ORS 215.417¹
Time to act under certain approved permits
  • extension

(1) If a permit is approved under ORS 215.416 (Permit application) for a proposed residential development on agricultural or forest land outside of an urban growth boundary under ORS 215.010 (Definitions) to 215.293 (Dwelling in exclusive farm use or forest zone) or 215.317 (Permitted uses on marginal land) to 215.438 (Transmission towers) or under county legislation or regulation, the permit shall be valid for four years.

(2) An extension of a permit described in subsection (1) of this section shall be valid for two years.

(3) For the purposes of this section, "residential development" only includes the dwellings provided for under ORS 215.213 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in counties that adopted marginal lands system prior to 1993) (1)(t), (3) and (4), 215.283 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in nonmarginal lands counties) (1)(s), 215.284 (Dwelling not in conjunction with farm use), 215.317 (Permitted uses on marginal land), 215.705 (Dwellings in farm or forest zone) (1) to (3), 215.720 (Criteria for forestland dwelling under ORS 215.705), 215.740 (Large tract forestland dwelling), 215.750 (Alternative forestland dwellings) and 215.755 (Other forestland dwellings) (1) and (3). [2001 c.532 §2]

Notes of Decisions

Peti­tioner who at­tempted to ap­peal county planning director's decision to county planning com­mis­sion, where no local ap­peal was provided in county ordinance, could not challenge pro­ce­dures or merits of director's decision in ap­peal to LUBA from com­mis­sioner's refusal to consider matter, after failing to bring direct timely ap­peal to LUBA from first decision. Smith v. Douglas County, 98 Or App 379, 780 P2d 232 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 395 (1974)

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/­Archive/­2007ors215.­pdf (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. Currency Information