County Planning

ORS 215.255
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.
§§ 215.203 to 215.311

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)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021