2017 ORS 215.135¹
Expansion of nonconforming school use in exclusive farm use zone

(1) In addition to and not in lieu of the authority in ORS 215.130 (Application of ordinances and comprehensive plan) to continue, alter, restore or replace a use that has been disallowed by the enactment or amendment of a zoning ordinance or regulation, a use formerly allowed pursuant to ORS 215.213 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in counties that adopted marginal lands system prior to 1993) (1)(a) or 215.283 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in nonmarginal lands counties) (1)(a), as in effect before January 1, 2010, may be expanded subject to:

(a) The requirements of subsection (2) of this section; and

(b) Conditional approval of the county in the manner provided in ORS 215.296 (Standards for approval of certain uses in exclusive farm use zones).

(2) A nonconforming use described in subsection (1) of this section may be expanded under this section if:

(a) The use was established on or before January 1, 2009; and

(b) The expansion occurs on:

(A) The tax lot on which the use was established on or before January 1, 2009; or

(B) A tax lot that is contiguous to the tax lot described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph and that was owned by the applicant on January 1, 2009. [2009 c.850 §14]

Note: 215.135 (Expansion of nonconforming school use in exclusive farm use zone) was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 215 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

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 (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 215, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano215.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
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.