County Planning

ORS 215.402
Definitions for ORS 215.402 to 215.438 and 215.700 to 215.780


As used in ORS 215.402 (Definitions for ORS 215.402 to 215.438 and 215.700 to 215.780) to 215.438 (Transmission towers) and 215.700 (Resource land dwelling policy) to 215.780 (Minimum lot or parcel sizes) unless the context requires otherwise:

(1)

“Contested case” means a proceeding in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties under general rules or policies provided under ORS 215.010 (Definitions) to 215.311 (Log truck parking in exclusive farm use zones), 215.317 (Permitted uses on marginal land), 215.327 (Divisions of marginal land), 215.402 (Definitions for ORS 215.402 to 215.438 and 215.700 to 215.780) to 215.438 (Transmission towers) and 215.700 (Resource land dwelling policy) to 215.780 (Minimum lot or parcel sizes), or any ordinance, rule or regulation adopted pursuant thereto, are required to be determined only after a hearing at which specific parties are entitled to appear and be heard.

(2)

“Hearing” means a quasi-judicial hearing, authorized or required by the ordinances and regulations of a county adopted pursuant to ORS 215.010 (Definitions) to 215.311 (Log truck parking in exclusive farm use zones), 215.317 (Permitted uses on marginal land), 215.327 (Divisions of marginal land), 215.402 (Definitions for ORS 215.402 to 215.438 and 215.700 to 215.780) to 215.438 (Transmission towers) and 215.700 (Resource land dwelling policy) to 215.780 (Minimum lot or parcel sizes):

(a)

To determine in accordance with such ordinances and regulations if a permit shall be granted or denied; or

(b)

To determine a contested case.

(3)

“Hearings officer” means a planning and zoning hearings officer appointed or designated by the governing body of a county under ORS 215.406 (Planning and zoning hearings officers).

(4)

“Permit” means discretionary approval of a proposed development of land under ORS 215.010 (Definitions) to 215.311 (Log truck parking in exclusive farm use zones), 215.317 (Permitted uses on marginal land), 215.327 (Divisions of marginal land) and 215.402 (Definitions for ORS 215.402 to 215.438 and 215.700 to 215.780) to 215.438 (Transmission towers) and 215.700 (Resource land dwelling policy) to 215.780 (Minimum lot or parcel sizes) or county legislation or regulation adopted pursuant thereto. “Permit” does not include:

(a)

A limited land use decision as defined in ORS 197.015 (Definitions for ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and ORS 197A.300 to 197A.325);

(b)

A decision which determines the appropriate zoning classification for a particular use by applying criteria or performance standards defining the uses permitted within the zone, and the determination applies only to land within an urban growth boundary;

(c)

A decision which determines final engineering design, construction, operation, maintenance, repair or preservation of a transportation facility which is otherwise authorized by and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land use regulations; or

(d)

An expedited land division, as described in ORS 197.360 (“Expedited land division” defined). [1973 c.552 §12; 1977 c.654 §1; 1981 c.748 §49; 1991 c.817 §8; 1995 c.79 §77; 1995 c.595 §12; 2001 c.672 §15; 2015 c.260 §4]

Notes of Decisions

County's decision whether to allow construction of primary farm dwelling on land zoned for exclusive farm use entailed issuance of permit requiring discretionary approval under this section and was subject to notice, hearing and other procedural requirements of ORS 215.416. Doughton v. Douglas County, 88 Or App 198, 744 P2d 1299 (1987)

§§ 215.402 to 215.422

Notes of Decisions

Petitioner who attempted to appeal county planning director's decision to county planning commission, where no local appeal was provided in county ordinance, could not challenge procedures or merits of director's decision in appeal to LUBA from commissioner's refusal to consider matter, after failing to bring direct timely appeal to LUBA from first decision. Smith v. Douglas County, 98 Or App 379, 780 P2d 232 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Citations

10 WLJ 395 (1974)

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