State agency planning responsibilities
- determination of compliance with goals and compatibility with plans
- coordination between agencies and local governments
- rules
- exceptions
Source:
Section 197.180 — State agency planning responsibilities; determination of compliance with goals and compatibility with plans; coordination between agencies and local governments; rules; exceptions, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors197.html.
Notes of Decisions
As agency actions under ORS 222.850 to 222.915, relating to public health annexations, have no relation to land use this section has no application to actions under those statutes. West Side Sanitary Dist. v. Health Div., 42 Or App 755, 601 P2d 858 (1979), aff’d as modified 289 Or 417, 614 P2d 1151 (1980)
Health Division order issued pursuant to ORS 222.880 is not action “authorized by law with respect to programs affecting land use” under this section, so Division need not consider state-wide planning goals in reaching its decision. West Side Sanitary Dist. v. LCDC, 289 Or 393, 614 P2d 1141 (1980)
Certification of Environmental Quality Commission pursuant to ORS 222.898 is not action required by this section to be made in accordance with statewide planning goals. West Side Sanitary Dist. v. LCDC, 289 Or 409, 614 P2d 1148 (1980)
LCDC’s rule permitting state agencies to rely on statements of land use consistency adopted by other jurisdictions is not in conflict with this section. Schreiner’s Gardens v. DEQ, 71 Or App 381, 692 P2d 660 (1984)
Where plaintiffs had opportunity to appeal county’s siting decision directly, plaintiff could not later appeal decision in another appeal concerning issuance of permits for activity to be conducted on site. Schreiner’s Gardens v. DEQ, 71 Or App 381, 692 P2d 660 (1984)
State agency publication advising personnel of agency’s position and how to participate in local land use proceedings was not required to be included in agency’s program under this section. Oregonians in Action v. LCDC (Fish and Wildlife), 108 Or App 307, 814 P2d 561 (1991)
Although this section requires compatibility with statewide planning goals and acknowledged local plans and regulations, compliance with acknowledged plans and regulations generally coincides with compatibility with goals and separate showing of compatibility with goals is not required in every case. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Forestry/Trans.), 111 Or App 491, 826 P2d 1023 (1992), Sup Ct review denied
Programs administered by Department of Revenue that allow preferential assessment for farm and forest land are not “programs affecting land use” and are not subject to requirement of statewide goal and local comprehensive plan compliance under this section. Springer v. LCDC, 111 Or App 262, 826 P2d 54 (1992), Sup Ct review denied
Use incidental to outright permitted use, but not included in original permit for outright permitted use, requires separate final determination of compatibility that is subject to LUBA review. Knee Deep Cattle Co. v. Lane County, 133 Or App 120, 890 P2d 449 (1995)
Attorney General Opinions
Nonapplicability of this section to water service territory applications, (1976) Vol 38, p 490; interpretation of compatibility obligation imposed under this section, (1986) Vol 45, p 98; extension of 90-day review period, (1986) Vol 45, p 98
Law Review Citations
5 EL 664 (1975); 14 EL 765 (1984); 93 OLR 455 (2014)
Up to date