2017 ORS 197.431¹
Expansion of speedway destination site

(1) If the site described in ORS 197.433 (Development of major motor speedway) (1) is developed and used as a major motor speedway with sanctioned, premier, high speed automobile racing within five years after the county issues a certificate of occupancy for the major motor speedway, the site may be expanded to include additional lands that are adjacent to the site if the additional lands are:

(a) Located in Morrow County within township 4 north, range 24 east of the Willamette Meridian, sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 and the northeast quarter section of section 27; and

(b) Approved as part of a master plan as provided in this section.

(2) After the major motor speedway is developed and used for sanctioned, premier, high speed automobile racing, the governing body of Morrow County may authorize inclusion of the following uses on the speedway destination site that are proposed in a master plan:

(a) Speedway supporting uses and facilities.

(b) Associated uses and facilities not previously authorized pursuant to ORS 197.433 (Development of major motor speedway) (4).

(c) A speedway theme park not previously authorized pursuant to ORS 197.433 (Development of major motor speedway) (4).

(d) A speedway destination resort, if the speedway destination resort is approved by Morrow County, subject to the requirements of ORS 197.435 (Definitions for ORS 197.435 to 197.467) to 197.467 (Conservation easement to protect resource site), except that the proposed speedway destination resort site need not be included on a map of eligible lands for destination resorts within the county otherwise required under ORS 197.455 (Siting of destination resorts), but the proposed speedway destination resort site must meet the siting criteria of ORS 197.455 (Siting of destination resorts).

(3) The Port of Morrow or its designee may apply to the governing body of Morrow County for approval to expand the site described in ORS 197.433 (Development of major motor speedway) (1) or to amend the uses allowed on the speedway destination site by submission of a master plan as provided in this section. A master plan must:

(a) Set forth the discretionary approvals, if any, required for completion of the development specified in the plan;

(b) Identify the conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements for discretionary approvals;

(c) Establish a process for amending the plan;

(d) If the proposed development of the speedway destination site is to be constructed in phases, specify the dates on which each phase of phased construction is projected to begin and end;

(e) Except as otherwise provided in this section, comply with the Morrow County comprehensive plan and land use regulations in existence at the time of the application; and

(f) Identify proposed comprehensive plan amendments or zone changes that are necessary to authorize development of a speedway destination site and uses proposed as part of the plan.

(4) The governing body of Morrow County shall review a master plan and proposed changes to the acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations that are necessary to implement a proposed master plan as provided in ORS 197.610 (Submission of proposed comprehensive plan or land use regulation changes to Department of Land Conservation and Development) to 197.625 (Acknowledgment of comprehensive plan or land use regulation changes) and may approve the master plan and the proposed changes if at the time of approval:

(a) The major motor speedway is used for sanctioned, premier, high speed automobile racing; and

(b) The master plan conforms to the requirements of this section and other applicable laws and specifies:

(A) The duration and phasing of development proposed by the plan.

(B) A description, including location, of the proposed uses on the site, including:

(i) The proposed changes to the major motor speedway;

(ii) The proposed associated uses and facilities;

(iii) The proposed speedway supporting uses and facilities;

(iv) A speedway destination resort;

(v) A speedway theme park;

(vi) Sewage works for the speedway destination site, including all facilities necessary for collecting, pumping, treating and disposing of sewage;

(vii) Drainage works for the speedway destination site, including facilities necessary for collecting, pumping and disposing of storm and surface water;

(viii) Water supply works and service for the speedway destination site, including the facilities necessary for tapping natural sources of domestic and industrial water, treating and protecting the quality of the water and transmitting it to the site;

(ix) Public parks and recreation facilities, including land and facilities that are necessary for administering and maintaining the public parks, recreation facilities and recreation services;

(x) Public transportation, including public depots, public parking, storage and maintenance facilities and other equipment necessary for the transportation of users and patrons of the major motor speedway and their personal property; and

(xi) Public and private roads.

