Chapter 195

 

      195.020

(formerly 197.185)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      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 ORS 197.175, 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)

 

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: People’s Utility Districts as “special districts” within meaning of this section, (1978) Vol 38, p 1650;

educational system policy statements as appropriate elements of county comprehensive plans, (1978) Vol 38, p 1713

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 93 OLR 455 (2014)

 

      195.025

(formerly 197.190)

 

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Educational policy statements as appropriate elements of county comprehensive plans, (1978) Vol 38, p 1713; consideration of availability of public school facilities in determining whether to approve subdivision, (1978) Vol 38, p 1956

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 68 OLR 983 (1989); 93 OLR 455 (2014)

 

      195.065

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 93 OLR 455 (2014)

 

      195.137 to 195.145

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      When undertaking “consideration of factors,” Metro or county must apply and evaluate each factor, weigh and balance each factor while understanding factors are not independent approval criteria and meaningfully explain reasoning for land designation. Barkers Five, LLC v. LCDC, 261 Or App 259, 323 P3d 368 (2014)

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 93 OLR 455 (2014)

 

      195.141

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Whether land is “capable” refers to physical ability of land to produce agricultural product and capability determination must include assessment of quantity and quality of soil and water. Barkers Five, LLC v. LCDC, 261 Or App 259, 323 P3d 368 (2014)

 

      Whether land is “suitable” refers to ability of land to be used for long-term farm use based on factors including existing land use and ownership patterns, parcelization, infrastructure and zoning. Barkers Five, LLC v. LCDC, 261 Or App 259, 323 P3d 368 (2014)

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 93 OLR 455 (2014)

 

      195.143

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 93 OLR 455 (2014)

 

      195.145

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 93 OLR 455 (2014)

 

      195.205 to 195.225

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 77 OLR 893 (1998)

 

      195.300 to 195.336

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 46 WLR 577 (2010)

 

      195.300

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Seller of property under land sale contract who retains legal title to land and purchaser of property under land sale contract are both “owner” under this section because use of “or” is not mutually exclusive. Burke v. Department of Land Conservation and Development, 352 Or 428, 290 P3d 790 (2012)

 

      195.305

(formerly 197.352)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Requirement that state and local entities decide whether to pay just compensation or to modify, remove or not apply certain land use regulations does not divest legislative bodies of plenary power to enact future legislation. MacPherson v. Department of Administrative Services, 340 Or 117, 130 P3d 308 (2006)

 

      Paying just compensation only to, or modifying, removing or not applying land use regulation only for, landowners who acquired property prior to enactment of regulation does not constitute unconstitutional denial of equal protection, suspension of law or waiver of sovereign immunity. MacPherson v. Department of Administrative Services, 340 Or 117, 130 P3d 308 (2006)

 

      Authorizing governing body responsible for enacting land use regulation to determine whether to pay just compensation or to modify, remove or not apply regulation in certain instances does not unconstitutionally delegate executive powers to legislative body. MacPherson v. Department of Administrative Services, 340 Or 117, 130 P3d 308 (2006)

 

      Land use regulations enacted to implement interstate compact regarding Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area are regulations “required to comply with federal law.” Columbia River Gorge Commission v. Hood River County, 210 Or App 689, 152 P3d 997 (2007), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Where administrative decision denies claimant is entitled to compensation at all, jurisdiction for appeal is with circuit court for county in which property is located. Emmel v. Department of Land Conservation and Development, 213 Or App 681, 162 P3d 354 (2007)

 

      Notwithstanding ORS 215.427, criteria and standards established under Measure 37 waiver are of no effect. Pete’s Mountain Homeowners Association v. Clackamas County, 227 Or App 140, 204 P3d 802 (2009), Sup Ct review denied

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 36 EL 25, 53, 79, 131, 177, 187 (2006); 85 OLR 815, 1063 (2006); 38 EL 209, 1111 (2008); 45 WLR 313 (2008); 46 WLR 577 (2010)

 

      195.318

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Person has statutory standing to challenge vesting determination by local government if person either is owner of property that is subject of vesting determination or has timely submitted written evidence, arguments, or comments to public entity concerning vesting determination. Alto v. City of Cannon Beach, 247 Or App 641, 270 P3d 392 (2012)

 

      This section precludes review by Land Use Board of Appeals. Maguire v. Clackamas County, 250 Or App 146, 279 P3d 314 (2012)