Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.215 (2026)

Reestablishment of nonfarm use

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      215.215 Reestablishment of nonfarm use. (1) Notwithstanding ORS 215.130 (5) to (11), if a nonfarm use exists in an exclusive farm use zone and is unintentionally destroyed by fire, other casualty or natural disaster, the county may allow by its zoning regulations such use to be reestablished to its previous nature and extent, but the reestablishment shall meet all other building, plumbing, sanitation and other codes, ordinances and permit requirements.

      (2) Consistent with ORS 215.243, the county governing body may zone for the appropriate nonfarm use one or more lots or parcels in the interior of an exclusive farm use zone if the lots or parcels were physically developed for the nonfarm use prior to the establishment of the exclusive farm use zone. [1977 c.664 §41; 1991 c.67 §49; 2021 c.25 §7]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1986–2020 · leading case: City of Mosier v. Hood River Sand, Gravel & Ready-Mix, Inc., 136 P.3d 1160 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
City of Mosier v. Hood River Sand, Gravel & Ready-Mix, Inc., 136 P.3d 1160 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Except as provided in ORS 215.215, a county shall not place conditions upon the continuation or alteration of a use described under this subsection when necessary to comply with state or local health or safety requirements, or to maintain in good repair the existing structures…”
Deschutes Cnty. v. Pink Pit, LLC, 475 P.3d 910 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “* * * Except as provided in ORS 215.215, a county shall not place condi- tions upon the continuation or alteration of a use described under this subsection when necessary to comply with state or local health or safety requirements, or to maintain in good repair the existing…”
Cyrus v. Deschutes Cnty., 96 P.3d 858 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “Except as provided in ORS 215.215, a county shall not place conditions upon the continuation or alteration of a use described under this subsection when necessary to comply with state or local health or safety requirements, or to maintain in good repair the existing structures…”
Ferrara v. Riley, 724 P.2d 315 (Or. 1986). “135 provides: “Any person dissatisfied with an explanatory statement for which suggestions were offered at the Secretary of State’s hearing under ORS 215.215, may petition the Supreme Court seeking a different statement and stating the reasons the statement filed with the court…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.