(C) A description, including location, of additional uses that are not specified in this section, if the additional uses are proposed and approved in accordance with applicable laws, statewide land use planning goals and the provisions of the comprehensive plan and land use regulations implementing the comprehensive plan.

(D) The density and intensity of proposed uses.

(E) A schedule and plan for obtaining local government review of permits and other authorizations required for the development of allowed uses.

(F) The parties responsible for providing speedway destination site infrastructure and services. [2007 c.819 §4]

Note: 197.431 (Expansion of speedway destination site) to 197.434 (Traffic impacts of speedway destination) were enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but were not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 197 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

Chapter 197

Notes of Decisions

A comprehensive plan, although denominated a “resolu­tion,” 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)

Procedural require­ments of the state-wide planning goals adopted by the Land Conserva­tion and Develop­ment Commission are not applicable to ordinances adopted before the effective date of the goals. Schmidt v. Land Conserva­tion and Develop­ment Comm., 29 Or App 665, 564 P2d 1090 (1977)

This chapter, es­tab­lishing LCDC and granting it authority to es­tab­lish state-wide land use planning goals, does not unconstitu­tionally delegate legislative power where both standards (ORS chapter 215) and safeguards ([former] ORS 197.310) exist. Meyer v. Lord, 37 Or App 59, 586 P2d 367 (1978)

Where county’s comprehensive plan and land use regula­tions had not been acknowledged by LCDC, it was proper for county to apply state-wide planning standards directly to individual request for parti­tion. Alexanderson v. Polk County Commissioners, 289 Or 427, 616 P2d 459 (1980)

Issuance of a building permit was a “land conserva­tion and develop­ment ac­tion” where county had no acknowledged comprehensive plan, land was not zoned and no pre­vi­ous land use decision had been made re­gard­ing the land. Columbia Hills v. LCDC, 50 Or App 483, 624 P2d 157 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Nothing in this chapter grants the Land Conserva­tion and Develop­ment Depart­ment authority to challenge local land use decisions made after comprehensive plan acknowledg­ment. Ochoco Const. v. LCDC, 295 Or 422, 667 P2d 499 (1983)

LCDC has authority in periodic review process to require local govern­ment to add specific language or pro­vi­sions to its land use legisla­tion to assure compliance with statewide goals and LCDC rules. Oregonians in Ac­tion v. LCDC, 121 Or App 497, 854 P2d 1010 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Authority of a land conserva­tion and develop­ment com­mis­sion to bind the state in an interstate compact or agree­ment, (1973) Vol 36, p 361; applica­tion of Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., (1974) Vol 36, p 960; state-wide planning goal in conjunc­tion with interim Willamette River Greenway boundaries, (1975) Vol 37, p 894; binding effect on govern­mental agencies of the adop­tion of interim Willamette River Greenway boundaries, (1975) Vol 37, p 894; applica­tion to state agencies, (1976) Vol 37, p 1129; preexisting ordinances during the interim imple­menting stage, (1976) Vol 37, p 1329; constitu­tionality of delega­tion to LCDC of authority to prescribe and enforce statewide planning goals, (1977) Vol 38, p 1130; effect of situa­tion where similar peti­tion is filed before both com­mis­sion and a court, (1977) Vol 38, p 1268; considera­tion of availability of public school facilities in determina­tion of whether to approve subdivision, (1978) Vol 38, p 1956

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 99 (1973); 53 OLR 129 (1974); 5 EL 673 (1975); 54 OLR 203-223 (1975); 56 OLR 444 (1977); 18 WLR 49 (1982); 61 OLR 351 (1982); 20 WLR 764 (1984); 14 EL 661, 693, 713, 779, 843 (1984); 25 WLR 259 (1989); 31 WLR 147, 449, 817 (1995); 36 EL 25 (2006); 49 WLR 411 (2013)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 197—Comprehensive Land Use Planning, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors197.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 197, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano197.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.