2015 ORS 215.050¹
Comprehensive planning, zoning and subdivision ordinances
  • copies available

(1) Except as provided in ORS 527.722 (Restrictions on local government adoption of rules regulating forest operations), the county governing body shall adopt and may from time to time revise a comprehensive plan and zoning, subdivision and other ordinances applicable to all of the land in the county. The plan and related ordinances may be adopted and revised part by part or by geographic area.

(2) Zoning, subdivision or other ordinances or regulations and any revisions or amendments thereof shall be designed to implement the adopted county comprehensive plan.

(3) A county shall maintain copies of its comprehensive plan and land use regulations, as defined in ORS 197.015 (Definitions for ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and ORS 197A.300 to 197A.325), for sale to the public at a charge not to exceed the cost of copying and assembling the material. [Amended by 1955 c.439 §2; 1963 c.619 §3; 1973 c.552 §4; 1977 c.766 §2; 1981 c.748 §41; 1987 c.919 §5; 1991 c.363 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Require­ment of substantial change is not met by proof that there is need for use which would be permitted by amend­ment. Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., 7 Or App 176, 489 P2d 693 (1971), aff'd 264 Or 574, 507 P2d 23 (1973)

Subsequent crea­tion of addi­tional zoning classifica­tion by itself does not set aside rules governing validity of transfer, at some sub­se­quent date, of single piece of prop­erty from es­tab­lished zone to zone sub­se­quently created. Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., 7 Or App 176, 489 P2d 693 (1971), aff'd 264 Or 574, 507 P2d 23 (1973)

When request for zone change is made, party seeking change must show that it is in conformance with comprehensive plan as imple­mented by ordinance, that there is a public need for the kind of change in ques­tion, and that need is best met by proposal under considera­tion. Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., 264 Or 574, 507 P2d 23 (1973)

Orders by local governing bodies changing zoning of particular prop­erty are in nature of judicial rather than legislative acts, and so are not presumptively valid. Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., 264 Or 574, 507 P2d 23 (1973)

Fasano v. Washington County Comm., 264 Or 574, 507 P2d 23 (1973), requires quasi-judicial hearing when local governing body is considering rezoning of relatively small amount of prop­erty. Culver v. Dagg, 20 Or App 647, 532 P2d 1127 (1975), Sup Ct review denied

Area being rezoned was so large, and owners affected so numerous, there was no significant danger of undue influence by special private economic interests, and rezoning did not require judicial-type hearing. Culver v. Dagg, 20 Or App 647, 532 P2d 1127 (1975), Sup Ct review denied

An amend­ment of a comprehensive plan changing the permitted use of only a specific small parcel of land is "judicial" rather than "legislative" in nature and must be preceded by a judicial-type hearing. Marggi v. Ruecker, 20 Or App 669, 533 P2d 1372 (1975), Sup Ct review denied

the Scope of Judicial Review of Zoning Agency Decisions Is Limited to Examina­tion of the Administrative Record to Ascertain Whether

1) the proper pro­ce­dures were followed; 2) the relevant factors were considered by the agency; and 3) there was reliable, probative and substantial evidence to support the decision of the agency. Dickinson v. Bd. of County Commrs., 21 Or App 98, 533 P2d 1395 (1975)

Planning com­mis­sion ac­tion was not necessary prerequisite to considera­tion by Board of Commissioners of proposed amend­ments. Sunnyside Neighborhood v. Clackamas County Commissioners, 280 Or 3, 569 P2d 1063 (1977)

This sec­tion did not require county governing body to follow strict ordinance formalities in adop­tion of comprehensive plan, and thus plan adopted by resolu­tion was valid where such pro­ce­dure was permissible under county charter. Fifth Ave. Corp. v. Washington County, 282 Or 591, 581 P2d 50 (1978)

Adop­tion of comprehensive plan by resolu­tion, etc., is subject to referendum since it is legislative in nature, notwithstanding county charter pro­vi­sions limiting referendum to ordinances. Fifth Ave. Corp. v. Washington County, 282 Or 591, 581 P2d 50 (1978)

Because this sec­tion requires governing body adop­tion of plan amend­ments whether or not governing body review is sought, failure by peti­tioners to exhaust remedies did not excuse governing body of statutory responsibility nor divest LUBA of jurisdic­tion to review dismissal of ap­peal from planning com­mis­sion. Colwell v. Washington Co., 79 Or App 82, 718 P2d 747 (1986), Sup Ct review denied

County pro­ce­dures purporting to allow planning com­mis­sion rather than governing body to adopt amend­ment to comprehensive plan violate this sec­tion. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wash. Co., 80 Or App 34, 720 P2d 1316 (1986), Sup Ct review denied

Duties imposed on county do not create basis for tort claim upon breach of duty. SFG Income Fund, LP v. May, 189 Or App 269, 75 P3d 470 (2003)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., applica­tion to county governing bodies and planning com­mis­sions, (1974) Vol 36, p 960; referendum power against a county "comprehensive plan" or a zoning ordinance, (1974) Vol 36, p 1044

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 99 (1973); 68 OLR 983 (1989)

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.