197.180 State
agency planning responsibilities; determination of compliance with goals and
compatibility with plans; coordination between agencies and local governments;
rules; exceptions.
(1) Except as provided in ORS 197.277 or subsection (2) of this section or
unless expressly exempted by another statute from any of the requirements of
this section, state agencies shall carry out their planning duties, powers and
responsibilities and take actions that are authorized by law with respect to
programs affecting land use:
(a) In compliance
with the goals, rules implementing the goals and rules implementing this
section; and
(b) In a manner compatible
with acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations.
(2) State
agencies need not comply with subsection (1)(b) of this section if a state
agency rule, plan or program relating to land use was not in effect when the
comprehensive plan provision or land use regulation with which the action would
be incompatible was acknowledged and the agency has demonstrated that:
(a) The state
agency rule, plan or program is mandated by state statute or federal law;
(b) The state
agency rule, plan or program is consistent with the goals;
(c) The state
agency rule, plan or program has objectives that cannot be achieved in a manner
compatible with the acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations;
and
(d) The agency
has complied with its certified state agency coordination program.
(3) Unless
federal or state law requires otherwise, the Land Conservation and Development
Commission, by rule, may specify the sequence of a local government land use
decision and a state agency action concerning the same, similar or related uses
or activities.
(4) Upon request
by the commission, each state agency shall submit to the Department of Land
Conservation and Development the following information:
(a) Agency rules
and summaries of state agency plans and programs affecting land use;
(b) A program for
coordination pursuant to ORS 197.040 (2)(e);
(c) A program for
coordination pursuant to ORS 197.090 (1)(b); and
(d) A program for
cooperation with and technical assistance to local governments.
(5) Within 90
days of receipt, the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and
Development shall review the information submitted pursuant to subsection (4)
of this section and shall notify each state agency if the director believes the
state agency rules, plans or programs submitted are insufficient to ensure
compliance with goals and compatibility with acknowledged comprehensive plans
and land use regulations.
(6) Within 90
days of receipt of notification specified in subsection (5) of this section,
the state agency may revise the state agency rules, plans or programs and
resubmit them to the director.
(7) The director
shall make findings under subsections (5) and (6) of this section as to whether
the state agency rules, plans or programs are sufficient to ensure compliance
with the goals and compatibility with acknowledged city and county comprehensive
plans and land use regulations and shall forward the rules and summaries of
state agency plans or programs to the commission for its action. The commission
shall either certify the state agency rules, plans or programs as compliant
with the goals and compatible with the acknowledged comprehensive plans and
land use regulations of affected local governments or shall determine the same
to be insufficient.
(8) The
department shall report, to the appropriate committee of the House and the
Senate and to the subcommittee of the Joint Ways and Means Committee that
considers the state agency budget, any agency that has failed to meet the
requirements of subsection (7) of this section.
(9) Any state
agency that has failed to meet the requirements of subsection (7) of this
section shall report the reasons therefor to the appropriate committee of the
House and the Senate and to the subcommittee of the Joint Ways and Means
Committee that considers the agency budget.
(10) Until rules
and state agency plans and programs are certified as compliant with the goals
and compatible with the acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use
regulations of affected local governments, the state agency shall make findings
when adopting or amending its rules and state agency plans and programs as to
the applicability and application of the goals or acknowledged comprehensive
plans, as appropriate.
(11) The
commission shall adopt rules establishing procedures to ensure that state
agency permits affecting land use are issued in compliance with the goals and
compatible with acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations, as
required by subsection (1) of this section. The rules must prescribe the
circumstances in which state agencies may rely upon a determination of
compliance with the goals or compatibility with the acknowledged comprehensive
plan.
(12) A state
agency required to have a land use coordination program shall participate in a
local government land use hearing, except a hearing under ORS 197.610 to
197.625, only in a manner that is consistent with the coordination program,
unless the agency participated in the local government’s periodic review
pursuant to ORS 197.633 and raised the issue that is the basis for
participation in the land use hearing.
