Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732 (2026)

Goal exceptions; criteria; rules; review

✓ current as of May 2026

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

197.732 Goal exceptions; criteria; rules; review. (1) As used in this section:

(a) “Compatible” is not intended as an absolute term meaning no interference or adverse impacts of any type with adjacent uses.

(b) “Exception” means a comprehensive plan provision, including an amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan, that:

(A) Is applicable to specific properties or situations and does not establish a planning or zoning policy of general applicability;

(B) Does not comply with some or all goal requirements applicable to the subject properties or situations; and

(2) A local government may adopt an exception to a goal if:

(a) The land subject to the exception is physically developed to the extent that it is no longer available for uses allowed by the applicable goal;

(b) The land subject to the exception is irrevocably committed as described by Land Conservation and Development Commission rule to uses not allowed by the applicable goal because existing adjacent uses and other relevant factors make uses allowed by the applicable goal impracticable; or

(A) Reasons justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply;

(B) Areas that do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use;

(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; and

(D) The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts.

(3) The commission shall adopt rules establishing:

(a) That an exception may be adopted to allow a use authorized by a statewide planning goal that cannot comply with the approval standards for that type of use;

(b) Under what circumstances particular reasons may or may not be used to justify an exception under subsection (2)(c)(A) of this section; and

(4) A local government approving or denying a proposed exception shall set forth findings of fact and a statement of reasons that demonstrate that the standards of subsection (2) of this section have or have not been met.

(5) Each notice of a public hearing on a proposed exception shall specifically note that a goal exception is proposed and shall summarize the issues in an understandable manner.

(6) Upon review of a decision approving or denying an exception:

(a) The Land Use Board of Appeals or the commission shall be bound by any finding of fact for which there is substantial evidence in the record of the local government proceedings resulting in approval or denial of the exception;

(b) The board upon petition, or the commission, shall determine whether the local government’s findings and reasons demonstrate that the standards of subsection (2) of this section have or have not been met; and

(c) The board or commission shall adopt a clear statement of reasons that sets forth the basis for the determination that the standards of subsection (2) of this section have or have not been met.

(7) The commission shall by rule establish the standards required to justify an exception to the definition of “needed housing” authorized by ORS 197A.348.

(8) An exception acknowledged under ORS 197.251, 197.625 or 197.630 (1) (1981 Replacement Part) on or before August 9, 1983, continues to be valid and is not subject to this section. [1983 c.827 §19a; 1995 c.521 §3; 2005 c.67 §1; 2007 c.71 §68; 2011 c.354 §6]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 68 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · 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 45× “[12] The parties generally agree how the exceptions process should now work.”

Ludwick v. Yamhill Cnty., 696 P.2d 536 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 26× “Because the area is comprised of forest land that is subject to Goal 4, the county premised its decisions on the alternative bases that the amendments and the PUD were consistent with the goal or, if they were not, an exception to the goal was permissible under ORS 197.732. The…”

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Yamhill Cnty., 126 P.3d 684 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 37× “Nothing in ORS 197.732, in Goal 2, Part II, or in the applicable provisions of OAR chapter 660, divisions 4 and 12, countenances permitting an exception to a goal for a transportation improvement based solely on the transportation improvement standards without application of the…”

1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 752 P.2d 271 (Or. 1988). · cites it 8× “1000 Friends objected to the exceptions by Lane County, arguing that the county had failed to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the exceptions met the criteria of ORS 197.732 and the related rules. The Court of Appeals held that Lane County failed to find how…”

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 688 P.2d 103 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 15× “Or Laws 1983, ch 827, § 19a (codified as ORS 197.732). It enacted into law all three bases for exceptions and provided new criteria for each.”

1000 Friends of Or. v. Jackson Cnty., 423 P.3d 793 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 8× “283, allowed photovoltaic solar power generation facilities on high-value farmland provided, among other things, that the facility "shall not preclude more than 12 acres from use as a commercial agricultural enterprise unless an exception is taken pursuant to ORS 197.732 and OAR…”

Sommer v. Douglas Cnty., 689 P.2d 1000 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 15× “That statute effectively superseded the provisions of Goal 2, Part II, then in effect, that established exception standards.”

Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 121 P.3d 1141 (Or. 2005). · cites it 5× “Notwithstanding the requirements of ORS 197.732,[ 12 ] the statewide planning goal pertaining to the exception process or any rules of the Land Conservation and Development Commission pertaining to an exception process goal, the council may take an exception to a goal if the…”

Doty v. Coos Cnty., 59 P.3d 50 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “3 ORS 197.732 describes a physically developed exception, ORS 197.”

City of West Linn v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 113 P.3d 935 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “According to petitioners, Goal 14, which governs the conversion of rural land to urban land, applies to the amendment of an acknowledged UGB and such an amendment must satisfy the requirements for an exception to Goal 14: See ORS 197.”

Columbia Riverkeeper v. Columbia Cnty., 443 P.3d 1184 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “The Board notes that under ORS 197.732(1)(a) and OAR 660-004-0020(2)(d) 'compatible' as a term 'is not intended as an absolute term meaning no interference or adverse impacts of any type with adjacent uses.”

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 259 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “* * * “ORS 197.732(2) [and Goal 2, Part II] * * * describe! ] three types of exceptions: for physically developed land that is not available for the goal use; for land that is ‘irrevocably committed’ to a nongoal use; and for land needed for a use not allowed by a goal policy.”

Show all 68 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(1) — 13 cases

Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry Co.), 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986). “[12] The parties generally agree how the exceptions process should now work.”

Ludwick v. Yamhill Cnty., 696 P.2d 536 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “Because the area is comprised of forest land that is subject to Goal 4, the county premised its decisions on the alternative bases that the amendments and the PUD were consistent with the goal or, if they were not, an exception to the goal was permissible under ORS 197.732. The…”

1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 752 P.2d 271 (Or. 1988). “1000 Friends objected to the exceptions by Lane County, arguing that the county had failed to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the exceptions met the criteria of ORS 197.732 and the related rules. The Court of Appeals held that Lane County failed to find how…”

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 688 P.2d 103 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “Or Laws 1983, ch 827, § 19a (codified as ORS 197.732). It enacted into law all three bases for exceptions and provided new criteria for each.”

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Yamhill Cnty., 126 P.3d 684 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “Nothing in ORS 197.732, in Goal 2, Part II, or in the applicable provisions of OAR chapter 660, divisions 4 and 12, countenances permitting an exception to a goal for a transportation improvement based solely on the transportation improvement standards without application of the…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(1)(a) — 5 cases

Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry Co.), 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986). “[12] The parties generally agree how the exceptions process should now work.”

Columbia Riverkeeper v. Columbia Cnty., 443 P.3d 1184 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “The Board notes that under ORS 197.732(1)(a) and OAR 660-004-0020(2)(d) 'compatible' as a term 'is not intended as an absolute term meaning no interference or adverse impacts of any type with adjacent uses.”

Doty v. Coos Cnty., 59 P.3d 50 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “3 ORS 197.732 describes a physically developed exception, ORS 197.”

Denison v. Douglas Cnty., 789 P.2d 1388 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

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

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(1)(b) — 16 cases

Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry Co.), 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986). “[12] The parties generally agree how the exceptions process should now work.”

1000 Friends of Or. v. Jackson Cnty., 423 P.3d 793 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “283, allowed photovoltaic solar power generation facilities on high-value farmland provided, among other things, that the facility "shall not preclude more than 12 acres from use as a commercial agricultural enterprise unless an exception is taken pursuant to ORS 197.732 and OAR…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(1)(c) — 6 cases

Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry Co.), 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986). “[12] The parties generally agree how the exceptions process should now work.”

Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 121 P.3d 1141 (Or. 2005). “Notwithstanding the requirements of ORS 197.732,[ 12 ] the statewide planning goal pertaining to the exception process or any rules of the Land Conservation and Development Commission pertaining to an exception process goal, the council may take an exception to a goal if the…”

Devin Oil Co. v. Morrow Cnty., 286 P.3d 925 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).

Gordon v. Clackamas Cnty., 698 P.2d 49 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(1)(c)(A) — 4 cases

Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry Co.), 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986). “[12] The parties generally agree how the exceptions process should now work.”

1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 706 P.2d 987 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(1)(c)(B) — 2 cases

Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry Co.), 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986). “[12] The parties generally agree how the exceptions process should now work.”

1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 706 P.2d 987 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(1)(c)(C) — 1 case

1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 706 P.2d 987 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(2) — 5 cases

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 259 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “* * * “ORS 197.732(2) [and Goal 2, Part II] * * * describe! ] three types of exceptions: for physically developed land that is not available for the goal use; for land that is ‘irrevocably committed’ to a nongoal use; and for land needed for a use not allowed by a goal policy.”

