ORS 215.110¹
Recommendations for implementation of comprehensive plan
  • enactment of ordinances
  • referral
  • retroactivity

(1) A planning commission may recommend to the governing body ordinances intended to implement part or all of the comprehensive plan. The ordinances may provide, among other things, for:

(a) Zoning;

(b) Official maps showing the location and dimensions of, and the degree of permitted access to, existing and proposed thoroughfares, easements and property needed for public purposes;

(c) Preservation of the integrity of the maps by controls over construction, by making official maps parts of county deed records, and by other action not violative of private property rights;

(d) Conservation of the natural resources of the county;

(e) Controlling subdivision and partitioning of land;

(f) Renaming public thoroughfares;

(g) Protecting and assuring access to incident solar energy;

(h) Protecting and assuring access to wind for potential electrical generation or mechanical application; and

(i) Numbering property.

(2) The governing body may enact, amend or repeal ordinances to assist in carrying out a comprehensive plan. If an ordinance is recommended by a planning commission, the governing body may make any amendments to the recommendation required in the public interest. If an ordinance is initiated by the governing body, it shall, prior to enactment, request a report and recommendation regarding the ordinance from the planning commission, if one exists, and allow a reasonable time for submission of the report and recommendation.

(3) The governing body may refer to the electors of the county for their approval or rejection an ordinance or amendments thereto for which this section provides. If only a part of the county is affected, the ordinance or amendment may be referred to that part only.

(4) An ordinance enacted by authority of this section may prescribe fees and appeal procedures necessary or convenient for carrying out the purposes of the ordinance.

(5) An ordinance enacted by authority of this section may prescribe limitations designed to encourage and protect the installation and use of solar and wind energy systems.

(6) No retroactive ordinance shall be enacted under the provisions of this section. [Amended by 1963 c.619 §7; 1973 c.696 §22; 1975 c.153 §2; 1977 c.766 §4; 1979 c.671 §2; 1981 c.590 §7]

Notes of Decisions

Where adop­tion of comprehensive plan was initiated by planning com­mis­sion, Board of Commissioners was not re­quired to request planning com­mis­sion to provide report and recommenda­tions pursuant to this sec­tion. Fifth Ave. Corp. v. Washington County, 282 Or 591, 581 P2d 50 (1978)

Completed Cita­tions

Follmer v. County of Lane, 5 Or App 185, 480 P2d 722, 486 P2d 1312 (1971), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Authority of county com­mis­sioners to review decisions of the county sanitarian, (1973) Vol 36, p 571; effect of county zoning ordinances on approved subdivision plat, (1973) Vol 36, p 702; referendum power against a county “comprehensive plan” or a zoning ordinance, (1974) Vol 36, p 1044

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 368 (1974)

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 (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 215, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano215.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
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