ORS 197.312¹
Limitation on city and county prohibitions

(1) A city or county may not by charter prohibit from all residential zones attached or detached single-family housing, multifamily housing for both owner and renter occupancy or manufactured homes. A city or county may not by charter prohibit government assisted housing or impose additional approval standards on government assisted housing that are not applied to similar but unassisted housing.

(2)(a) A single-family dwelling for a farmworker and the farmworker’s immediate family is a permitted use in any residential or commercial zone that allows single-family dwellings as a permitted use.

(b) A city or county may not impose a zoning requirement on the establishment and maintenance of a single-family dwelling for a farmworker and the farmworker’s immediate family in a residential or commercial zone described in paragraph (a) of this subsection that is more restrictive than a zoning requirement imposed on other single-family dwellings in the same zone.

(3)(a) Multifamily housing for farmworkers and farmworkers’ immediate families is a permitted use in any residential or commercial zone that allows multifamily housing generally as a permitted use.

(b) A city or county may not impose a zoning requirement on the establishment and maintenance of multifamily housing for farmworkers and farmworkers’ immediate families in a residential or commercial zone described in paragraph (a) of this subsection that is more restrictive than a zoning requirement imposed on other multifamily housing in the same zone.

(4) A city or county may not prohibit a property owner or developer from maintaining a real estate sales office in a subdivision or planned community containing more than 50 lots or dwelling units for the sale of lots or dwelling units that remain available for sale to the public.

(5)(a) A city with a population greater than 2,500 or a county with a population greater than 15,000 shall allow in areas within the urban growth boundary that are zoned for detached single-family dwellings the development of at least one accessory dwelling unit for each detached single-family dwelling, subject to reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design.

(b) As used in this subsection:

(A) “Accessory dwelling unit” means an interior, attached or detached residential structure that is used in connection with or that is accessory to a single-family dwelling.

(B) “Reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design” does not include owner-occupancy requirements of either the primary or accessory structure or requirements to construct additional off-street parking.

(6) Subsection (5) of this section does not prohibit local governments from regulating vacation occupancies, as defined in ORS 90.100 (Definitions), to require owner-occupancy or off-street parking. [1983 c.795 §5; 1989 c.964 §7; 2001 c.437 §1; 2001 c.613 §3; 2011 c.354 §4; 2017 c.745 §6; 2018 c.15 §7; 2019 c.639 §7]

Law Review Cita­tions

26 WLR 398 (1990)

§§ 197.005 (Legislative findings) to 197.430 (Enforcement powers)

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, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors197.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 197, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano197.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
 
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. Currency Information