ORS 197.433¹
Development of major motor speedway

(1) On a site approved for development of a major motor speedway, pursuant to an exception to statewide land use planning goals relating to agricultural lands, public facilities and services and urbanization that was acknowledged before September 2, 2005, if the site 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 governing body of Morrow County or its designee may authorize the ancillary development of transient lodging, associated uses and facilities and a speedway theme park that were not previously authorized under subsection (4) of this section:

(a) Without taking further exception to the statewide land use planning goals relating to agricultural lands, public facilities and services and urbanization.

(b) Primarily for the use of users and patrons of the major motor speedway but available, as well, to the general public.

(c) Without regard to the limitations on the size or occupancy of speedway-related and accessory uses and facilities specified in the findings.

(d) Without regard to use limitations specified in section H (10) of the June 21, 2002, findings for a multipurpose recreational facility.

(e) Without regard to the limitation on hours of operation specified in the findings for outdoor recreational facilities.

(2) The major motor speedway authorized in the findings and by this section may be developed:

(a) Without taking further exception to the statewide land use planning goals relating to agricultural lands, public facilities and services and urbanization.

(b) Without regard to the specific size, placement or configuration of the tracks specified in the findings.

(3) Subject to the requirements of ORS 197.610 (Local government notice of proposed amendment or new regulation) to 197.625 (When amendment or new regulation considered acknowledged), notwithstanding the local process for review and approval of a proposal to amend the acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations that is contained in an acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations, the governing body of Morrow County may review and approve a proposal to make the changes to the acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations to allow the uses authorized by this section on the site described in subsection (1) of this section through an expedited local review and approval process in which the final approval of the county may be granted after only one evidentiary hearing.

(4) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, the governing body of Morrow County may approve the development, in conjunction with the development of the major motor speedway, but prior to the establishment of sanctioned, premier, high speed automobile racing at the major motor speedway, of up to 250 road course garage units, 100 units of transient lodging with an associated restaurant and public facilities necessary to support those uses.

(5) Impacts of a speedway destination site, adjacent residential development and transient lodging on the transportation system must be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Department of Transportation at the time of development. [2005 c.842 §2; 2007 c.819 §2]

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 (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)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 197—Comprehensive Land Use Planning Coordination, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­197.­html (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 197, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­197ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
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. Currency Information