2007 ORS 215.243¹
Agricultural land use policy

The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that:

(1) Open land used for agricultural use is an efficient means of conserving natural resources that constitute an important physical, social, aesthetic and economic asset to all of the people of this state, whether living in rural, urban or metropolitan areas of the state.

(2) The preservation of a maximum amount of the limited supply of agricultural land is necessary to the conservation of the state’s economic resources and the preservation of such land in large blocks is necessary in maintaining the agricultural economy of the state and for the assurance of adequate, healthful and nutritious food for the people of this state and nation.

(3) Expansion of urban development into rural areas is a matter of public concern because of the unnecessary increases in costs of community services, conflicts between farm and urban activities and the loss of open space and natural beauty around urban centers occurring as the result of such expansion.

(4) Exclusive farm use zoning as provided by law, substantially limits alternatives to the use of rural land and, with the importance of rural lands to the public, justifies incentives and privileges offered to encourage owners of rural lands to hold such lands in exclusive farm use zones. [1973 c.503 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Where substantial evidence supported county com­mis­sioners' finding that proposed subdivision of parcel of agricultural land would promote more intensive farming and greater overall agricultural produc­tion than single parcel, state wide planning goal 3 did not require that agricultural lands be used for full-time farming where such farms were not economically viable and where smaller, part-time farms were consistent with existing agricultural enterprise in area. Meeker v. Board of Commissioners, 36 Or App 699, 585 P2d 1138 (1978), aff'd 287 Or 665, 601 P2d 804 (1979)

This sec­tion is clearly aimed at preserva­tion of existing commercial farming opera­tions. 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 this sec­tion order approving subdivision was legally insufficient under ORS 215.213 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in counties that adopted marginal lands system prior to 1993). Still v. Bd. of County Commrs of Marion Co., 42 Or App 115, 600 P2d 433 (1979), Sup Ct review denied

General unsuitability for farm use must be based on entire tract, not only on part on which dwelling would be located. Smith v. Clackamas County, 103 Or App 370, 797 P2d 1058 (1990), aff'd 313 Or 519, 836 P2d 716 (1992)

Statute is not exclusive listing of public purposes that exclusive farm use zoning statutes are adopted to further. Nelson v. Benton County, 115 Or App 453, 839 P2d 233 (1992)

Uses permitted condi­tionally under either ORS 215.213 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in counties that adopted marginal lands system prior to 1993) or 215.283 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in nonmarginal lands counties) cannot be absolutely prohibited by this sec­tion, rather, effect must be given to both statutory pro­vi­sions, if possible. Clark v. Jackson County, 313 Or 508, 836 P2d 710 (1992)

Law Review Cita­tions

53 OLR 123 (1974); 36 WLR 441 (2000)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Effect of constitu­tional pro­vi­sion requiring pay­ments based on govern­ment regula­tions restricting use of prop­erty, (2001) Vol 49, p 284

Chapter 215

Notes of Decisions

Published notice is adequate if prop­erty owners can reasonably ascertain that prop­erty in which they hold interest may be affected. Clackamas County v. Emmert, 14 Or App 493, 513 P2d 532 (1973), Sup Ct review denied

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

Where county had not yet adopted comprehensive plan but had zoned certain por­tions "primarily agricultural," county had not enacted adequate interim measures to protect its agricultural land until exclusive farm use zoning was completed. Columbia County v. LCDC, 44 Or App 749, 606 P2d 1184 (1980)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., applica­tion to county governing bodies and planning com­mis­sions, (1974) Vol 36, p 960; binding effect on govern­mental agencies of the adop­tion of interim Willamette River Greenway boundaries, (1975) Vol 37, p 894

Law Review Cita­tions

36 EL 25 (2006)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 215—County Planning; Zoning; Housing Codes, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­215.­html (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 215, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­215ano.­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.