Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in nonmarginal lands counties
- rules
Source:
Section 215.283 — Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in nonmarginal lands counties; rules, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors215.html
.
Notes of Decisions
Accessory dwelling for farmer’s relative whose assistance in managing farm was required by farmer could be permitted if farmer remained significantly involved in farm operations although relative assumed primary responsibility for managing farm. Hooper v. Clackamas County, 87 Or App 167, 741 P2d 921 (1987), Sup Ct review denied
Defendant’s kennel operations did not become nonconforming use until county enacted ordinance to prohibit kennel operations in agricultural zone, and were permitted under earlier zoning ordinances because they come within definition of farm use. Linn County v. Hickey, 98 Or App 100, 778 P2d 509 (1989)
Winery with tasting room and related retail activity constitutes commercial activity in conjunction with farm use in form of vineyard. Craven v. Jackson County, 308 Or 281, 779 P2d 1011 (1989); Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County, 255 Or App 636, 298 P3d 586 (2013)
For purpose of determining whether accessory dwelling for farmer’s relative is permissible, questions of whether farm owner is farm operator and whether owner requires relative’s assistance in conducting farm operations are inseparable, and should not be treated as independent questions. Kenagy v. Benton County, 112 Or App 17, 827 P2d 1047 (1992)
Farm owner’s involvement with farming operations on leased portions of property combined with owner’s past, present and planned expanded uses on unleased part of property bring owner within this statute. Kenagy v. Benton County, 115 Or App 131, 838 P2d 1076 (1992), Sup Ct review denied
Proposed activities on farm property is basis for determining whether relative’s assistance is required. Kenagy v. Benton County, 115 Or App 131, 838 P2d 1076 (1992), Sup Ct review denied
Uses permitted conditionally under this section and ORS 215.213 cannot be absolutely prohibited by ORS 215.243, rather, when possible, effect must be given to both statutory provisions. Clark v. Jackson County, 313 Or 508, 836 P2d 710 (1992)
Uses that “may be permitted” in exclusive farm use zone are uses as of right not subject to additional local government restriction. Brentmar v. Jackson County, 321 Or 481, 900 P2d 1030 (1995)
Uses that may be established “subject to ORS 215.296” are allowable uses subject to approval of local governing body. Brentmar v. Jackson County, 321 Or 481, 900 P2d 1030 (1995)
Where language describing use permitted as of right employs inexact or delegative terms to describe limitations, agency may interpret limits by rule. Nichols v. Clackamas County, 146 Or App 25, 932 P2d 1185 (1997), Sup Ct review denied
Administrative rules governing high-value farmland are not subordinate to statutes governing permissive uses for exclusive farm use zones in nonmarginal land counties. Marquam Farms Corp. v. Multnomah County, 147 Or App 368, 936 P2d 990 (1997)
Buildings established for listed permitted uses are subject to restrictions and requirements of general application. Josephine County v. Garnier, 163 Or App 333, 987 P2d 1263 (1999)
Requirement that utility facility be “necessary” for provision of service refers only to need to site facility in exclusive farm use zone instead of nonfarmland site, not to selection of facility as means of providing service. Dayton Prairie Water Association v. Yamhill County, 170 Or App 6, 11 P3d 671 (2000)
Separate showing of compliance with, or exception to, state land use planning goal dealing with urbanization is not required in order to allow uses in exclusive farm use zone that are urban in nature but of kinds specifically allowed by statute. Jackson County Citizens’ League v. Jackson County, 171 Or App 149, 15 P3d 42 (2000)
“Public or private school” is restrictive term that does not include broad range of places of learning. Warburton v. Harney County, 174 Or App 322, 25 P3d 978 (2001), Sup Ct review denied
“Utility facility” does not include project or site where critical function or functions of utility service are accomplished only by naturally occurring processes. Cox v. Polk County, 174 Or App 332, 25 P3d 970 (2001), Sup Ct review denied
Fire service facility has purpose of “providing rural fire protection services” if predominant area served by facility is rural. Keicher v. Clackamas County, 175 Or App 633, 29 P3d 1155 (2001)
Provision of emergency medical services and training is within statutory authorization for facilities providing rural fire protection services. Keicher v. Clackamas County, 175 Or App 633, 29 P3d 1155 (2001)
“Subsurface of public roads and highways” includes entire right-of-way within which thoroughfare has been constructed, not merely hard surface on which traffic travels. Friends of Parrett Mountain v. Northwest Natural Gas Co., 336 Or 93, 79 P3d 869 (2003)
Enactment of ORS 215.452 and 2010 changes to that statute do not preclude wineries from being established, subject to approval of governing body, in exclusive farm use zone if winery is operated in conjunction with farm use. Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County, 255 Or App 636, 298 P3d 586 (2013)
Commercial activity is operated conjunction with farm use if commercial activity reinforces profitability of farm operations and strengthens likelihood that farm use will continue. Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County, 255 Or App 636, 298 P3d 586 (2013)
Promotional and fee-based activities that take place outside farm stand structure are permitted in area zoned for exclusive farm use and include outdoor farm-to-plate dinners. Greenfield v. Multnomah County, 259 Or App 687, 317 P3d 274 (2013)
“Structures” means something built or constructed for permanent or temporary use or occupancy by members of public and use and design limitations on structures apply to tents, canopies, portable viewing platforms, food cards and ticket kiosks. Greenfield v. Multnomah County, 259 Or App 687, 317 P3d 274 (2013)
“Incidental” as used in this section limits types of nonfarm crops or livestock items sold at farm stands but does not limit amount of sales of those items. Greenfield v. Multnomah County, 259 Or App 687, 317 P3d 274 (2013)
“Private park” as used in this section includes low-intensity outdoor recreational use on farm land that has as component natural enjoyment of outdoors and recreational use for particular group or class of persons. Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, 276 Or App 282, 367 P3d 560 (2016)
Where proposed use of property was to rent out lawn for hosting different events including weddings, wedding receptions and family reunions, sole purpose of use was not to maintain tract of land for natural enjoyment and outdoor recreational use for particular group or class of persons but primarily for commercial events, therefore use was outside scope of “private park” as used in this section. Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, 276 Or App 282, 367 P3d 560 (2016)
Finding that nonfarming use is “incidental and subordinate” to existing commercial farm use requires inquiry into nature, intensity and economic value of nonfarming use, and merely determining relative frequency of uses is insufficient. Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County, 301 Or App 726, 458 P3d 1130 (2020)
Attorney General Opinions
Effect of constitutional provision requiring payments based on government regulations restricting use of property, (2001) Vol 49, p 284
Law Review Citations
19 EL 63 (1988); 26 WLR 398 (1990); 34 WLR 81 (1998); 77 OLR 993 (1998); 36 WLR 441 (2000); 36 EL 25 (2006); 49 WLR 411 (2013)