836.616 Rules
for airport uses and activities.
(1) Following consultation with the Oregon Department of Aviation, the Land
Conservation and Development Commission shall adopt rules for uses and
activities allowed within the boundaries of airports identified in ORS 836.610
(1) and airports described in ORS 836.608 (2).
(2) Within
airport boundaries established pursuant to commission rules, local government
land use regulations shall authorize the following uses and activities:
(a) Customary and
usual aviation-related activities including but not limited to takeoffs,
landings, aircraft hangars, tie-downs, construction and maintenance of airport
facilities, fixed-base operator facilities and other activities incidental to
the normal operation of an airport;
(b) Emergency
medical flight services;
(c) Law
enforcement and firefighting activities;
(d) Flight
instruction;
(e) Aircraft
service, maintenance and training;
(f) Crop dusting
and other agricultural activities;
(g) Air passenger
and air freight services at levels consistent with the classification and needs
identified in the State Aviation System Plan;
(h) Aircraft
rental;
(i) Aircraft
sales and sale of aviation equipment and supplies; and
(j) Aviation
recreational and sporting activities.
(3) All land uses
and activities permitted within airport boundaries, other than the uses and
activities established under subsection (2) of this section, shall comply with
applicable land use laws and regulations. A local government may authorize
commercial, industrial and other uses in addition to those listed in subsection
(2) of this section within an airport boundary where such uses are consistent
with applicable provisions of the acknowledged comprehensive plan, statewide
land use planning goals and commission rules and where the uses do not create a
safety hazard or limit approved airport uses.
(4) The
provisions of this section do not apply to airports with an existing or
approved control tower on June 5, 1995. [1997 c.859 §5 (enacted in lieu of
836.615)]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2022 · leading case:
Schaefer v. Marion Cnty., 509 P.3d 718 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
Schaefer v. Marion Cnty., 509 P.3d 718 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 10× “ORS 836.616(1), (2). The rules that LCDC adopted pursuant to those sections are OAR chapter 660, division 13, entitled “Airport Planning.”
Landsem Farms, LP v. Marion Cnty., 78 P.3d 103 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 12× “” Accordingly, LUBA sustained in part petitioner’s assignment of error based on ORS 836.616 and remanded to the county the issue whether the proposed social events were “incidental to the normal operation of an airport.”
Schaefer v. Oregon Aviation Bd., 495 P.3d 1267 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 5× “616(2); see also OAR 660-013-0100 (requiring local governments to “adopt land use regulations for areas within the airport boundaries” that authorize the airport uses enumerated in ORS 836.616). The provisions of ORS 836.600 to 836.”
Clackamas Cnty. v. Gay, 986 P.2d 588 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “608 and ORS 836.616. ORS 836.612 provides: “Nothing in ORS 836.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 836.616(1) — 2 cases
Schaefer v. Marion Cnty., 509 P.3d 718 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“ORS 836.616(1), (2). The rules that LCDC adopted pursuant to those sections are OAR chapter 660, division 13, entitled “Airport Planning.”
Landsem Farms, LP v. Marion Cnty., 78 P.3d 103 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“” Accordingly, LUBA sustained in part petitioner’s assignment of error based on ORS 836.616 and remanded to the county the issue whether the proposed social events were “incidental to the normal operation of an airport.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 836.616(2) — 4 cases
Schaefer v. Marion Cnty., 509 P.3d 718 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“ORS 836.616(1), (2). The rules that LCDC adopted pursuant to those sections are OAR chapter 660, division 13, entitled “Airport Planning.”
Schaefer v. Oregon Aviation Bd., 495 P.3d 1267 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“616(2); see also OAR 660-013-0100 (requiring local governments to “adopt land use regulations for areas within the airport boundaries” that authorize the airport uses enumerated in ORS 836.616). The provisions of ORS 836.600 to 836.”
Landsem Farms, LP v. Marion Cnty., 78 P.3d 103 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“” Accordingly, LUBA sustained in part petitioner’s assignment of error based on ORS 836.616 and remanded to the county the issue whether the proposed social events were “incidental to the normal operation of an airport.”
Clackamas Cnty. v. Gay, 986 P.2d 588 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“608 and ORS 836.616. ORS 836.612 provides: “Nothing in ORS 836.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 836.616(2)(a) — 1 case
Landsem Farms, LP v. Marion Cnty., 78 P.3d 103 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“” Accordingly, LUBA sustained in part petitioner’s assignment of error based on ORS 836.616 and remanded to the county the issue whether the proposed social events were “incidental to the normal operation of an airport.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 836.616(2)(j) — 1 case
Landsem Farms, LP v. Marion Cnty., 78 P.3d 103 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“” Accordingly, LUBA sustained in part petitioner’s assignment of error based on ORS 836.616 and remanded to the county the issue whether the proposed social events were “incidental to the normal operation of an airport.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 836.616(3) — 2 cases
Schaefer v. Marion Cnty., 509 P.3d 718 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“ORS 836.616(1), (2). The rules that LCDC adopted pursuant to those sections are OAR chapter 660, division 13, entitled “Airport Planning.”
Landsem Farms, LP v. Marion Cnty., 78 P.3d 103 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“” Accordingly, LUBA sustained in part petitioner’s assignment of error based on ORS 836.616 and remanded to the county the issue whether the proposed social events were “incidental to the normal operation of an airport.”
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.