OAR 660-004-0020
Goal 2, Part II(c), Exception Requirements
(1)
If a jurisdiction determines there are reasons consistent with OAR 660-004-0022 (Reasons Necessary to Justify an Exception Under Goal 2, Part II(c)) to use resource lands for uses not allowed by the applicable Goal or to allow public facilities or services not allowed by the applicable Goal, the justification shall be set forth in the comprehensive plan as an exception. As provided in OAR 660-004-0000 (Purpose)(1), rules in other divisions may also apply.(2)
The four standards in Goal 2 Part II(c) required to be addressed when taking an exception to a goal are described in subsections (a) through (d) of this section, including general requirements applicable to each of the factors:(a)
“Reasons justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply.” The exception shall set forth the facts and assumptions used as the basis for determining that a state policy embodied in a goal should not apply to specific properties or situations, including the amount of land for the use being planned and why the use requires a location on resource land;(b)
“Areas that do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use”. The exception must meet the following requirements:(A)
The exception shall indicate on a map or otherwise describe the location of possible alternative areas considered for the use that do not require a new exception. The area for which the exception is taken shall be identified;(B)
To show why the particular site is justified, it is necessary to discuss why other areas that do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed use. Economic factors may be considered along with other relevant factors in determining that the use cannot reasonably be accommodated in other areas. Under this test the following questions shall be addressed:(i)
Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on nonresource land that would not require an exception, including increasing the density of uses on nonresource land? If not, why not?(ii)
Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on resource land that is already irrevocably committed to nonresource uses not allowed by the applicable Goal, including resource land in existing unincorporated communities, or by increasing the density of uses on committed lands? If not, why not?(iii)
Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated inside an urban growth boundary? If not, why not?(iv)
Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated without the provision of a proposed public facility or service? If not, why not?(C)
The “alternative areas” standard in paragraph B may be met by a broad review of similar types of areas rather than a review of specific alternative sites. Initially, a local government adopting an exception need assess only whether those similar types of areas in the vicinity could not reasonably accommodate the proposed use. Site specific comparisons are not required of a local government taking an exception unless another party to the local proceeding describes specific sites that can more reasonably accommodate the proposed use. A detailed evaluation of specific alternative sites is thus not required unless such sites are specifically described, with facts to support the assertion that the sites are more reasonable, by another party during the local exceptions proceeding.(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.” The exception shall describe: the characteristics of each alternative area considered by the jurisdiction in which an exception might be taken, the typical advantages and disadvantages of using the area for a use not allowed by the Goal, and the typical positive and negative consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. A detailed evaluation of specific alternative sites is not required unless such sites are specifically described with facts to support the assertion that the sites have significantly fewer adverse impacts during the local exceptions proceeding. The exception shall include the reasons why the consequences of the use at the chosen site 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. Such reasons shall include but are not limited to a description of: the facts used to determine which resource land is least productive, the ability to sustain resource uses near the proposed use, and the long-term economic impact on the general area caused by irreversible removal of the land from the resource base. Other possible impacts to be addressed include the effects of the proposed use on the water table, on the costs of improving roads and on the costs to special service districts;(d)
“The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts.” The exception shall describe how the proposed use will be rendered compatible with adjacent land uses. The exception shall demonstrate that the proposed use is situated in such a manner as to be compatible with surrounding natural resources and resource management or production practices. ”Compatible" is not intended as an absolute term meaning no interference or adverse impacts of any type with adjacent uses.(3)
If the exception involves more than one area for which the reasons and circumstances are the same, the areas may be considered as a group. Each of the areas shall be identified on a map, or their location otherwise described, and keyed to the appropriate findings.(4)
For the expansion of an unincorporated community described under OAR 660-022-0010 (Definitions), including an urban unincorporated community pursuant to OAR 660-022-0040 (Urban Unincorporated Communities)(2), the reasons exception requirements necessary to address standards 2 through 4 of Goal 2, Part II(c), as described in of subsections (2)(b), (c) and (d) of this rule, are modified to also include the following:(a)
Prioritize land for expansion: First priority goes to exceptions lands in proximity to an unincorporated community boundary. Second priority goes to land designated as marginal land. Third priority goes to land designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan for agriculture or forestry, or both. Higher priority is given to land of lower capability site class for agricultural land, or lower cubic foot site class for forest land; and(b)
Land of lower priority described in subsection (a) of this section may be included if land of higher priority is inadequate to accommodate the use for any one of the following reasons:(A)
Specific types of identified land needs cannot be reasonably accommodated on higher priority land;(B)
Public facilities and services cannot reasonably be provided to the higher priority area due to topographic or other physical constraints; or(C)
Maximum efficiency of land uses with the unincorporated community requires inclusion of lower priority land in order to provide public facilities and services to higher priority land.
Source:
Rule 660-004-0020 — Goal 2, Part II(c), Exception Requirements, https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/view.action?ruleNumber=660-004-0020.