Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.625

Acknowledgment of comprehensive plan or land use regulation changes; application prior to acknowledgment

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

      197.625 Acknowledgment of comprehensive plan or land use regulation changes; application prior to acknowledgment. (1) A local decision adopting a change to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or a land use regulation is deemed to be acknowledged when the local government has complied with the requirements of ORS 197.610 and 197.615 and either:

      (a) The 21-day appeal period set out in ORS 197.830 (9) has expired and a notice of intent to appeal has not been filed; or

      (b) If an appeal has been timely filed, the Land Use Board of Appeals affirms the local decision or, if an appeal of the decision of the board is timely filed, an appellate court affirms the decision.

      (2) If the local decision adopting a change to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or a land use regulation is affirmed on appeal under ORS 197.830 to 197.855, the comprehensive plan or the land use regulation, as modified, is deemed to be acknowledged upon the date the decision of the board or the decision of an appellate court becomes final.

      (3) Prior to acknowledgment of a change to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or a land use regulation:

      (a) The change is effective at the time specified by local government charter or ordinance; and

      (b) If the change was adopted in substantial compliance with ORS 197.610 and 197.615, the local government shall apply the change to land use decisions, expedited land divisions and limited land use decisions unless a stay is granted under ORS 197.845.

      (4) Approval of a land use decision, expedited land division or limited land use decision that is subject to an effective but unacknowledged provision of a comprehensive plan or a land use regulation must include findings of compliance with land use statutes, statewide land use planning goals and administrative rules of the Land Conservation and Development Commission implementing the statutes or goals that apply to the decision and that the unacknowledged provision implements.

      (5) If an effective but unacknowledged provision of a comprehensive plan or a land use regulation fails to gain acknowledgment, a permit or zone change approved, in whole or in part, on the basis of the change does not justify retention of the improvements that were authorized by the permit or zone change.

      (6) If requested by a local government, the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development shall issue certification of the acknowledgment upon receipt of an affidavit from:

      (a) The local government, attesting that the change to the acknowledged comprehensive plan or the land use regulation was accomplished in compliance with ORS 197.610 and 197.615; and

      (b) The Land Use Board of Appeals, stating either:

      (A) That no notice of appeal was filed within the 21 days allowed under ORS 197.830 (9); or

      (B) The date the decision of the board or the decision of an appellate court affirming the change to the acknowledged comprehensive plan or the land use regulation became final.

      (7) The board shall issue an affidavit for the purposes of subsection (6) of this section within five days after receiving a valid request from the local government. [1981 c.748 §5b; 1983 c.827 §10; 1987 c.729 §6; 1989 c.761 §23; 1991 c.612 §14; 1993 c.792 §44; 1995 c.595 §25; 1999 c.348 §9; 1999 c.621 §5; 2003 c.793 §3; 2011 c.280 §4]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: Foland v. Jackson County
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Foland v. Jackson County (1991) or · cites it 5× “ORS 197.625. The foregoing statutes provide the framework for review of the issues involved in this case.”
State ex rel. Butler v. City of Bandon (2006) orctapp · cites it 6× “Under ORS 197.625(1) (1995), 5 an interested person could seek review of the acknowledgment within 21 days of that notice.”
Orenco Neighborhood Organization v. City of Hillsboro (1995) orctapp · cites it 5× “610 to ORS 197.625 in April 1994. Petitioners filed their notice of intent to appeal to LUBA in January 1995.”
Davenport v. City of Tigard (1993) orctapp · cites it 2× “Rather, the critical date, for purposes of identifying potentially applicable standards and criteria in the comprehensive plan, is the date the amended plan standards and criteria are considered acknowledged, pursuant to ORS 197.625.” (Emphasis in original; footnotes omitted.”
Aleali v. City of Sherwood (2014) orctapp · cites it 4× “610 to ORS 197.625 comprehensively govern the procedures applicable to post-acknowledgment amendments and additions to local land use legislation.”
Dep't of Land Conservation v. City of Klamath Falls & Badger Flats, LLP (2018) orctapp · cites it 2× “In 2009, the city had an Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) prepared; the city adopted the EOA by ordinance, and it became an acknowledged part of the city's comprehensive plan pursuant to ORS 197.625(1). 5 The EOA includes a "Technical Appendix" *328 that contains a…”
Gisler v. Deschutes County (1997) orctapp “610 to ORS 197.625. However, petitioner’s position is that the goal requires the county not to have or apply a provision that conditions the approval and development of subdivisions on rural land in the way that section 19.”
Sizemore v. Myers (1997) or “For example, ORS 197.625(1) provides, in part: *229 This creates the possibility of a scenario in which, the day after the proposed measure is enacted, one or more cities immediately adopt new UGBs, one or more of which could be deemed acknowledged 21 days after adoption,…”
Leathers v. Marion County (1996) orctapp “It is unclear to us whether the parties understand LUBA’s determination about the unacknowledged status of ordinance 826 to be an independent ruling by LUBA or a rejection by LUBA of a contrary county ruling.”
Von Lubken v. Hood River County (1993) orctapp “No further review was sought, and the repeal legislation was deemed acknowledged under ORS 197.625 in January, 1992. The county made the decision to allow the application in June, 1992.”
1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Development Commission (1985) orctapp “251; and “(B) Amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans or land use regulations or new land use regulations acknowledged under ORS 197.625.” This statute does not justify the county, in the Plan, instructing the Department how to carry out its responsibilities.”
Tylka v. Clackamas County (2002) orctapp · cites it 2× “See ORS 197.625(3)(b). LUBA remanded the decision to the county.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.625(1) — 9 cases
Foland v. Jackson County (1991) or “ORS 197.625. The foregoing statutes provide the framework for review of the issues involved in this case.”
State ex rel. Butler v. City of Bandon (2006) orctapp “Under ORS 197.625(1) (1995), 5 an interested person could seek review of the acknowledgment within 21 days of that notice.”
Dep't of Land Conservation v. City of Klamath Falls & Badger Flats, LLP (2018) orctapp “In 2009, the city had an Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) prepared; the city adopted the EOA by ordinance, and it became an acknowledged part of the city's comprehensive plan pursuant to ORS 197.625(1). 5 The EOA includes a "Technical Appendix" *328 that contains a…”
Sizemore v. Myers (1997) or “For example, ORS 197.625(1) provides, in part: *229 This creates the possibility of a scenario in which, the day after the proposed measure is enacted, one or more cities immediately adopt new UGBs, one or more of which could be deemed acknowledged 21 days after adoption,…”
Orenco Neighborhood Organization v. City of Hillsboro (1995) orctapp “610 to ORS 197.625 in April 1994. Petitioners filed their notice of intent to appeal to LUBA in January 1995.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.625(3) — 1 case
State ex rel. Butler v. City of Bandon (2006) orctapp “Under ORS 197.625(1) (1995), 5 an interested person could seek review of the acknowledgment within 21 days of that notice.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.625(3)(b) — 1 case
Tylka v. Clackamas County (2002) orctapp “See ORS 197.625(3)(b). LUBA remanded the decision to the county.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.625(4)(a) — 1 case
State ex rel. Butler v. City of Bandon (2006) orctapp “Under ORS 197.625(1) (1995), 5 an interested person could seek review of the acknowledgment within 21 days of that notice.”
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.