2015 ORS 197.307¹
Effect of need for certain housing in urban growth areas
  • approval standards for certain residential development
  • placement standards for approval of manufactured dwellings

(1) The availability of affordable, decent, safe and sanitary housing opportunities for persons of lower, middle and fixed income, including housing for farmworkers, is a matter of statewide concern.

(2) Many persons of lower, middle and fixed income depend on government assisted housing as a source of affordable, decent, safe and sanitary housing.

(3) When a need has been shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels, needed housing shall be permitted in one or more zoning districts or in zones described by some comprehensive plans as overlay zones with sufficient buildable land to satisfy that need.

(4) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a local government may adopt and apply only clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures regulating the development of needed housing on buildable land described in subsection (3) of this section. The standards, conditions and procedures may not have the effect, either in themselves or cumulatively, of discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay.

(5) The provisions of subsection (4) of this section do not apply to:

(a) An application or permit for residential development in an area identified in a formally adopted central city plan, or a regional center as defined by Metro, in a city with a population of 500,000 or more.

(b) An application or permit for residential development in historic areas designated for protection under a land use planning goal protecting historic areas.

(6) In addition to an approval process for needed housing based on clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures as provided in subsection (4) of this section, a local government may adopt and apply an alternative approval process for applications and permits for residential development based on approval criteria regulating, in whole or in part, appearance or aesthetics that are not clear and objective if:

(a) The applicant retains the option of proceeding under the approval process that meets the requirements of subsection (4) of this section;

(b) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process comply with applicable statewide land use planning goals and rules; and

(c) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process authorize a density at or above the density level authorized in the zone under the approval process provided in subsection (4) of this section.

(7) Subject to subsection (4) of this section, this section does not infringe on a local government’s prerogative to:

(a) Set approval standards under which a particular housing type is permitted outright;

(b) Impose special conditions upon approval of a specific development proposal; or

(c) Establish approval procedures.

(8) In accordance with subsection (4) of this section and ORS 197.314 (Required siting of manufactured homes), a jurisdiction may adopt any or all of the following placement standards, or any less restrictive standard, for the approval of manufactured homes located outside mobile home parks:

(a) The manufactured home shall be multisectional and enclose a space of not less than 1,000 square feet.

(b) The manufactured home shall be placed on an excavated and back-filled foundation and enclosed at the perimeter such that the manufactured home is located not more than 12 inches above grade.

(c) The manufactured home shall have a pitched roof, except that no standard shall require a slope of greater than a nominal three feet in height for each 12 feet in width.

(d) The manufactured home shall have exterior siding and roofing which in color, material and appearance is similar to the exterior siding and roofing material commonly used on residential dwellings within the community or which is comparable to the predominant materials used on surrounding dwellings as determined by the local permit approval authority.

(e) The manufactured home shall be certified by the manufacturer to have an exterior thermal envelope meeting performance standards which reduce levels equivalent to the performance standards required of single-family dwellings constructed under the state building code as defined in ORS 455.010 (Definitions for ORS chapter 455).

(f) The manufactured home shall have a garage or carport constructed of like materials. A jurisdiction may require an attached or detached garage in lieu of a carport where such is consistent with the predominant construction of immediately surrounding dwellings.

(g) In addition to the provisions in paragraphs (a) to (f) of this subsection, a city or county may subject a manufactured home and the lot upon which it is sited to any development standard, architectural requirement and minimum size requirement to which a conventional single-family residential dwelling on the same lot would be subject. [1981 c.884 §5; 1983 c.795 §3; 1989 c.380 §2; 1989 c.964 §6; 1993 c.184 §3; 1997 c.733 §2; 1999 c.357 §1; 2001 c.613 §2; 2011 c.354 §3]

Notes of Decisions

Where local pro­vi­sions deal with contents of notices re­quired under ORS 227.178 (Final action on certain applications required within 120 days), "clear and objective" standards may be es­tab­lished through notice contents rather than through text of local pro­vi­sions. Rogue Valley Associa­tion of Realtors v. City of Ashland, 158 Or App 1, 970 P2d 685 (1999), Sup Ct review denied