(13) State agency
rules, plans or programs affecting land use are not compatible with an
acknowledged comprehensive plan if the state agency takes or approves an action
that is not allowed under the acknowledged comprehensive plan. However, a state
agency may apply statutes and rules to deny, condition or further restrict an
action of the state agency or of any applicant before the state agency if the
state agency applies those statutes and rules to the uses planned for in the
acknowledged comprehensive plan.
(14) In
cooperation with local governments and state agencies whose rules, plans or
programs affect land use, the department periodically shall:
(a) Identify
aspects of coordination related to uses that require the issuance of multiple
permits from state agencies and local governments.
(b) Update and
improve rules regulating the effectiveness and efficiency of state agency
coordination programs.
(15) This section
does not apply to rules, plans, programs, decisions, determinations or
activities carried out under ORS 527.610 to 527.770, 527.990 (1) and 527.992. [1973
c.80 §21; 1977 c.664 §13; 1981 c.748 §16; 1983 c.827 §4; 1987 c.555 §1; 1987
c.919 §3; 1989 c.761 §19; 1991 c.612 §9; 1995 c.595 §30; 1999 c.622 §8; 2009
c.606 §3]
Notes of Decisions
Sky Lakes Med. Ctr. v. Dept. of Human Servs., 484 P.3d 1107 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 29× “The determination was required by ORS 197.180, which sets out state agency land use plan- ning responsibilities, and DAS’s rule that implements that statute, OAR 125-110-0001, which requires findings of com- patibility with local land use regulations before undertak- ing a state…”
Schaefer v. Oregon Aviation Bd., 495 P.3d 1267 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 6× “In 2019, the board belatedly adopted findings of land use compatibility to bring its adoption of the Master Plan into compliance with ORS 197.180 and an implementing rule, OAR 738- 130-0055(6).”
Grabhorn v. Washington Cnty., 379 P.3d 796 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 3× “See OAR 340-018-0000 (“In accordance with ORS 197.180, this rule establishes Department policy and procedures to assure that Department activities determined to significantly affect land use are carried out in a manner that complies with the statewide land use goals and are…”
West Side Sanitary Dist. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 614 P.2d 1141 (Or. 1980).
· cites it 5× “Petitioners alleged that the Health Division’s order was an action affecting land use (reviewable by LCDC under ORS 197.180) and that the Health Division did not consider or comply with any of the statewide land use planning goals in making its findings.”
Arnold Irrigation Dist. v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 717 P.2d 1274 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 3× “ORS 197.180(1). DEQ therefore must *143 include limitations reflecting the goals and plans in section 1341 certificates to the maximum extent that the CWA allows — that is, to the extent that they have any relationship to water quality.”
State Hous. Council v. City of Lake Oswego, 635 P.2d 647 (Or. 1981).
· cites it 2× “(1) At the conclusion of a review proceeding under sections 4 and 5 of this 1979 Act, the board shall prepare a recommendation to the commission concerning any allegations of violation of the state-wide planning goals contained in the petition and shall submit a copy of its…”
1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 737 P.2d 607 (Or. 1987).
· cites it 2× “726, then HB 3008, was before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Senators Brown and Kulongoski drafted a minority report adding the following language: “(4) Upon approval by the Land Conservation and Development Commission, under ORS 197.180, of the State…”
Grabhorn, Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 297 P.3d 524 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “” Two of those exceptions could conceivably apply here: “(b) Does not include a decision of a local government: “(A) That is made under land use standards that do not require interpretation or the exercise of policy or legal judgment; “(H) That a proposed state agency action…”
Waste Not of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 471 P.3d 769 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “” The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), in turn, has adopted rules requiring that local governments decide whether proposed state actions are compatible with local land use plans and regulations.”
Ochoco Constr., Inc. v. Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev., 667 P.2d 499 (Or. 1983).
