County Planning

ORS 215.279
Farm income standard for dwelling in conjunction with farm use


In any rule adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission that establishes a farm income standard to determine whether a dwelling is customarily provided in conjunction with farm use on a tract, the commission shall allow a farm operator to satisfy the income standard by earning the required amount or more of farm income on the tract:

(1)

In at least three of the last five years;

(2)

In each of the last two years; or

(3)

Based on the average farm income earned on the tract in the best three of the last five years. [2011 c.459 §1]
Note: 215.279 (Farm income standard for dwelling in conjunction with farm use) 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.
Note: Sections 1, 2 and 3, chapter 307, Oregon Laws 2019, provide:
Sec. 1. Section 2 of this 2019 Act is added to and made a part of ORS chapter 215. [2019 c.307 §1]
Sec. 2. (1) Notwithstanding any farm income standard adopted under ORS 215.279 (Farm income standard for dwelling in conjunction with farm use), a county shall approve a primary dwelling customarily provided 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) (1)(f) or 215.283 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in nonmarginal lands counties) (1)(e), if:

(a)

The tract on which the dwelling will be established is currently employed for farm use involving the raising and harvesting of cranberries;

(b)

The tract on which the dwelling will be established is considered to be high-value farmland on the basis that the tract is growing a specified perennial under ORS 215.710 (High-value farmland description for ORS 215.705) (2) but the tract is not considered to be high-value farmland on the basis of soil composition under ORS 215.710 (High-value farmland description for ORS 215.705) (1);

(c)

Except for seasonal farmworker housing approved prior to 2001, there is no other dwelling on lands zoned for exclusive farm use or for farm and forest use owned by the farm operator or on the farm operation;

(d)

The operator of the farm on the tract earned at least $40,000 in gross annual income from the sale of cranberries or cranberry products as described in ORS 215.279 (Farm income standard for dwelling in conjunction with farm use), excluding any income:

(A)

From land leased or rented; or

(B)

Used to qualify another lot or parcel for the construction or siting of a primary dwelling customarily provided in conjunction with farm use; and

(e)

As a condition of approval of the new dwelling, in addition to the requirements of ORS 215.293 (Dwelling in exclusive farm use or forest zone), the property owner agrees to sign and record in the deed records for the county in which the parcel is located, one or more instruments containing irrevocable deed restrictions, enforceable by the county, that prohibit the owner and the owner’s successors from using the dwelling as a rental dwelling unit as defined in ORS 90.100 (Definitions).

(2)

Subsection (1)(b) of this section may not be interpreted to change land use decisions, or determinations, of high-value farmland for any other purpose. [2019 c.307 §2]
Sec. 3. Section 2 of this 2019 Act is repealed on January 2, 2022. [2019 c.307 §3]
§§ 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