Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in counties that adopted marginal lands system prior to 1993
- rules
Source:
Section 215.213 — Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in counties that adopted marginal lands system prior to 1993; rules, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors215.html
.
Notes of Decisions
Single-family residence could not, as matter of law, be permitted on five-acre parcel zoned for farm use where subject property was presently in agricultural use, generally suitable for such use, and surrounded by operating farms. Rutherford v. Armstrong, 31 Or App 1319, 572 P2d 1331 (1977), Sup Ct review denied
Under variance provisions of this section, land included within exclusive farm use zone pursuant to LCDC goal may be used for certain non-farm purposes. Meyer v. Lord, 37 Or App 59, 586 P2d 367 (1978)
Where county board of commissioners approved subdivision but did not address policy ramifications of ORS 215.243, order approving subdivision was legally insufficient. Still v. Bd. of County Commrs of Marion Co., 42 Or App 115, 600 P2d 433 (1979), Sup Ct review denied
Granting of conditional use permit to construct sewage treatment facility on undersized parcel in farm-residential use zone was consistent with this section. Menges v. Bd. of Comm., 44 Or App 603, 606 P2d 681 (1980), as modified by 45 Or App 797, 609 P2d 847 (1980), aff’d 290 Or 251, 621 P2d 562 (1980)
Board’s approval of minor partition of agricultural land was improper where: (1) no finding was made that proposed dwellings would not materially alter stability of overall land use pattern in area and; (2) board’s finding that land was generally unsuitable for production of farm crops and livestock was not supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence. Miles v. Bd. of Comm. of Clackamas County, 48 Or App 951, 618 P2d 986 (1980)
Since former version of this section provided that dwellings provided in conjunction with farm use were nonfarm uses, half-acre homesite on 111 acre tract zone Exclusive Farm Use was properly valued as homesite rather than farmland. Chapin v. Dept. of Revenue, 290 Or 931, 627 P2d 480 (1981)
Under this section, county decision to issue building permit for construction of transmission tower more than 200 feet high on land designated for exclusive farm use was land use decision and appeal from issuance of permit was within exclusive jurisdiction of LUBA. Wright v. KECH-TV, 300 Or 139, 707 P2d 1232 (1985)
Provision in county ordinance permitting “utility facilities necessary for public service” in agricultural zones means it must be necessary to place facility in zone. McCaw Communications, Inc. v. Marion County, 96 Or App 552, 773 P2d 779 (1989)
Defendant’s kennel operations did not become nonconforming use until county enacted ordinance to prohibit kennel operations in agricultural zone, and were permitted under earlier zoning ordinances because they come within definition of farm use. Linn County v. Hickey, 98 Or App 100, 778 P2d 509 (1989)
This section, which provides that churches may be allowed as permitted uses in Exclusive Farm Use zone does not preclude counties from regulating church uses or making them conditional. Kola Tepee, Inc. v. Marion County, 99 Or App 481, 782 P2d 955 (1989), Sup Ct review denied
Boarding of horses for profit is conditional use permitted in EFU zone but is not farm use. Fitzwater v. Dept. of Rev., 12 OTR 48 (1991)
Uses permitted conditionally under this section and ORS 215.283 cannot be absolutely prohibited by ORS 215.243, rather, when possible, effect must be given to both statutory provisions. Clark v. Jackson County, 313 Or 508, 836 P2d 710 (1992)
Processing of aggregate that does not include final processing into asphalt or portland cement cannot qualify under provision permitting processing of other mineral resources and subsurface resources. McKay Creek Valley v. Washington County, 122 Or App 59, 857 P2d 167 (1993)
Uses that “may be permitted” in exclusive farm use zone are permitted as of right and are not subject to additional local government restriction. Brentmar v. Jackson County, 321 Or 481, 900 P2d 1030 (1995)
Uses that may be established “subject to ORS 215.296” are allowable uses subject to approval of local governing body. Brentmar v. Jackson County, 321 Or 481, 900 P2d 1030 (1995)
Where language describing use permitted as of right employs inexact or delegative terms to describe limitations, agency may interpret limits by rule. Nichols v. Clackamas County, 146 Or App 25, 932 P2d 1185 (1997), Sup Ct review denied
Invalidation of rules inconsistent with statutes listed in ORS 215.304 as of March 1, 1994, is specifically directed to preventing replacement of marginal lands designation and does not otherwise limit LCDC authority to restrict permissible uses of exclusive farm use lands within marginal lands counties. Lane County v. LCDC, 325 Or 569, 942 P2d 278 (1997)
Buildings established for listed permitted uses are subject to restrictions and requirements of general application. Josephine County v. Garnier, 163 Or App 333, 987 P2d 1263 (1999)
Separate showing of compliance with, or exception to, state land use planning goal dealing with urbanization is not required in order to allow uses in exclusive farm use zone that are urban in nature but of kinds specifically allowed by statute. Jackson County Citizens’ League v. Jackson County, 171 Or App 149, 15 P3d 42 (2000)
Attorney General Opinions
Authority of state over use of land along Willamette River under Greenway Law, (1975) Vol 37, p 515; permissibility of radio transmission tower as “utility facility necessary for public service” in area zoned for exclusive farm use, (1981) Vol 42, p 77
Law Review Citations
19 EL 63 (1988); 26 WLR 398 (1990); 34 WLR 81 (1998); 77 OLR 993 (1998); 36 WLR 441 (2000); 36 EL 25 (2006); 49 WLR 411 (2013)