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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.316 (2026)

Termination of adoption of marginal lands

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

      215.316 Termination of adoption of marginal lands. (1) Unless a county applies the provisions of ORS 215.705 to 215.730 to land zoned for exclusive farm use, a county that adopted marginal lands provisions under ORS 197.247 (1991 Edition), 215.213, 215.214 (1991 Edition), 215.288 (1991 Edition), 215.317, 215.327 and 215.337 (1991 Edition) may continue to apply those provisions. After January 1, 1993, no county may adopt marginal lands provisions.

      (2) If a county that had adopted marginal lands provisions before January 1, 1993, subsequently sites a dwelling under ORS 215.705 to 215.750 on land zoned for exclusive farm use, the county shall not later apply marginal lands provisions, including those set forth in ORS 215.213, to lots or parcels other than those to which the county applied the marginal lands provisions before the county sited a dwelling under ORS 215.705 to 215.750. [1993 c.792 §29]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1996–2007 · leading case: Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 910 P.2d 414 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 910 P.2d 414 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “ORS 215.316. It then created a new process by which certain buildings may be established in farm or forest zones.”
Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 942 P.2d 278 (Or. 1997). “ORS 215.316. After the 1993 legislation was enacted, LCDC amended Goal 3 and its regulations once again, deleting all references to “small-scale resource land” and “important farmland,” but recognizing and defining the category of “high value farmland.”
Marquam Farms Corp. v. Multnomah Cnty., 936 P.2d 990 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “Further, ORS 215.316 et seq establish a general pattern in which the regulation of marginal lands and high-value farmland are treated separately and differently.”
Nichols v. Clackamas Cnty., 932 P.2d 1185 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “See ORS 215.316(2). LCDC contends that our opinion could be read to have invalidated the rules entirely, not just as to those counties to which ORS 215.”
Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 914 P.2d 1114 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “See ORS 215.316(2). LCDC contends that our opinion could be read to have invalidated the rules entirely, not just as to those counties to which ORS 215.”
Herring v. Lane Cnty., 171 P.3d 1025 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “ORS 215.316. 2 Lane County was one of the counties that had adopted marginal land procedures, and it has continued to utilize ORS 197.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.316(2) — 3 cases
Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 910 P.2d 414 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “ORS 215.316. It then created a new process by which certain buildings may be established in farm or forest zones.”
Nichols v. Clackamas Cnty., 932 P.2d 1185 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “See ORS 215.316(2). LCDC contends that our opinion could be read to have invalidated the rules entirely, not just as to those counties to which ORS 215.”
Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 914 P.2d 1114 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “See ORS 215.316(2). LCDC contends that our opinion could be read to have invalidated the rules entirely, not just as to those counties to which ORS 215.”
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.