Require­ment that appearance and aesthetic standards attached to certain develop­ment or permit applica­tions be "clear and objective" applies only when standards have no other regulatory purpose. Rogue Valley Associa­tion of Realtors v. City of Ashland, 158 Or App 1, 970 P2d 685 (1999), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

18 WLR 75 (1982); 61 OLR 351 (1982)

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 414-421, 474, 475 (1974); 56 OLR 270 (1977)

Chapter 197

Notes of Decisions

A comprehensive plan, although denominated a "resolu­tion," is the controlling land use planning instru­ment for a city; upon its passage, the city assumes responsibility to effectuate the plan and conform zoning ordinances, including prior existing zoning ordinances, to it. Baker v. City of Milwaukie, 271 Or 500, 533 P2d 772 (1975)

Procedural require­ments of the state-wide planning goals adopted by the Land Conserva­tion and Develop­ment Commission are not applicable to ordinances adopted before the effective date of the goals. Schmidt v. Land Conserva­tion and Develop­ment Comm., 29 Or App 665, 564 P2d 1090 (1977)

This chapter, es­tab­lishing LCDC and granting it authority to es­tab­lish state-wide land use planning goals, does not unconstitu­tionally delegate legislative power where both standards (ORS chapter 215) and safeguards ([former] ORS 197.310) exist. Meyer v. Lord, 37 Or App 59, 586 P2d 367 (1978)

Where county's comprehensive plan and land use regula­tions had not been acknowledged by LCDC, it was proper for county to apply state-wide planning standards directly to individual request for parti­tion. Alexanderson v. Polk County Commissioners, 289 Or 427, 616 P2d 459 (1980)

Issuance of a building permit was a "land conserva­tion and develop­ment ac­tion" where county had no acknowledged comprehensive plan, land was not zoned and no pre­vi­ous land use decision had been made re­gard­ing the land. Columbia Hills v. LCDC, 50 Or App 483, 624 P2d 157 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Nothing in this chapter grants the Land Conserva­tion and Develop­ment Depart­ment authority to challenge local land use decisions made after comprehensive plan acknowledg­ment. Ochoco Const. v. LCDC, 295 Or 422, 667 P2d 499 (1983)

LCDC has authority in periodic review process to require local govern­ment to add specific language or pro­vi­sions to its land use legisla­tion to assure compliance with statewide goals and LCDC rules. Oregonians in Ac­tion v. LCDC, 121 Or App 497, 854 P2d 1010 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Authority of a land conserva­tion and develop­ment com­mis­sion to bind the state in an interstate compact or agree­ment, (1973) Vol 36, p 361; applica­tion of Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., (1974) Vol 36, p 960; state-wide planning goal in conjunc­tion with interim Willamette River Greenway boundaries, (1975) Vol 37, p 894; binding effect on govern­mental agencies of the adop­tion of interim Willamette River Greenway boundaries, (1975) Vol 37, p 894; applica­tion to state agencies, (1976) Vol 37, p 1129; preexisting ordinances during the interim imple­menting stage, (1976) Vol 37, p 1329; constitu­tionality of delega­tion to LCDC of authority to prescribe and enforce statewide planning goals, (1977) Vol 38, p 1130; effect of situa­tion where similar peti­tion is filed before both com­mis­sion and a court, (1977) Vol 38, p 1268; considera­tion of availability of public school facilities in determina­tion of whether to approve subdivision, (1978) Vol 38, p 1956

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 99 (1973); 53 OLR 129 (1974); 5 EL 673 (1975); 54 OLR 203-223 (1975); 56 OLR 444 (1977); 18 WLR 49 (1982); 61 OLR 351 (1982); 20 WLR 764 (1984); 14 EL 661, 693, 713, 779, 843 (1984); 25 WLR 259 (1989); 31 WLR 147, 449, 817 (1995); 36 EL 25 (2006); 49 WLR 411 (2013)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 197—Comprehensive Land Use Planning I, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors197.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 197, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano197.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.