2017 ORS 197.432¹
Definitions for ORS 197.431 to 197.434

As used in ORS 197.431 (Expansion of speedway destination site) to 197.434 (Traffic impacts of speedway destination):

(1) “Associated uses and facilities” means:

(a) Speedway-related and accessory uses and facilities identified in the findings; and

(b) Road course garage units.

(2) “Findings” means the Morrow County Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, dated June 21, 2002, and September 24, 2003, in the matter of an application by the Port of Morrow for comprehensive plan and zoning amendments to allow the siting of a speedway and related facilities at the Port of Morrow.

(3) “Major motor speedway” means one or more race tracks including, at a minimum:

(a) An asphalt oval super speedway of at least seven-eighths mile with grandstand seating capacity of 20,000 or more; or

(b) An asphalt road course of at least two miles with grandstand seating capacity of 20,000 or more.

(4) “Premier, high speed automobile racing” means automobile racing that is projected to attract 20,000 or more spectators to a race.

(5) “Road course garage unit” means a facility consisting of garages and residential spaces not intended for overnight use.

(6) “Sanctioned” means subject to contractual agreements with one or more major professional automobile racing organizations that may include, but are not limited to:

(a) Champ Car;

(b) Indy Racing League (IRL);

(c) National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. (NASCAR);

(d) World of Outlaws (WoO);

(e) National Hot Rod Association (NHRA);

(f) International Hot Rod Association (IHRA);

(g) Sports Car Club of America (SCCA);

(h) Grand American Road Racing Association (Grand Am);

(i) Automobile Club de l’Ouest (American Le Mans); and

(j) Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA).

(7) “Speedway destination resort” means a destination resort within the boundaries of the speedway destination site that is approved under ORS 197.431 (Expansion of speedway destination site) and 197.435 (Definitions for ORS 197.435 to 197.467) to 197.467 (Conservation easement to protect resource site).

(8) “Speedway destination site” means a site containing a major motor speedway, associated uses and facilities and speedway supporting uses and facilities.

(9) “Speedway supporting uses and facilities” means transient lodging, restaurants, meeting facilities and other commercial uses limited to the types and levels of use necessary to meet the needs of users and patrons of a major motor speedway.

(10) “Speedway theme park” means an amusement park associated with a major motor speedway and based on a speedway theme that:

(a) Is developed and operated primarily for the purpose of entertaining users and patrons of the major motor speedway, but available, as well, to the general public; and

(b) Consists of a collection of entertainment uses and facilities commonly associated with outdoor fairs and theme parks:

(A) Including mechanical rides, games, go-cart tracks, miniature golf courses, BMX bicycle tracks, water parks and athletic fields; and

(B) Not including cinemas, bowling alleys, theaters, concert halls or similar recreational or entertainment uses commonly allowed inside urban growth boundaries.

(11) “Transient lodging” means a unit consisting of a room or a suite of rooms that is available for a period of occupancy that typically does not exceed 30 days and for which the lodging operator:

(a) Charges on a daily basis and does not collect more than six days in advance; and

(b) Provides maid and linen service daily or every two days as part of the regularly charged cost of occupancy. [2005 c.842 §1; 2007 c.819 §1]

Note: See note under 197.431 (Expansion of speedway destination site).

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.