Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.304 (2026)

Rule adoption; limitations

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

      215.304 Rule adoption; limitations. (1) The Land Conservation and Development Commission shall not adopt or implement any rule to identify or designate small-scale farmland or secondary land.

      (2) Amendments required to conform rules to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section and ORS 215.700 to 215.780 shall be adopted by March 1, 1994.

      (3) Any portion of a rule inconsistent with the provisions of ORS 197.247 (1991 Edition), 215.213, 215.214 (1991 Edition), 215.288 (1991 Edition), 215.317, 215.327 and 215.337 (1991 Edition) or 215.700 to 215.780 on March 1, 1994:

      (a) Shall not be implemented or enforced; and

      (b) Has no legal effect.

      (4) Notwithstanding subsection (3) of this section, the uses authorized by ORS 215.283 (1)(x) or (2)(n) may be established on land in exclusive farm use zones, including high-value farmland. [1993 c.792 §28; 2001 c.672 §19; 2012 c.74 §4]

 

      215.305 [Formerly 215.210; repealed by 1971 c.13 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1996–2003 · leading case: Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 942 P.2d 278 (Or. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 942 P.2d 278 (Or. 1997). · cites it 18× “Rather, LCDC argues that, when subsection (3) of ORS 215.304 is read together with subsections (1) and (2) of that statute, it will be seen that subsection (3) simply clarifies the effect of ORS 215.”
Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 910 P.2d 414 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 22× “ORS 215.304(1); ORS 215.710. Second, the legislature authorized LCDC to review comprehensive plans for conformance with amended goals and regulatory requirements related to high-value farmland: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, [LCDC may] review comprehensive plan and…”
Marquam Farms Corp. v. Multnomah Cnty., 936 P.2d 990 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 8× “) That critical point in our analysis in Lane County also constitutes the critical difference between Lane County and this case: ORS 215.304 expressly prohibits the implementation of LCDC high-value farmland rules insofar as they conflict with the general EFU use provisions of…”
Beaver State Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Douglas Cnty., 65 P.3d 1123 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “LCDC, 325 Or 569, 578 , 942 P2d 278 (1997) (explaining that LCDC’s regulations were context for ORS 215.304). In this case, LCDC promulgated OAR 660-016-0000 eight years before the legislature enacted ORS 215.”
Bruggere v. Clackamas Cnty., 7 P.3d 634 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “Moreover, as the court noted in Lane County , ORS 215.304(2) specifically and concurrently directs LCDC to adopt “rules that conform * * * to the statutory provisions dealing with lot of record and high value farmland set out in ORS 215.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.304(1) — 3 cases
Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 942 P.2d 278 (Or. 1997). “Rather, LCDC argues that, when subsection (3) of ORS 215.304 is read together with subsections (1) and (2) of that statute, it will be seen that subsection (3) simply clarifies the effect of ORS 215.”
Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 910 P.2d 414 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “ORS 215.304(1); ORS 215.710. Second, the legislature authorized LCDC to review comprehensive plans for conformance with amended goals and regulatory requirements related to high-value farmland: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, [LCDC may] review comprehensive plan and…”
Marquam Farms Corp. v. Multnomah Cnty., 936 P.2d 990 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “) That critical point in our analysis in Lane County also constitutes the critical difference between Lane County and this case: ORS 215.304 expressly prohibits the implementation of LCDC high-value farmland rules insofar as they conflict with the general EFU use provisions of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.304(2) — 2 cases
Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 942 P.2d 278 (Or. 1997). “Rather, LCDC argues that, when subsection (3) of ORS 215.304 is read together with subsections (1) and (2) of that statute, it will be seen that subsection (3) simply clarifies the effect of ORS 215.”
Bruggere v. Clackamas Cnty., 7 P.3d 634 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “Moreover, as the court noted in Lane County , ORS 215.304(2) specifically and concurrently directs LCDC to adopt “rules that conform * * * to the statutory provisions dealing with lot of record and high value farmland set out in ORS 215.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.304(3) — 3 cases
Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 942 P.2d 278 (Or. 1997). “Rather, LCDC argues that, when subsection (3) of ORS 215.304 is read together with subsections (1) and (2) of that statute, it will be seen that subsection (3) simply clarifies the effect of ORS 215.”
Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 910 P.2d 414 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “ORS 215.304(1); ORS 215.710. Second, the legislature authorized LCDC to review comprehensive plans for conformance with amended goals and regulatory requirements related to high-value farmland: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, [LCDC may] review comprehensive plan and…”
Marquam Farms Corp. v. Multnomah Cnty., 936 P.2d 990 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “) That critical point in our analysis in Lane County also constitutes the critical difference between Lane County and this case: ORS 215.304 expressly prohibits the implementation of LCDC high-value farmland rules insofar as they conflict with the general EFU use provisions of…”
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.