2015 ORS 215.060¹
Procedure for action on plan
  • notice
  • hearing

Action by the governing body of a county regarding the plan shall have no legal effect unless the governing body first conducts one or more public hearings on the plan and unless 10 days’ advance public notice of each of the hearings is published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county or, in case the plan as it is to be heard concerns only part of the county, is so published in the territory so concerned and unless a majority of the members of the governing body approves the action. The notice provisions of this section shall not restrict the giving of notice by other means, including mail, radio and television. [Amended by 1963 c.619 §5; 1967 c.589 §1; 1973 c.552 §6]

Notes of Decisions

Contents of notice, published in newspapers ten days prior to hearing on comprehensive plan, reasonably apprised its recipients of geographical scope of proposed ac­tion, in addi­tion to specifying nature of contemplated ac­tion, and was sufficient notice under this sec­tion. Fifth Ave. Corp. v. Washington County, 282 Or 591, 581 P2d 50 (1978)

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

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Sufficiency of notices given under this sec­tion for hearing on urban growth boundary adop­tion where ORS 215.503 (Legislative act by ordinance) became operative before hearing date, (1978) Vol 39, p 366

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.