory pursuant to ORS 222.111 (Authority and procedure for annexation) to 222.750 (Annexation of unincorporated territory surrounded by city) or formation of and annexation of territory to any district authorized by ORS 198.510 (Definitions for ORS 198.510 to 198.600) to 198.915 (Election of board members at regular district election) or 451.010 (Facilities and services counties may provide by service districts) to 451.620 (Procedures for district formed subject to dissolution). [1973 c.80 §§17,18; 1977 c.664 §12; 1981 c.748 §15; 1983 c.827 §3; 1989 c.761 §18; 1991 c.817 §21; 1993 c.792 §45; 1999 c.348 §4]
In determining whether zoning amend­ments are consistent with the comprehensive plan, the plan must be read as a whole, for the plan map alone is not necessarily controlling. Green v. Hayward, 275 Or 693, 552 P2d 815 (1976)
City's decision to annex land outside its existing borders was exercise of city's "planning responsibilities" within meaning of this sec­tion, and thus initial threshold determina­tion of whether proposed annexa­tion was consistent with state-wide planning goals was determina­tion which was quasi-judicial in nature. Petersen v. Klamath Falls, 279 Or 249, 566 P2d 1193 (1977)
Though sewer authority alleged statutory responsibility for planning sewer systems, precluding county from adopting conflicting sewer policies in its comprehensive plan, county had authority, under this sec­tion, consistent with state-wide planning goals, to adopt its own policies relating to sewer systems. Jackson County v. Bear Creek Authority, 293 Or 121, 645 P2d 532 (1982)
Legislature intended that county, in connec­tion with proposed incorpora­tion, must con­duct meaningful inquiry as to all LCDC goals to extent possible. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco County Court, 299 Or 344, 703 P2d 207 (1985)
Under this sec­tion, an urban growth boundary is es­tab­lished when acknowledged. Perkins v. City of Rajneeshpuram, 300 Or 1, 706 P2d 949 (1985)
Only after acknowledg­ment can city make land use decisions under comprehensive plan imple­menting ordinances and urban growth boundary. Perkins v. City of Rajneeshpuram, 300 Or 1, 706 P2d 949 (1985)
When amend­ment to Metro's urban growth boundary is totally controlled, in substance and pro­ce­dure, by acknowledged land use regula­tion, amend­ment could not be independently reviewed for compliance with statewide land use planning goals. League of Women Voters v. Metro. Service Dist., 99 Or App 333, 781 P2d 1256 (1989), Sup Ct review denied
When regula­tion contained internal require­ment that regula­tion's applica­tion to particular sites comply with statewide goals, city had to demonstrate compliance with statewide goals even though decision was made under acknowledged land use regula­tion. Blatt v. City of Portland, 109 Or App 259, 819 P2d 309 (1991), Sup Ct review denied
Land developer's "Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amend­ment" proposing develop­ment of destina­tion resort was ac­tion under county's acknowledged comprehensive plan and was therefore not reviewable for Goal 8 compliance. Foland v. Jackson County, 311 Or 167, 807 P2d 801 (1991)
Adop­tion of comprehensive plan designa­tion may precede adop­tion of zoning and other imple­menting legisla­tion necessary for future use. Neighbors for Livability v. City of Beaverton, 168 Or App 501, 4 P3d 765 (2000)
Considera­tion of availability of public school facilities in determining whether to approve subdivision, (1978) Vol 38, p 1956
10 WLJ 400 (1974); 19 EL 61 (1988)