215.296
Standards for approval of certain uses in exclusive farm use
zones; violation of standards; complaint; penalties; exceptions to standards. (1) A use allowed under ORS
215.213 (2) or (11) or 215.283 (2) or (4) may be approved only where the local
governing body or its designee finds that the use will not:
(a) Force a
significant change in accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands
devoted to farm or forest use; or
(b) Significantly
increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands
devoted to farm or forest use.
(2) An applicant
for a use allowed under ORS 215.213 (2) or (11) or 215.283 (2) or (4) may
demonstrate that the standards for approval set forth in subsection (1) of this
section will be satisfied through the imposition of conditions. Any conditions
so imposed shall be clear and objective.
(3) A person
engaged in farm or forest practices on lands devoted to farm or forest use may
file a complaint with the local governing body or its designee alleging:
(a) That a
condition imposed pursuant to subsection (2) of this section has been violated;
(b) That the
violation has:
(A) Forced a
significant change in accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands
devoted to farm or forest use; or
(B) Significantly
increased the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands
devoted to farm or forest use; and
(c) That the
complainant is adversely affected by the violation.
(4) Upon receipt
of a complaint filed under this section or ORS 215.218, the local governing
body or its designee shall:
(a) Forward the
complaint to the operator of the use;
(b) Review the
complaint in the manner set forth in ORS 215.402 to 215.438; and
(c) Determine
whether the allegations made in a complaint filed under this section or ORS
215.218 are true.
(5) Upon a
determination that the allegations made in a complaint are true, the local
governing body or its designee at a minimum shall notify the violator that a
violation has occurred, direct the violator to correct the conditions that led
to the violation within a specified time period and warn the violator against
the commission of further violations.
(6) If the
conditions that led to a violation are not corrected within the time period
specified pursuant to subsection (5) of this section, or if there is a
determination pursuant to subsection (4) of this section following the receipt
of a second complaint that a further violation has occurred, the local
governing body or its designee at a minimum shall assess a fine against the
violator.
(7) If the
conditions that led to a violation are not corrected within 30 days after the
imposition of a fine pursuant to subsection (6) of this section, or if there is
a determination pursuant to subsection (4) of this section following the
receipt of a third or subsequent complaint that a further violation has
occurred, the local governing body or its designee shall at a minimum order the
suspension of the use until the violator corrects the conditions that led to
the violation.
(8) If a use
allowed under ORS 215.213 (2) or (11) or 215.283 (2) or (4) is initiated
without prior approval pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the local
governing body or its designee at a minimum shall notify the user that prior
approval is required, direct the user to apply for approval within 21 days and
warn the user against the commission of further violations. If the user does
not apply for approval within 21 days, the local governing body or its designee
shall order the suspension of the use until the user applies for and receives
approval. If there is a determination pursuant to subsection (4) of this
section following the receipt of a complaint that a further violation occurred
after approval was granted, the violation shall be deemed a second violation
and the local governing body or its designee at a minimum shall assess a fine
against the violator.
(9)(a) The
standards set forth in subsection (1) of this section do not apply to farm or
forest uses conducted within:
(A) Lots or
parcels with a single-unit residential dwelling approved under ORS 215.213 (3),
215.284 (1), (2), (3), (4) or (7) or 215.705;
(B) An exception
area approved under ORS 197.732; or
(C) An
acknowledged urban growth boundary.
(b) A person
residing in a single-unit residential dwelling which was approved under ORS
215.213 (3), 215.284 (1), (2), (3), (4) or (7) or 215.705, which is within an
exception area approved under ORS 197.732 or which is within an acknowledged
urban growth boundary may not file a complaint under subsection (3) of this
section.
(10) This section
does not prevent a local governing body approving a use allowed under ORS
215.213 (2) or (11) or 215.283 (2) or (4) from establishing standards in
addition to those set forth in subsection (1) of this section or from imposing
conditions to ensure conformance with the additional standards. [1989 c.861 §6;
1993 c.792 §15; 2001 c.704 §8; 2003 c.616 §3; 2011 c.567 §9; 2025 c.38 §34]
Notes of Decisions
Stop the Dump Coal. v. Yamhill Cnty., 435 P.3d 698 (Or. 2019).
· cites it 50× “To obtain site design review and a floodplain development permit for the expansion, Riverbend had to meet what is sometimes known as the farm impacts test, set out in ORS 215.296. Subsection (1) of that statute precludes approval of a proposed nonfarm use when the use would…”
Stop Dump Coalition v. Yamhill Cnty., 391 P.3d 932 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 53× “That landfill is a solid waste disposal facility that is located on a larger area of land zoned for exclusive farm uses (EFU); petitioners and respondents assign error to LUBA’s determinations of the legal and evidentiary sufficiency of the county’s application of ORS 215.296,…”
Brentmar v. Jackson Cnty., 900 P.2d 1030 (Or. 1995).
· cites it 12× “247 (1991 Edition), the following uses maybe established in any area zoned for exclusive farm use subject to ORS 215.296: * * sfs * * “(c) Commercial activities that are in conjunction with farm use.”
Waste Not of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 471 P.3d 769 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 25× “Specifically, Riverbend’s application proposed to “modify its currently approved grading plan along existing side slopes,” and noted that the “modification occurs within the existing footprint 8 As the Supreme Court explained, when Riverbend sought to expand its landfill onto…”
Utsey v. Coos Cnty., 32 P.3d 933 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “The League contends that LUBA erred by not expressly requiring that, on remand, the county must apply ORS 215.296 to the "special events" aspect of the Lillies' proposal.”
Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev. v. Jackson Cnty., 948 P.2d 731 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 7× “” Section (5), the other provision of the rule cited in section (18), states: “Approval requires review by the governing body or its designate under ORS 215.296. Uses may be approved only where such uses: “(a) Will not force a significant change in accepted farm or forest…”
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Clackamas Cnty., 514 P.3d 553 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 5× “283(2) contains a list of nonfarm con- ditional uses that a county may allow in an EFU zone if the county determines that the use will not significantly affect surrounding lands devoted to farm use under ORS 215.296—the “farm impacts test.” That is, the uses permit- ted in ORS…”
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 121 P.3d 1141 (Or. 2005).
· cites it 4× “283 and ORS 215.296. ORS 215.283 provides, in part: “(1) The following uses may be established in any area zoned for exclusive farm use: iiUfi iji “(d) Utility facilities necessary for public service, including wetland waste treatment systems but not including commercial…”
Schaefer v. Oregon Aviation Bd., 495 P.3d 1267 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 4× “es and improvements not allowed under subsections (1) and (2) of this section may be established, subject to the approval of the governing body or its designee, in areas zoned for exclusive farm use subject to: “(a) Adoption of an exception to the goal related to agricultural…”
Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 942 P.2d 278 (Or. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Subsection (2) of that statute contains a list of uses that “may be established” in EFU zones “subject to ORS 215.296.” ORS 215.296 in turn provides that counties may allow certain uses based on locally adopted criteria.”
Zippel v. Josephine Cnty., 876 P.2d 854 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 7× “2 With respect to the first ground, we agree with LUBA that a remand for the county to interpret the ordinance is necessary.”
Cent. Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes Cnty., 367 P.3d 560 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “The specific provision at issue here provides: “(2) The following nonfarm uses may be established, subject to the approval of the governing body or its designee in any area zoned for exclusive farm use subject to ORS 215.296: * * * $ “(c) Private parks, playgrounds, hunting and…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.296(1) — 20 cases
Stop the Dump Coal. v. Yamhill Cnty., 435 P.3d 698 (Or. 2019).
“To obtain site design review and a floodplain development permit for the expansion, Riverbend had to meet what is sometimes known as the farm impacts test, set out in ORS 215.296. Subsection (1) of that statute precludes approval of a proposed nonfarm use when the use would…”
Stop Dump Coalition v. Yamhill Cnty., 391 P.3d 932 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“That landfill is a solid waste disposal facility that is located on a larger area of land zoned for exclusive farm uses (EFU); petitioners and respondents assign error to LUBA’s determinations of the legal and evidentiary sufficiency of the county’s application of ORS 215.296,…”
Waste Not of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 471 P.3d 769 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“Specifically, Riverbend’s application proposed to “modify its currently approved grading plan along existing side slopes,” and noted that the “modification occurs within the existing footprint 8 As the Supreme Court explained, when Riverbend sought to expand its landfill onto…”
Zippel v. Josephine Cnty., 876 P.2d 854 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“2 With respect to the first ground, we agree with LUBA that a remand for the county to interpret the ordinance is necessary.”
Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev. v. Jackson Cnty., 948 P.2d 731 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“” Section (5), the other provision of the rule cited in section (18), states: “Approval requires review by the governing body or its designate under ORS 215.296. Uses may be approved only where such uses: “(a) Will not force a significant change in accepted farm or forest…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.296(1)(a) — 1 case
Waste Not of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 471 P.3d 769 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“Specifically, Riverbend’s application proposed to “modify its currently approved grading plan along existing side slopes,” and noted that the “modification occurs within the existing footprint 8 As the Supreme Court explained, when Riverbend sought to expand its landfill onto…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.296(10) — 5 cases
Brentmar v. Jackson Cnty., 900 P.2d 1030 (Or. 1995).
“247 (1991 Edition), the following uses maybe established in any area zoned for exclusive farm use subject to ORS 215.296: * * sfs * * “(c) Commercial activities that are in conjunction with farm use.”
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Clackamas Cnty., 514 P.3d 553 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“283(2) contains a list of nonfarm con- ditional uses that a county may allow in an EFU zone if the county determines that the use will not significantly affect surrounding lands devoted to farm use under ORS 215.296—the “farm impacts test.” That is, the uses permit- ted in ORS…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.296(2) — 4 cases
Stop the Dump Coal. v. Yamhill Cnty., 435 P.3d 698 (Or. 2019).
“To obtain site design review and a floodplain development permit for the expansion, Riverbend had to meet what is sometimes known as the farm impacts test, set out in ORS 215.296. Subsection (1) of that statute precludes approval of a proposed nonfarm use when the use would…”
Stop Dump Coalition v. Yamhill Cnty., 391 P.3d 932 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“That landfill is a solid waste disposal facility that is located on a larger area of land zoned for exclusive farm uses (EFU); petitioners and respondents assign error to LUBA’s determinations of the legal and evidentiary sufficiency of the county’s application of ORS 215.296,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.296(9)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.296(l)(a) — 1 case
Stop Dump Coalition v. Yamhill Cnty., 391 P.3d 932 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“That landfill is a solid waste disposal facility that is located on a larger area of land zoned for exclusive farm uses (EFU); petitioners and respondents assign error to LUBA’s determinations of the legal and evidentiary sufficiency of the county’s application of ORS 215.296,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.296(l)(b) — 1 case
Stop Dump Coalition v. Yamhill Cnty., 391 P.3d 932 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“That landfill is a solid waste disposal facility that is located on a larger area of land zoned for exclusive farm uses (EFU); petitioners and respondents assign error to LUBA’s determinations of the legal and evidentiary sufficiency of the county’s application of ORS 215.296,…”
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.