Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 268.385

District as regional planning coordinator

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

      268.385 District as regional planning coordinator. (1) For the purposes of ORS 195.025, the district formed under this chapter shall exercise within the district the review, advisory and coordinative functions assigned under ORS 195.025 (1) to each county and city that is within the district.

      (2) ORS 195.025 (3) and (4) shall not apply to a district formed under this chapter. [1977 c.665 §19]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2023 · leading case: Barkers Five, LLC v. Land Conservation & Development Commission
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Barkers Five, LLC v. Land Conservation & Development Commission (2014) orctapp “025; ORS 268.385. Among Metro’s responsibilities is the adoption of a regional UGB.”
Marks v. LCDC (2023) orctapp “Metro, the Urban Growth Boundary, and Concept Plans Metro is a metropolitan service district estab- lished pursuant to ORS chapter 268 that includes land in Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties.”
D. S. Parklane Development, Inc. v. Metro (2000) orctapp “) The three cities contend that the rule, and the corresponding provisions of ORS 268.385 and Goal 2, require more specific attention to and accommodation of the cities’ respective planning and related concerns by Metro than the mere “consideration and response” that LUBA held…”
Fujimoto v. Land Use Board of Appeals (1981) orctapp “On January 16, 1980, MSD received an order of compliance acknowledgment for the UGB ordinance from the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) pursuant to ORS 268.385, 268.390(3) and 197.251. Petitioners filed their petition for review on February 15, 1980; it…”
City of Sandy v. Metro (2005) orctapp · cites it 2× “*487 Regarding the disputed change to Hillsboro’s urban growth boundary, Hillsboro bases its argument on the contention that Metro had an obligation to exercise “coordinative functions,” ORS 268.385(1), for “all planning activities affecting land uses within * * * Multnomah,…”
Housing Land Advocates v. LCDC (2021) orctapp “Metro Charter Section 5(4)(b), titled “density increase prohibited,” provides that “[n]either the Regional Framework Cite as 311 Or App 326 (2021) 329 Plan nor any Metro ordinance adopted to implement the plan shall require an increase in the density of single- family…”
Schoenheit/Unger v. Rosenblum (2015) or “ORS 268.385 is hereby repealed. SECTION 5.”
City of Sandy v. Metro (2005) orctapp · cites it 2× “Regarding the disputed change to Hillsboro's urban growth boundary, Hillsboro bases its argument on the contention that Metro had an obligation to exercise "coordinative functions," ORS 268.385(1), for "all planning activities affecting land uses within * * * Multnomah,…”
Schoenheit/Unger v. Rosenblum (2015) or “ORS 268.385 is hereby repealed. SECTION 5.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 268.385(1) — 2 cases
City of Sandy v. Metro (2005) orctapp “*487 Regarding the disputed change to Hillsboro’s urban growth boundary, Hillsboro bases its argument on the contention that Metro had an obligation to exercise “coordinative functions,” ORS 268.385(1), for “all planning activities affecting land uses within * * * Multnomah,…”
City of Sandy v. Metro (2005) orctapp “Regarding the disputed change to Hillsboro's urban growth boundary, Hillsboro bases its argument on the contention that Metro had an obligation to exercise "coordinative functions," ORS 268.385(1), for "all planning activities affecting land uses within * * * Multnomah,…”
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.