197.633 Two
phases of periodic review; rules; appeal of decision on work program; schedule
for completion; extension of time on appeal. (1) The periodic review process is divided into two
phases. Phase one is the evaluation of the existing comprehensive plan, land
use regulations and citizen involvement program and, if necessary, the
development of a work program to make needed changes to the comprehensive plan
or land use regulations. Phase two is the completion of work tasks outlined in
the work program.
(2) The Land
Conservation and Development Commission shall adopt rules for conducting
periodic review that address:
(a) Initiating
periodic review;
(b) Citizen
participation;
(c) The
participation of state agencies;
(d) The
preparation, review and approval of a work program; and
(e) The
preparation, review and approval of work tasks, including:
(A) The amendment
of an urban growth boundary.
(B) The
designation of, or withdrawal of territory from, urban reserves or rural
reserves.
(3) The rules
adopted by the commission under this section may include, but are not limited
to, provisions concerning standing, requirements to raise issues before local
government as a precondition to commission review and other provisions
concerning the scope and standard for commission review to simplify or speed
the review. The commission shall confine its review of evidence to the local
record. The commission’s standard of review:
(a) For
evidentiary issues, is whether there is substantial evidence in the record as a
whole to support the local government’s decision.
(b) For
procedural issues, is whether the local government failed to follow the
procedures applicable to the matter before the local government in a manner
that prejudiced the substantial rights of a party to the proceeding.
(c) For issues
concerning compliance with applicable laws, is whether the local government’s
decision on the whole complies with applicable statutes, statewide land use
planning goals, administrative rules, the comprehensive plan, the regional
framework plan, the functional plan and land use regulations. The commission
shall defer to a local government’s interpretation of the comprehensive plan or
land use regulations in the manner provided in ORS 197.829. For purposes of
this paragraph, “complies” has the meaning given the term “compliance” in the
phrase “compliance with the goals” in ORS 197.627.
(4) A decision by
the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development to approve
a work program, that no work program is necessary or that no further work is
necessary is final and not subject to appeal.
(5) The director:
(a) Shall take
action on a work task not later than 120 days after the local government
submits the work task for review unless the local government waives the 120-day
deadline or the commission grants the director an extension. If the director
does not take action within the time period required by this subsection, the
work task is deemed approved. The department shall provide a letter to the
local government certifying that the work task is approved unless an interested
party has filed a timely objection to the work task consistent with
administrative rules for conducting periodic review.
(b) May approve
or remand a work task or refer the work task to the commission for a decision.
A decision by the director to approve or remand a work task may be appealed to
the commission.
(6) Except as
provided in this subsection, the commission shall take action on the appeal or
referral of a work task within 90 days of the appeal or referral. Action by the
commission in response to an appeal from a decision of the director or a
referral is a final order subject to judicial review in the manner provided in
ORS 197.650 and 197.651. The commission may extend the time for taking action
on the appeal or referral if the commission finds that:
(a) The appeal or
referral is appropriate for mediation;
(b) The appeal or
referral raises new or complex issues of fact or law that make it unreasonable
for the commission to give adequate consideration to the issues within the
90-day limit; or
(c) The parties
to the appeal and the commission agree to an extension, not to exceed an
additional 90 days.
(7) The
commission and a local government shall attempt to complete periodic review
within three years after approval of a work program. To promote the timely
completion of periodic review, the commission shall establish a system of
incentives to encourage local government compliance with timelines in periodic
review work programs. [1991 c.612 §3; 1993 c.18 §38; 1999 c.622 §3; 2001 c.527 §1;
2005 c.829 §4; 2011 c.469 §2]
197.635 [1981 c.748 §6; repealed by 1983
c.827 §59]
Notes of Decisions
Barkers Five, LLC v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 323 P.3d 368 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 8× “626(l)(c), (f) (providing for LCDC review of urban and rural reserves “in the manner provided for review of a work task under ORS 197.633”); ORS 197.628 -197.650 (governing periodic review process); OAR chapter 660, division 25 (the division 25 rules) (rules implementing…”
Zimmerman v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 361 P.3d 619 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “628, comprehensive plans and local land use regulations must be updated regularly (“periodic review”) and those updates must be approved by LCDC under the procedures specified in ORS 197.633 and OAR chapter 660, division 25.”
Williams v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 961 P.2d 269 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “In 1994, the county submitted to DLCD a proposed “work program” under ORS 197.633(3)(e) and the revised periodic review rules.”
Hummel v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 954 P.2d 824 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “ORS 197.633(1). The first phase is complete when the local government adopts the work plan and DLCD approves it, subject to appeal to LCDC.”
1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 239 P.3d 272 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“' ORS 197.633(1). The second phase is `the completion of work tasks outlined in the work program.”
City of Sandy v. Metro, 115 P.3d 960 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“One of them designates a particular site (the Helvetia site) to be included within Hillsboro’s urban growth boundary, despite the fact that Hillsboro preferred a different site (the Evergreen site).”
Manning v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 109 P.3d 376 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“629 (discussing the phases of periodic review); ORS 197.633 (same). A “work task” is part of the “work program” that a local planning jurisdiction undertakes in order to bring its comprehensive plan and other land use controls into compliance with statewide land use planning…”
1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 317 P.3d 927 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“650 (and other statutes, including ORS 197.633, which includes the standard of review LCDC is to apply to local government actions) at the request of Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to alter the standards of review that both LCDC and this court will apply…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.633(1) — 4 cases
1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 239 P.3d 272 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“' ORS 197.633(1). The second phase is `the completion of work tasks outlined in the work program.”
Hummel v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 954 P.2d 824 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“ORS 197.633(1). The first phase is complete when the local government adopts the work plan and DLCD approves it, subject to appeal to LCDC.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.633(2) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.633(3) — 2 cases
Barkers Five, LLC v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 323 P.3d 368 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“626(l)(c), (f) (providing for LCDC review of urban and rural reserves “in the manner provided for review of a work task under ORS 197.633”); ORS 197.628 -197.650 (governing periodic review process); OAR chapter 660, division 25 (the division 25 rules) (rules implementing…”
Hummel v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 954 P.2d 824 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“ORS 197.633(1). The first phase is complete when the local government adopts the work plan and DLCD approves it, subject to appeal to LCDC.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.633(3)(a) — 1 case
Barkers Five, LLC v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 323 P.3d 368 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“626(l)(c), (f) (providing for LCDC review of urban and rural reserves “in the manner provided for review of a work task under ORS 197.633”); ORS 197.628 -197.650 (governing periodic review process); OAR chapter 660, division 25 (the division 25 rules) (rules implementing…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.633(3)(c) — 1 case
Zimmerman v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 361 P.3d 619 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“628, comprehensive plans and local land use regulations must be updated regularly (“periodic review”) and those updates must be approved by LCDC under the procedures specified in ORS 197.633 and OAR chapter 660, division 25.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.633(3)(e) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.633(3Xe) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.633(4) — 2 cases
Zimmerman v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 361 P.3d 619 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“628, comprehensive plans and local land use regulations must be updated regularly (“periodic review”) and those updates must be approved by LCDC under the procedures specified in ORS 197.633 and OAR chapter 660, division 25.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.633(5) — 2 cases
Zimmerman v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 361 P.3d 619 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“628, comprehensive plans and local land use regulations must be updated regularly (“periodic review”) and those updates must be approved by LCDC under the procedures specified in ORS 197.633 and OAR chapter 660, division 25.”
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.