2007 ORS 215.311¹
Parking log trucks in exclusive farm use zones

(1) The limitations on uses of land in exclusive farm use zones described in ORS 215.283 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in nonmarginal lands counties), 215.284 (Dwelling not in conjunction with farm use) and 215.700 (Resource land dwelling policy) to 215.780 (Minimum lot or parcel sizes) and limitations imposed by or adopted pursuant to ORS 197.040 (Duties of commission) do not apply to log truck parking under this section.

(2) The provisions of this section do not affect the eligibility of a zone for special assessment as provided in ORS 308A.050 (Legislative intent) to 308A.128 (Certain district assessments inapplicable to exclusive farm use zone farmland).

(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law except for health and safety provisions, parking no more than seven log trucks shall be allowed in an exclusive farm use zone unless the local government determines that log truck parking on a lot or parcel will:

(a) Force a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use; or

(b) Significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use. [1995 c.799 §1; 1999 c.314 §60; 2001 c.672 §21]

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.