Oregon Administrative Rules › Chapter 660 - LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT › Division 4 - INTERPRETATION OF GOAL 2 EXCEPTION PROCESS › Section 660-004-0020 - Goal 2, Part II(c), Exception Requirements

Current through Register Vol. 63, No. 7, July 1, 2024
(1) If a jurisdiction determines there are
			 reasons consistent with OAR 660-004-0022  to use resource lands for uses not
			 allowed by the applicable Goal or to allow public facilities or services not
			 allowed by the applicable Goal, the justification shall be set forth in the
			 comprehensive plan as an exception. As provided in OAR 660-004-0000(1), rules
			 in other divisions may also apply.
(2) The four standards in Goal 2 Part II(c)
			 required to be addressed when taking an exception to a goal are described in
			 subsections (a) through (d) of this section, including general requirements
			 applicable to each of the factors:
(a)
			 "Reasons justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should
			 not apply." The exception shall set forth the facts and assumptions used as the
			 basis for determining that a state policy embodied in a goal should not apply
			 to specific properties or situations, including the amount of land for the use
			 being planned and why the use requires a location on resource land;
(b) "Areas that do not require a new
			 exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use". The exception must meet the
			 following requirements:
(A) The exception
			 shall indicate on a map or otherwise describe the location of possible
			 alternative areas considered for the use that do not require a new exception.
			 The area for which the exception is taken shall be identified;
(B) To show why the particular site is
			 justified, it is necessary to discuss why other areas that do not require a new
			 exception cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed use. Economic factors may
			 be considered along with other relevant factors in determining that the use
			 cannot reasonably be accommodated in other areas. Under this test the following
			 questions shall be addressed:
(i) Can the
			 proposed use be reasonably accommodated on nonresource land that would not
			 require an exception, including increasing the density of uses on nonresource
			 land? If not, why not?
(ii) Can the
			 proposed use be reasonably accommodated on resource land that is already
			 irrevocably committed to nonresource uses not allowed by the applicable Goal,
			 including resource land in existing unincorporated communities, or by
			 increasing the density of uses on committed lands? If not, why not?
(iii) Can the proposed use be reasonably
			 accommodated inside an urban growth boundary? If not, why not?
(iv) Can the proposed use be reasonably
			 accommodated without the provision of a proposed public facility or service? If
			 not, why not?
(C) The
			 "alternative areas" standard in paragraph B may be met by a broad review of
			 similar types of areas rather than a review of specific alternative sites.
			 Initially, a local government adopting an exception need assess only whether
			 those similar types of areas in the vicinity could not reasonably accommodate
			 the proposed use. Site specific comparisons are not required of a local
			 government taking an exception unless another party to the local proceeding
			 describes specific sites that can more reasonably accommodate the proposed use.
			 A detailed evaluation of specific alternative sites is thus not required unless
			 such sites are specifically described, with facts to support the assertion that
			 the sites are more reasonable, by another party during the local exceptions
			 proceeding.
(c) "The
			 long-term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences resulting
			 from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse
			 impacts are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the
			 same proposal being located in areas requiring a goal exception other than the
			 proposed site." The exception shall describe: the characteristics of each
			 alternative area considered by the jurisdiction in which an exception might be
			 taken, the typical advantages and disadvantages of using the area for a use not
			 allowed by the Goal, and the typical positive and negative consequences
			 resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce
			 adverse impacts. A detailed evaluation of specific alternative sites is not
			 required unless such sites are specifically described with facts to support the
			 assertion that the sites have significantly fewer adverse impacts during the
			 local exceptions proceeding. The exception shall include the reasons why the
			 consequences of the use at the chosen site are not significantly more adverse
			 than would typically result from the same proposal being located in areas
			 requiring a goal exception other than the proposed site. Such reasons shall
			 include but are not limited to a description of: the facts used to determine
			 which resource land is least productive, the ability to sustain resource uses
			 near the proposed use, and the long-term economic impact on the general area
			 caused by irreversible removal of the land from the resource base. Other
			 possible impacts to be addressed include the effects of the proposed use on the
			 water table, on the costs of improving roads and on the costs to special
			 service districts;
(d) "The
			 proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or will be so rendered
			 through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts." The exception shall
			 describe how the proposed use will be rendered compatible with adjacent land
			 uses. The exception shall demonstrate that the proposed use is situated in such
			 a manner as to be compatible with surrounding natural resources and resource
			 management or production practices. "Compatible" is not intended as an absolute
			 term meaning no interference or adverse impacts of any type with adjacent
			 uses.