Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.251 (2026)

Compliance acknowledgment; commission review; rules; limited acknowledgment; compliance schedule

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

197.251 Compliance acknowledgment; commission review; rules; 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.

(11) As used in this section:

(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]

197.252 [1977 c.664 §20a; 1979 c.772 §7a; repealed by 1981 c.748 §56]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 87 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1978–2024 · leading case: Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry Co.), 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry Co.), 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986). · cites it 15× “175, and providing for LCDC acknowledgment of plans, ORS 197.251, support the allocation of burdens described by Judge Gillette: "LCDC, in responding to 1000 Friends' objections to these areas, apparently placed the burden on 1000 Friends to show that the areas are not committed.”

Oregon Bus. Plan. Council v. Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev., 626 P.2d 350 (Or. 1981). · cites it 13× “These five consolidated cases all involve appeals to the Court of Appeals from orders by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), "acknowledging” various local government land use plans to be in compliance with statewide planning goals, pursuant to ORS 197.251. 1…”

Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Clatsop Co.), 724 P.2d 805 (Or. 1986). · cites it 12× “In October 1983, Clatsop County submitted its comprehensive plan to LCDC for acknowledgment under ORS 197.251. LCDC held two public hearings.”

1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 752 P.2d 271 (Or. 1988). · cites it 4× “251(5), and, further, the findings shall “[i]nclude a clear statement of findings in support of the determination of compliance and noncompliance,” ORS 197.251 (5) (b). The Court of Appeals and this court review to see if LCDC “has erroneously interpreted a provision of law,”…”

Alexanderson v. Bd. of Commissioners, 616 P.2d 459 (Or. 1980). · cites it 6× “ORS 197.251. The changed legal status of these local land use policies before and after this determination of compliance is important to the present case.”

Marion Cnty. v. Fed'n for Sound Plan., 668 P.2d 406 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 6× “According to petitioners, ORS 197.251, the statute governing compliance acknowledgment, does not authorize such an action.”

City of Salem v. Families for Responsible Gov't, Inc., 668 P.2d 395 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 6× “1000 Friends filed objections pursuant to ORS 197.251. LCDC reviewed the plan and concluded, inter alia, that the city’s urban growth boundary violated Goal 14 (Urbanization).”

Perkins v. City of Rajneeshpuram, 706 P.2d 949 (Or. 1985). · cites it 5× “The issue presented is this: Once a city has adopted an urban growth boundary (UGB), but before the comprehensive plan containing the UGB has been acknowledged 1 by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) pursuant to ORS 197.251, may the city rely upon the…”

Woodcock v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 626 P.2d 901 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 6× “See ORS 197.251. "In a very real sense, therefore, the plan amendment and exception granted by Josephine County in 1978 remain open to challenge until acknowledgment.”

Urquhart v. Lane Council of Governments, 721 P.2d 870 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “640(1) provides: “After its decision to initially acknowledge a local government’s comprehensive plan and land use regulations under ORS 197.251, the commission shall periodically review each local government’s comprehensive plan and land use regulations to insure that they are…”

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 688 P.2d 103 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 3× “732(9) provides: “An exception acknowledged under ORS 197.251,197.625 or 197.630(1) (1981 Replacement Part) on or before August 9,1983, shall continue to be valid and shall not be subject to this section.”

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 679 P.2d 320 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “Because a UGB must comply with Goal 14, and must ultimately be reviewed by LCDC for compliance with the goal; ORS 197.251, petitioners contend that the act of incorporation has no immediate or direct bearing on the conversion of land.”

Show all 87 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.251(1) — 13 cases

Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Clatsop Co.), 724 P.2d 805 (Or. 1986). “In October 1983, Clatsop County submitted its comprehensive plan to LCDC for acknowledgment under ORS 197.251. LCDC held two public hearings.”

Woodcock v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 626 P.2d 901 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “See ORS 197.251. "In a very real sense, therefore, the plan amendment and exception granted by Josephine County in 1978 remain open to challenge until acknowledgment.”

Oregon Bus. Plan. Council v. Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev., 626 P.2d 350 (Or. 1981). “These five consolidated cases all involve appeals to the Court of Appeals from orders by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), "acknowledging” various local government land use plans to be in compliance with statewide planning goals, pursuant to ORS 197.251. 1…”

Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry Co.), 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986). “175, and providing for LCDC acknowledgment of plans, ORS 197.251, support the allocation of burdens described by Judge Gillette: "LCDC, in responding to 1000 Friends' objections to these areas, apparently placed the burden on 1000 Friends to show that the areas are not committed.”

Foland v. Jackson Cnty., 807 P.2d 801 (Or. 1991).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.251(10) — 1 case

Zamsky v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 714 P.2d 634 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.251(12) — 1 case

Panner v. Deschutes Cnty., 708 P.2d 612 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.251(13)(a) — 4 cases

1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986).

1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 724 P.2d 805 (Or. 1986).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.251(13)(a)(C) — 3 cases

Zamsky v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 714 P.2d 634 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.251(13)(b) — 2 cases

1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.251(2) — 6 cases

Marion Cnty. v. Fed'n for Sound Plan., 668 P.2d 406 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “According to petitioners, ORS 197.251, the statute governing compliance acknowledgment, does not authorize such an action.”

Foland v. Jackson Cnty., 807 P.2d 801 (Or. 1991).

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Marion Cnty., 668 P.2d 412 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).

Zamsky v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 714 P.2d 634 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.251(3) — 1 case

Jackson Cnty. v. Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Auth., 645 P.2d 532 (Or. 1982).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.251(4) — 5 cases

City of Salem v. Families for Responsible Gov't, Inc., 668 P.2d 395 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “1000 Friends filed objections pursuant to ORS 197.251. LCDC reviewed the plan and concluded, inter alia, that the city’s urban growth boundary violated Goal 14 (Urbanization).”

1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 752 P.2d 271 (Or. 1988). “251(5), and, further, the findings shall “[i]nclude a clear statement of findings in support of the determination of compliance and noncompliance,” ORS 197.251 (5) (b). The Court of Appeals and this court review to see if LCDC “has erroneously interpreted a provision of law,”…”

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 688 P.2d 103 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “732(9) provides: “An exception acknowledged under ORS 197.251,197.625 or 197.630(1) (1981 Replacement Part) on or before August 9,1983, shall continue to be valid and shall not be subject to this section.”

1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.251(5) — 6 cases

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 642 P.2d 1158 (Or. 1982).

1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.251(5)(a) — 2 cases

1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 724 P.2d 805 (Or. 1986).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.251(5)(b) — 5 cases

1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986).

1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 724 P.2d 805 (Or. 1986).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.251(6) — 2 cases

Audubon Soc'y v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 760 P.2d 271 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

Panner v. Deschutes Cnty., 708 P.2d 612 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.251(8) — 3 cases

1000 Friends v. Marion Cnty., 643 P.2d 652 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).

Whitesides Hardware, Inc. v. City of Corvallis, 680 P.2d 1004 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).

Panner v. Deschutes Cnty., 708 P.2d 612 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.251(8)(a)(C) — 4 cases

1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 643 P.2d 654 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).

1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986).

1000 Friends v. Marion Cnty., 643 P.2d 652 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).

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.