Nicita v. City of Oregon City, 507 P.3d 804 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).

Waste Not of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 246 P.3d 493 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

Waste Not of Yamhill Cty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 246 P.3d 493 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(2)(b) — 2 cases

Cent. Oregon LandWatch v. Jefferson Cnty., 347 Or. App. 454 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(2)(c) — 6 cases

Schaefer v. Marion Cnty., 523 P.3d 1142 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).

Devin Oil Co. v. Morrow Cnty., 286 P.3d 925 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).

Waste Not of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 246 P.3d 493 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(2)(c)(B) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(3) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(3)(a) — 2 cases

Waste Not of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 246 P.3d 493 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

Waste Not of Yamhill Cty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 246 P.3d 493 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(3)(b) — 2 cases

VinCEP v. Yamhill Cnty., 171 P.3d 368 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(4) — 7 cases

Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry Co.), 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986). “[12] The parties generally agree how the exceptions process should now work.”

Sommer v. Douglas Cnty., 689 P.2d 1000 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “That statute effectively superseded the provisions of Goal 2, Part II, then in effect, that established exception standards.”

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Metro, 26 P.3d 151 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(6) — 5 cases

Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry Co.), 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986). “[12] The parties generally agree how the exceptions process should now work.”

Sommer v. Douglas Cnty., 689 P.2d 1000 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “That statute effectively superseded the provisions of Goal 2, Part II, then in effect, that established exception standards.”

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

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(6)(a) — 8 cases

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 731 P.2d 457 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

Sommer v. Douglas Cnty., 689 P.2d 1000 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “That statute effectively superseded the provisions of Goal 2, Part II, then in effect, that established exception standards.”

1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 706 P.2d 987 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(6)(b) — 5 cases

Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry Co.), 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986). “[12] The parties generally agree how the exceptions process should now work.”

Sommer v. Douglas Cnty., 689 P.2d 1000 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “That statute effectively superseded the provisions of Goal 2, Part II, then in effect, that established exception standards.”

1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 698 P.2d 1027 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).

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

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(6)(c) — 5 cases

Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry Co.), 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986). “[12] The parties generally agree how the exceptions process should now work.”

Sommer v. Douglas Cnty., 689 P.2d 1000 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “That statute effectively superseded the provisions of Goal 2, Part II, then in effect, that established exception standards.”

Gordon v. Clackamas Cnty., 698 P.2d 49 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).

Petrie v. City of Lake Oswego, 911 P.2d 346 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).

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

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(8) — 7 cases

Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry Co.), 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986). “[12] The parties generally agree how the exceptions process should now work.”

Larson v. Wallowa Cnty., 840 P.2d 1350 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Frank v. Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev., 176 P.3d 411 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).

Leathers v. Marion Cnty., 925 P.2d 148 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).

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

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(8)(a) — 1 case

Schrock Farms, Inc. v. Linn Cnty., 844 P.2d 253 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(9) — 2 cases

1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 714 P.2d 252 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(l)(a) — 4 cases

Denison v. Douglas Cnty., 789 P.2d 1388 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

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

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(l)(b) — 6 cases

Doty v. Coos Cnty., 59 P.3d 50 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “3 ORS 197.732 describes a physically developed exception, ORS 197.”

Waste Not of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 246 P.3d 493 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

VinCEP v. Yamhill Cnty., 171 P.3d 368 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).

Reeves v. Yamhill Cnty., 888 P.2d 79 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).

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

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(l)(c) — 11 cases

VinCEP v. Yamhill Cnty., 171 P.3d 368 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).

Doty v. Coos Cnty., 59 P.3d 50 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “3 ORS 197.732 describes a physically developed exception, ORS 197.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(l)(c)(A) — 3 cases

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

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(l)(c)(B) — 5 cases

City of West Linn v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 113 P.3d 935 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “According to petitioners, Goal 14, which governs the conversion of rural land to urban land, applies to the amendment of an acknowledged UGB and such an amendment must satisfy the requirements for an exception to Goal 14: See ORS 197.”

VinCEP v. Yamhill Cnty., 171 P.3d 368 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).

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

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(l)(c)(C) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(l)(c)(D) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.732(l)(e) — 1 case

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.