County Planning

ORS 215.298
Mining in exclusive farm use zone

  • land use permit


(1)

As used in this section and ORS 215.213 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in counties that adopted marginal lands system prior to 1993) (2) and 215.283 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in nonmarginal lands counties) (2):

(a)

“Impact area” means an area extending 1,500 feet in any direction from the area of a proposed mining site or the farthest point from the proposed mining site where a significant conflict exists, whichever is greater, excluding from the area of the proposed mining site any undisturbed buffer areas or areas on a parcel where mining is not authorized.

(b)

(A) “Mining” includes all or any part of the process of mining by the removal of overburden and the extraction of natural mineral deposits thereby exposed by any method including open-pit mining operations, auger mining operations, processing, surface impacts of underground mining, production of surface mining refuse and the construction of adjacent or off-site borrow pits except those constructed for use as access roads.

(B)

“Mining” does not include excavations of sand, gravel, clay, rock or similar materials conducted by a landowner or tenant on the landowner or tenant’s property for the primary purpose of reconstruction or maintenance of access roads and excavation or grading operations conducted in the process of farming or cemetery operations, on-site road construction or other on-site construction or nonsurface impacts of underground mines.

(c)

“Significant mineral resource site” means a proposed mining site, other than a site for the mining of aggregate, that is located at least one mile outside the border of the nearest incorporated city and that either:

(A)

Has an estimated quantity of gold, silver or other precious minerals proposed for mining of 500,000 ounces or more and will create 75 or more full-time mining-associated jobs, including but not limited to site construction, mining, operations management, processing, hauling and reclamation; or

(B)

Will create 100 or more full-time mining-associated jobs, including but not limited to site construction, mining, operations management, processing, hauling and reclamation.

(2)

(a) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, for purposes of ORS 215.213 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in counties that adopted marginal lands system prior to 1993) (2) and 215.283 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in nonmarginal lands counties) (2), a land use permit is required for mining more than 1,000 cubic yards of material or excavation preparatory to mining of a surface area of more than one acre. A county may set standards for a lower volume or smaller surface area than that set forth in this subsection.

(b)

A permit for mining of aggregate shall be issued only for a site included on an inventory in an acknowledged comprehensive plan.

(3)

Notwithstanding any contrary provision of ORS 215.283 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in nonmarginal lands counties) (2), county approval of an application for a land use permit under ORS 215.283 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in nonmarginal lands counties) (2)(b) for mining or excavation preparatory to mining of a significant mineral resource site on land zoned for exclusive farm use that is located in Baker County, Grant County, Harney County, Lake County, Malheur County, Union County or Wallowa County is not subject to:

(a)

The provisions of ORS 215.296 (Standards for approval of certain uses in exclusive farm use zones); or

(b)

Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, any statewide land use planning goal or any administrative rule relating to land use.

(4)

A county shall deny an application for a land use permit described in subsection (3) of this section if the county determines that the use will conflict with an administrative rule adopted for the purpose of implementing the Oregon Sage-Grouse Action Plan and Executive Order 15-18.

(5)

A county shall deny an application for a land use permit described in subsection (3) of this section only if:

(a)

The county determines, based on clear and objective standards, that the proposed use will create:

(A)

A significant conflict with local road capacity, sight distances, horizontal or vertical alignment and cross section elements;

(B)

A significant safety conflict with existing public airports due to bird attractants; or

(C)

A significant health or safety conflict with existing residential uses within the boundaries of the impact area of the proposed use; and

(b)

The county determines that the conflict identified in paragraph (a) of this subsection cannot be minimized through the imposition of reasonable and practicable mitigation measures as conditions of approval.

(6)

For purposes of a county determination described in subsection (5) of this section, the county shall determine the impact area of the proposed use. [1989 c.861 §7; 2017 c.736 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Local government may issue mining permit for aggregate site only if site is significant resource qualifying for inclusion on inventory in acknowledged comprehensive plan. Beaver State Sand and Gravel v. Douglas County, 187 Or App 241, 65 P3d 1123 (2003)

§§ 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