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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 517.780 (2026)

Effect on county zoning laws or ordinances; rules; certain operations exempt

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      517.780 Effect on county zoning laws or ordinances; rules; certain operations exempt. (1)(a) The provisions of ORS 517.702 to 517.989 and the rules and regulations adopted thereunder do not supersede any county zoning laws or ordinances in effect on July 1, 1972. However, if the county zoning laws or ordinances are repealed on or after July 1, 1972, the provisions of ORS 517.702 to 517.989 and the rules and regulations adopted thereunder are controlling. The governing board of the State Department of Geology and Mineral Industries may adopt rules and regulations with respect to matters covered by county zoning laws and ordinances in effect on July 1, 1972.

      (b) If the county zoning laws or ordinances specified in paragraph (a) of this subsection are repealed by a county:

      (A) The department may allow a surface mining operation that previously operated under a valid county operating permit and reclamation plan to continue to operate for a period not to exceed one year if the landowner or operator applies for an operating permit under ORS 517.790 within 60 days after the date the county’s repeal of the zoning laws or ordinances becomes effective, pays all applicable fees to the department and submits a bond or security to the department as required by ORS 517.810. Pending issuance of an operating permit and approval of a reclamation plan by the department, the county permit is deemed to remain in effect and is enforceable by the department.

      (B) The department, in issuing a permit and approving a reclamation plan for a surface mining operation that previously operated under a valid county operating permit as described in paragraph (a) of this subsection, may incorporate any provisions from the county operating permit into the permit issued by the department and the reclamation plan approved by the department if the department determines that the provisions provide adequate protection of the public health, safety and welfare and the environment.

      (C) The department may issue a certificate of exemption from reclamation requirements as described in ORS 517.770 (1)(b).

      (2) City or county operated surface mining operations that sell less than 5,000 cubic yards of minerals within a period of 12 consecutive calendar months are exempt from the state mining permit requirements of ORS 517.702 to 517.989 if the city or county adopts an ordinance that includes a general reclamation scheme establishing the means and methods of achieving reclamation for city or county operated surface mining sites exempted from the state permit requirements by this subsection. [1971 c.719 §16; 1975 c.724 §3; 1977 c.524 §1; 1979 c.435 §1; 1983 c.20 §1; 1985 c.292 §6; 1987 c.361 §9; 2003 c.14 §340; 2007 c.318 §6; 2009 c.270 §3]

 

      517.785 [1983 c.20 §3; 1985 c.292 §7; 1987 c.361 §8; repealed by 2007 c.318 §28]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1993–2003 · leading case: Scappoose Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Columbia Cnty., 984 P.2d 876 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Scappoose Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Columbia Cnty., 984 P.2d 876 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “On remand, LUBA held that, under the test we had formulated in our opinion, enough of the county’s 1972 ordinance survived the 1990 ordinance so that the latter did not “repeal” the former within the meaning of ORS 517.780. 26 Or LUBA at 206-07. Therefore, the underlying county…”
Oregon City Leasing, Inc. v. Columbia Cnty., 854 P.2d 495 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 9× “Similarly, the county’s argument that ORS 517.780 does not affect its fee assessment authority, under the facts, may be considered by LUBA on remand, if the resolution of the ORS 197.”
Eugene Sand & Gravel v. Lane Cnty., 74 P.3d 1085 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “acknowledged list of significant resources and for which the requirements of Goal 5 have been completed at the time the PAPA is initiated; “(E) Conflicts with agricultural practices', and “(F) Other conflicts for which consideration is necessary in order to carry out ordinances…”
Morse Bros. v. Columbia Cnty., 996 P.2d 1023 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “Under OAR 660-023-0180(4)(b)(F), a local government, in considering conflicts with proposed mining of a significant aggregate site, may consider “other conflicts for which consideration is necessary in order to carry out ordinances that supersede Oregon Department of Geology and…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 517.780(1): 2 cases
Scappoose Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Columbia Cnty., 984 P.2d 876 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “On remand, LUBA held that, under the test we had formulated in our opinion, enough of the county’s 1972 ordinance survived the 1990 ordinance so that the latter did not “repeal” the former within the meaning of ORS 517.780. 26 Or LUBA at 206-07. Therefore, the underlying county…”
Oregon City Leasing, Inc. v. Columbia Cnty., 854 P.2d 495 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “Similarly, the county’s argument that ORS 517.780 does not affect its fee assessment authority, under the facts, may be considered by LUBA on remand, if the resolution of the ORS 197.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 517.780(4): 1 case
Oregon City Leasing, Inc. v. Columbia Cnty., 854 P.2d 495 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “Similarly, the county’s argument that ORS 517.780 does not affect its fee assessment authority, under the facts, may be considered by LUBA on remand, if the resolution of the ORS 197.”
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.