215.275
Utility facilities necessary for public service; criteria; rules; mitigating
impact of facility.
(1) A utility facility established under ORS 215.213 (1)(c)(A) or 215.283
(1)(c)(A) is necessary for public service if the facility must be sited in an
exclusive farm use zone in order to provide the service.
(2) To
demonstrate that a utility facility is necessary, an applicant for approval
under ORS 215.213 (1)(c)(A) or 215.283 (1)(c)(A) must show that reasonable
alternatives have been considered and that the facility must be sited in an
exclusive farm use zone due to one or more of the following factors:
(a) Technical and
engineering feasibility;
(b) The proposed
facility is locationally dependent. A utility facility is locationally
dependent if it must cross land in one or more areas zoned for exclusive farm
use in order to achieve a reasonably direct route or to meet unique
geographical needs that cannot be satisfied on other lands;
(c) Lack of
available urban and nonresource lands;
(d) Availability
of existing rights of way;
(e) Public health
and safety; and
(f) Other
requirements of state or federal agencies.
(3) Costs
associated with any of the factors listed in subsection (2) of this section may
be considered, but cost alone may not be the only consideration in determining
that a utility facility is necessary for public service. Land costs shall not
be included when considering alternative locations for substantially similar
utility facilities. The Land Conservation and Development Commission shall
determine by rule how land costs may be considered when evaluating the siting
of utility facilities that are not substantially similar.
(4) The owner of
a utility facility approved under ORS 215.213 (1)(c)(A) or 215.283 (1)(c)(A)
shall be responsible for restoring, as nearly as possible, to its former
condition any agricultural land and associated improvements that are damaged or
otherwise disturbed by the siting, maintenance, repair or reconstruction of the
facility. Nothing in this section shall prevent the owner of the utility
facility from requiring a bond or other security from a contractor or otherwise
imposing on a contractor the responsibility for restoration.
(5) The governing
body of the county or its designee shall impose clear and objective conditions
on an application for utility facility siting under ORS 215.213 (1)(c)(A) or
215.283 (1)(c)(A) to mitigate and minimize the impacts of the proposed
facility, if any, on surrounding lands devoted to farm use in order to prevent
a significant change in accepted farm practices or a significant increase in
the cost of farm practices on the surrounding farmlands.
(6) The
provisions of subsections (2) to (5) of this section do not apply to interstate
natural gas pipelines and associated facilities authorized by and subject to
regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. [1999 c.816 §3; 2009
c.850 §9; 2013 c.242 §5]
Note: 215.275 was added to and made a
part of 215.203 to 215.311 by legislative action but was not added to any other
series. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.
Notes of Decisions
Friends of Parrett Mountain v. Nw. Nat. Gas Co., 79 P.3d 869 (Or. 2003).
· cites it 30× “ORS 215.275 requires an applicant, as a threshold matter, to demonstrate that it has considered reasonable alternatives to placing its facility within an EFU zone.”
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 121 P.3d 1141 (Or. 2005).
· cites it 4× “A utility facility necessary for public service may be established as provided in ORS 215.275. sji % “(y) Subject to [certain other provisions,] the land application of reclaimed water, agricultural or industrial *382 process water or biosolids for agricultural, horticultural or…”
Sprint PCS v. Washington Cnty., 63 P.3d 1261 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 39× “Sprint appealed the county’s decision to LUBA, asserting that the county had improperly interpreted ORS 215.275. LUBA agreed with Sprint, finding that the county had erred (1) in balancing farmland preservation against the technical and engineering feasibility and land options…”
Dierking v. Clackamas Cnty., 13 P.3d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“The relevant events in this case predate the effective date of ORS 215.275, which was enacted in 1999 to deal in detail with the general issue discussed here.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.275(1) — 1 case
Sprint PCS v. Washington Cnty., 63 P.3d 1261 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“Sprint appealed the county’s decision to LUBA, asserting that the county had improperly interpreted ORS 215.275. LUBA agreed with Sprint, finding that the county had erred (1) in balancing farmland preservation against the technical and engineering feasibility and land options…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.275(2) — 2 cases
Friends of Parrett Mountain v. Nw. Nat. Gas Co., 79 P.3d 869 (Or. 2003).
“ORS 215.275 requires an applicant, as a threshold matter, to demonstrate that it has considered reasonable alternatives to placing its facility within an EFU zone.”
Sprint PCS v. Washington Cnty., 63 P.3d 1261 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“Sprint appealed the county’s decision to LUBA, asserting that the county had improperly interpreted ORS 215.275. LUBA agreed with Sprint, finding that the county had erred (1) in balancing farmland preservation against the technical and engineering feasibility and land options…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.275(2)(a) — 1 case
Sprint PCS v. Washington Cnty., 63 P.3d 1261 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“Sprint appealed the county’s decision to LUBA, asserting that the county had improperly interpreted ORS 215.275. LUBA agreed with Sprint, finding that the county had erred (1) in balancing farmland preservation against the technical and engineering feasibility and land options…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.275(3) — 1 case
Sprint PCS v. Washington Cnty., 63 P.3d 1261 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“Sprint appealed the county’s decision to LUBA, asserting that the county had improperly interpreted ORS 215.275. LUBA agreed with Sprint, finding that the county had erred (1) in balancing farmland preservation against the technical and engineering feasibility and land options…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.275(5) — 1 case
Friends of Parrett Mountain v. Nw. Nat. Gas Co., 79 P.3d 869 (Or. 2003).
“ORS 215.275 requires an applicant, as a threshold matter, to demonstrate that it has considered reasonable alternatives to placing its facility within an EFU zone.”
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.