“250 for such conformity; or “(c) A city or county is not making satisfactory progress toward performance of its compliance schedule; or “(d) A state agency is not making satisfactory progress in carrying out its coordination agreement or the requirements of ORS 197.180; or “(e)…”
McPhillips Farm, Inc. v. Yamhill Cnty., 300 P.3d 299 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 3× “015(10)(b)(H), which provides that “land use decision” does not include a local government decision “[t]hat a proposed state agency action subject to ORS 197.180(1) is compatible with the acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations implementing the plan, if: “(i)…”
West Side Sanitary Dist. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 614 P.2d 1148 (Or. 1980).
· cites it 5× “Petitioners alleged that the actions of these agencies were actions affecting land use (reviewable by LCDC under ORS 197.180) and that the agencies did not consider or conform with any of the statewide land use planning goals.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.180(1) — 20 cases
Sky Lakes Med. Ctr. v. Dept. of Human Servs., 484 P.3d 1107 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“The determination was required by ORS 197.180, which sets out state agency land use plan- ning responsibilities, and DAS’s rule that implements that statute, OAR 125-110-0001, which requires findings of com- patibility with local land use regulations before undertak- ing a state…”
Schaefer v. Oregon Aviation Bd., 495 P.3d 1267 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“In 2019, the board belatedly adopted findings of land use compatibility to bring its adoption of the Master Plan into compliance with ORS 197.180 and an implementing rule, OAR 738- 130-0055(6).”
West Side Sanitary Dist. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 614 P.2d 1141 (Or. 1980).
“Petitioners alleged that the Health Division’s order was an action affecting land use (reviewable by LCDC under ORS 197.180) and that the Health Division did not consider or comply with any of the statewide land use planning goals in making its findings.”
Arnold Irrigation Dist. v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 717 P.2d 1274 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“ORS 197.180(1). DEQ therefore must *143 include limitations reflecting the goals and plans in section 1341 certificates to the maximum extent that the CWA allows — that is, to the extent that they have any relationship to water quality.”
Grabhorn v. Washington Cnty., 379 P.3d 796 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“See OAR 340-018-0000 (“In accordance with ORS 197.180, this rule establishes Department policy and procedures to assure that Department activities determined to significantly affect land use are carried out in a manner that complies with the statewide land use goals and are…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.180(1)(a) — 1 case
Waste Not of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 471 P.3d 769 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“” The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), in turn, has adopted rules requiring that local governments decide whether proposed state actions are compatible with local land use plans and regulations.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.180(1)(b) — 1 case
Sky Lakes Med. Ctr. v. Dept. of Human Servs., 484 P.3d 1107 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“The determination was required by ORS 197.180, which sets out state agency land use plan- ning responsibilities, and DAS’s rule that implements that statute, OAR 125-110-0001, which requires findings of com- patibility with local land use regulations before undertak- ing a state…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.180(10) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.180(13) — 1 case
Sky Lakes Med. Ctr. v. Dept. of Human Servs., 484 P.3d 1107 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“The determination was required by ORS 197.180, which sets out state agency land use plan- ning responsibilities, and DAS’s rule that implements that statute, OAR 125-110-0001, which requires findings of com- patibility with local land use regulations before undertak- ing a state…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.180(2) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.180(3) — 1 case
McPhillips Farm, Inc. v. Yamhill Cnty., 300 P.3d 299 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“015(10)(b)(H), which provides that “land use decision” does not include a local government decision “[t]hat a proposed state agency action subject to ORS 197.180(1) is compatible with the acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations implementing the plan, if: “(i)…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.180(6) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.180(7) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.180(9) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.180(b) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.180(l)(a) — 2 cases
Grabhorn, Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 297 P.3d 524 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“” Two of those exceptions could conceivably apply here: “(b) Does not include a decision of a local government: “(A) That is made under land use standards that do not require interpretation or the exercise of policy or legal judgment; “(H) That a proposed state agency action…”
McPhillips Farm, Inc. v. Yamhill Cnty., 300 P.3d 299 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“015(10)(b)(H), which provides that “land use decision” does not include a local government decision “[t]hat a proposed state agency action subject to ORS 197.180(1) is compatible with the acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations implementing the plan, if: “(i)…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.