ORS 215.255¹
Farm product processing facility
  • conditions

(1) As used in this section:

(a) “Biofuel” has the meaning given that term in ORS 315.141 (Biomass production or collection).

(b) “Facility for the processing of farm products” means a facility for:

(A) Processing farm crops, including the production of biofuel, if at least one-quarter of the farm crops come from the farm operation containing the facility; or

(B) Slaughtering, processing or selling poultry or poultry products from the farm operation containing the facility and consistent with the licensing exemption for a person under ORS 603.038 (Licensing exemption for certain poultry processors) (2).

(c) “Processing area” means the floor area of a building dedicated to farm product processing. “Processing area” does not include the floor area designated for preparation, storage or other farm use.

(2) A county may allow a facility for the processing of farm products as a permitted use under ORS 215.213 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in counties that adopted marginal lands system prior to 1993) (1)(u) and ORS 215.283 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in nonmarginal lands counties) (1)(r) on land zoned for exclusive farm use, only if the facility:

(a) Uses less than 10,000 square feet for its processing area and complies with all applicable siting standards; or

(b) Notwithstanding any applicable siting standard, uses less than 2,500 square feet for its processing area.

(3) A county may not apply siting standards in a manner that prohibits the siting of a facility for the processing of farm products under subsection (2)(a) of this section. [2019 c.410 §2]

Note: 215.255 (Farm product processing facility) was added to and made a part of ORS chapter 215 by legislative action but was not added to any smaller series therein. 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 (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