Cities’ and counties’ planning responsibilities
- rules on incorporations
- compliance with goals
Source:
Section 197.175 — Cities’ and counties’ planning responsibilities; rules on incorporations; compliance with goals, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors197.html
.
Notes of Decisions
A comprehensive plan is the controlling land use planning instrument for a city; upon its passage, the city assumes responsibility to effectuate the plan and conform zoning ordinances, including prior existing zoning ordinances, to it. Baker v. City of Milwaukie, 271 Or 500, 533 P2d 772 (1975); distinguished in Green v. Hayward, 275 Or 693, 552 P2d 815 (1976)
In determining whether zoning amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan, the plan must be read as a whole, for the plan map alone is not necessarily controlling. Green v. Hayward, 275 Or 693, 552 P2d 815 (1976)
City’s decision to annex land outside its existing borders was exercise of city’s “planning responsibilities” within meaning of this section, and thus initial threshold determination of whether proposed annexation was consistent with state-wide planning goals was determination which was quasi-judicial in nature. Petersen v. Klamath Falls, 279 Or 249, 566 P2d 1193 (1977)
Statewide planning goals apply to requests to partition land. Jurgenson v. Union County Court, 42 Or App 505, 600 P2d 1241 (1979)
Though sewer authority alleged statutory responsibility for planning sewer systems, precluding county from adopting conflicting sewer policies in its comprehensive plan, county had authority, under this section, consistent with state-wide planning goals, to adopt its own policies relating to sewer systems. Jackson County v. Bear Creek Authority, 293 Or 121, 645 P2d 532 (1982)
Legislature intended that county, in connection with proposed incorporation, must conduct meaningful inquiry as to all LCDC goals to extent possible. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco County Court, 299 Or 344, 703 P2d 207 (1985)
Under this section, an urban growth boundary is established when acknowledged. Perkins v. City of Rajneeshpuram, 300 Or 1, 706 P2d 949 (1985)
Only after acknowledgment can city make land use decisions under comprehensive plan implementing ordinances and urban growth boundary. Perkins v. City of Rajneeshpuram, 300 Or 1, 706 P2d 949 (1985)
When amendment to Metro’s urban growth boundary is totally controlled, in substance and procedure, by acknowledged land use regulation, amendment could not be independently reviewed for compliance with statewide land use planning goals. League of Women Voters v. Metro. Service Dist., 99 Or App 333, 781 P2d 1256 (1989), Sup Ct review denied
When regulation contained internal requirement that regulation’s application to particular sites comply with statewide goals, city had to demonstrate compliance with statewide goals even though decision was made under acknowledged land use regulation. Blatt v. City of Portland, 109 Or App 259, 819 P2d 309 (1991), Sup Ct review denied
Land developer’s “Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment” proposing development of destination resort was action under county’s acknowledged comprehensive plan and was therefore not reviewable for Goal 8 compliance. Foland v. Jackson County, 311 Or 167, 807 P2d 801 (1991)
Adoption of comprehensive plan designation may precede adoption of zoning and other implementing legislation necessary for future use. Neighbors for Livability v. City of Beaverton, 168 Or App 501, 4 P3d 765 (2000)
Change to urban growth boundary based on land need must be based on both long-term need and need related to categories such as housing or employment opportunities. DLCD v. City of Klamath Falls, 290 Or App 495, 416 P3d 326 (2018)
Attorney General Opinions
Consideration of availability of public school facilities in determining whether to approve subdivision, (1978) Vol 38, p 1956
Law Review Citations
10 WLJ 400 (1974); 19 EL 61 (1988); 93 OLR 455 (2014)