2017 ORS 215.456¹
Siting winery as commercial activity in exclusive farm use zone

(1) A local government may authorize the siting of a winery, on land zoned for exclusive farm use, pursuant to the standards that apply to a commercial activity in conjunction with farm use under ORS 215.213 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in counties that adopted marginal lands system prior to 1993) (2)(c) or 215.283 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in nonmarginal lands counties) (2)(a) or other law if the winery:

(a) Does not qualify for siting under ORS 215.452 (Winery) or 215.453 (Large winery); or

(b) Seeks to carry out uses or activities that are not authorized by ORS 215.452 (Winery) or 215.453 (Large winery).

(2) If a county authorizes the establishment of a winery on land zoned for exclusive farm use or mixed farm and forest use under provisions of law other than ORS 215.452 (Winery) or 215.453 (Large winery) after June 28, 2013, the gross income of the winery from any activity other than the production or sale of wine may not exceed 25 percent of the gross income from the on-site retail sale of wine produced in conjunction with the winery. The gross income of a winery does not include income received by third parties unaffiliated with the winery. [2013 c.554 §3]

Note: 215.456 (Siting winery as commercial activity in exclusive farm use zone) 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.

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 (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 215, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano215.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
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.