2015 ORS 215.297¹
Verifying continuity for approval of certain uses in exclusive farm use zones

(1) As part of the conditional use approval process under ORS 215.296 (Standards for approval of certain uses in exclusive farm use zones), for the purpose of verifying the existence, continuity and nature of the business described in ORS 215.213 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in counties that adopted marginal lands system prior to 1993) (2)(w) or 215.283 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in nonmarginal lands counties) (2)(y), representatives of the business may apply to the county and submit evidence including, but not limited to, sworn affidavits or other documentary evidence that the business qualifies.

(2) Alteration, restoration or replacement of a use authorized in ORS 215.213 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in counties that adopted marginal lands system prior to 1993) (2)(w) or 215.283 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in nonmarginal lands counties) (2)(y) may be altered, restored or replaced pursuant to ORS 215.130 (Application of ordinances and comprehensive plan) (5), (6) and (9). [2003 c.247 §4]

Note: 215.297 (Verifying continuity for approval of certain uses in exclusive farm use zones) 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.