2015 ORS 215.030¹
Membership of planning commission

(1) The county planning commission shall consist of five, seven or nine members appointed by the governing body for four-year terms, or until their respective successors are appointed and qualified; provided that in the first instance the terms of the initial members shall be staggered for one, two, three and four years.

(2) A commission member may be removed by the governing body, after hearing, for misconduct or nonperformance of duty.

(3) Any vacancy on the commission shall be filled by the governing body for the unexpired term.

(4) Members of the commission shall serve without compensation other than reimbursement for duly authorized expenses.

(5) Members of a commission shall be residents of the various geographic areas of the county. No more than two voting members shall be engaged principally in the buying, selling or developing of real estate for profit, as individuals, or be members of any partnership or officers or employees of any corporation that is engaged principally in the buying, selling or developing of real estate for profit. No more than two voting members shall be engaged in the same kind of occupation, business, trade or profession.

(6) The governing body may designate one or more officers of the county to be nonvoting members of the commission.

(7) Except for subsection (5) of this section, the governing body may provide by ordinance for alternative rules to those specified in this section. [Amended by 1963 c.619 §2; 1973 c.552 §2; 1977 c.766 §1]

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Membership require­ments for county planning com­mis­sions; effect of 1973 law on currently constituted planning com­mis­sions, (1973) Vol 36, p 750; makeup of county planning com­mis­sion, (1975) Vol 37, p 979; guide­lines for determining restric­tions on membership of county planning com­mis­sions, (1978) Vol 38, p 2034; pro­vi­sion in non-home rule county by initiative peti­tion that members of planning com­mis­sion be elected by a popular vote, (1978) Vol 39, p 7

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Non "home rule" county courts or com­mis­sions general legislative powers, (1974) Vol 36, p 1070

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 ([former] 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/­ors215.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 215, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano215.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
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.