2015 ORS 215.304¹
Rule adoption
  • limitations

(1) The Land Conservation and Development Commission shall not adopt or implement any rule to identify or designate small-scale farmland or secondary land.

(2) Amendments required to conform rules to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section and ORS 215.700 (Resource land dwelling policy) to 215.780 (Minimum lot or parcel sizes) shall be adopted by March 1, 1994.

(3) Any portion of a rule inconsistent with the provisions of ORS 197.247 (1991 Edition), 215.213 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in counties that adopted marginal lands system prior to 1993), 215.214 (1991 Edition), 215.288 (1991 Edition), 215.317 (Permitted uses on marginal land), 215.327 (Divisions of marginal land) and 215.337 (1991 Edition) or 215.700 (Resource land dwelling policy) to 215.780 (Minimum lot or parcel sizes) on March 1, 1994:

(a) Shall not be implemented or enforced; and

(b) Has no legal effect.

(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3) of this section, the uses authorized by ORS 215.283 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in nonmarginal lands counties) (1)(x) or (2)(n) may be established on land in exclusive farm use zones, including high-value farmland. [1993 c.792 §28; 2001 c.672 §19; 2012 c.74 §4]

Law Review Cita­tions

77 OLR 993 (1998)

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.