836.640
Definitions for ORS 836.640 and 836.642. As used in this section and ORS 836.642:
(1) “Airport
boundary” includes the combined public and private properties that are
permitted to have direct access to the airport runway by aircraft.
(2) “Customary
and usual aviation-related activity” includes activities described in ORS
836.616 (2) and includes activities that a local government may authorize
pursuant to ORS 836.616 (3).
(3) “Pilot site”
means a rural airport identified to participate in the pilot program pursuant
to ORS 836.642.
(4) “Rural
airport” means an airport described in ORS 836.610 (1) that principally serves
a city or metropolitan statistical area with a population of 500,000 or fewer.
(5) “Through the
fence operation” means a customary and usual aviation-related activity that:
(a) Is conducted
by a commercial or industrial user of property within an airport boundary; and
(b) Relies, for
business purposes, on the ability to taxi aircraft directly from the property
employed for the commercial or industrial use to an airport runway. [2005 c.820
§2; 2009 c.11 §100; 2009 c.398 §1; 2016 c.35 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
2
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2021–2022 · 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 13× “Through the Fence Operations Next we consider the statutes that establish the through the fence pilot program, ORS 836.640 and ORS 836.642. TLM contends that, in those provisions, the legisla- ture has redefined the boundary of the Aurora State Airport to include the subject…”
Schaefer v. Oregon Aviation Bd., 495 P.3d 1267 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 6× “ORS 836.640 does not apply LUBA rejected petitioners’ other challenges to the Master Plan’s compliance with the MCCP on the ground that those arguments relied on an assumption that the air- port expansion was an urban use of rural land, but that ORS 836.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 836.640(1) — 1 case
Schaefer v. Marion Cnty., 509 P.3d 718 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“Through the Fence Operations Next we consider the statutes that establish the through the fence pilot program, ORS 836.640 and ORS 836.642. TLM contends that, in those provisions, the legisla- ture has redefined the boundary of the Aurora State Airport to include the subject…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 836.640(2) — 1 case
Schaefer v. Marion Cnty., 509 P.3d 718 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“Through the Fence Operations Next we consider the statutes that establish the through the fence pilot program, ORS 836.640 and ORS 836.642. TLM contends that, in those provisions, the legisla- ture has redefined the boundary of the Aurora State Airport to include the subject…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 836.640(4) — 1 case
Schaefer v. Oregon Aviation Bd., 495 P.3d 1267 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“ORS 836.640 does not apply LUBA rejected petitioners’ other challenges to the Master Plan’s compliance with the MCCP on the ground that those arguments relied on an assumption that the air- port expansion was an urban use of rural land, but that ORS 836.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 836.640(5) — 2 cases
Schaefer v. Marion Cnty., 509 P.3d 718 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“Through the Fence Operations Next we consider the statutes that establish the through the fence pilot program, ORS 836.640 and ORS 836.642. TLM contends that, in those provisions, the legisla- ture has redefined the boundary of the Aurora State Airport to include the subject…”
Schaefer v. Oregon Aviation Bd., 495 P.3d 1267 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“ORS 836.640 does not apply LUBA rejected petitioners’ other challenges to the Master Plan’s compliance with the MCCP on the ground that those arguments relied on an assumption that the air- port expansion was an urban use of rural land, but that ORS 836.”
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.