2015 ORS 215.218¹
Certain private hunting preserves not subject to land use approval
  • complaint procedures

(1) A person who owns a private hunting preserve that was licensed under ORS 497.248 (Private hunting preserve license) on or before July 28, 2003, and that has not been submitted to the appropriate local governing body or its designee for land use approval may continue to operate the hunting preserve without local land use approval. The hunting preserve may include one sport clay station that existed on July 28, 2003, is used during the hunting season only for shooting practice in conjunction with hunting and is subordinate to the use of the land as a hunting preserve.

(2) A person engaged in farm or forest practices on lands devoted to farm or forest use may file a complaint with the local governing body or its designee, alleging that the operation of the hunting preserve has:

(a)(A) Forced a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use; or

(B) Significantly increased the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use; and

(b) Adversely affected the complainant.

(3) The local governing body or its designee shall process a complaint filed under this section in the manner described in ORS 215.296 (Standards for approval of certain uses in exclusive farm use zones) (4) to (7). [2003 c.616 §2]

Note: 215.218 (Certain private hunting preserves not subject to land use approval) 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

Effect of constitu­tional pro­vi­sion requiring pay­ments based on govern­ment regula­tions restricting use of prop­erty, (2001) Vol 49, p 284

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.