ORS 197.314¹
Required siting of manufactured homes
  • minimum lot size
  • approval standards

(1) Notwithstanding ORS 197.296 (Factors to establish sufficiency of buildable lands within urban growth boundary), 197.298 (Priority of land to be included within urban growth boundary), 197.299 (Metropolitan service district accommodation of needed housing and school lands), 197.301 (Metropolitan service district report of performance measures), 197.302 (Metropolitan service district determination of buildable land supply), 197.303 (“Needed housing” defined), 197.307 (Effect of need for certain housing in urban growth areas), 197.312 (Limitation on city and county prohibitions) and 197.313 (Interpretation of ORS 197.312), within urban growth boundaries each city and county shall amend its comprehensive plan and land use regulations for all land zoned for single-family residential uses to allow for siting of manufactured homes as defined in ORS 446.003 (Definitions for ORS 446.003 to 446.200 and 446.225 to 446.285 and ORS chapters 195, 196, 197, 215 and 227). A local government may only subject the siting of a manufactured home allowed under this section to regulation as set forth in ORS 197.307 (Effect of need for certain housing in urban growth areas) (8).

(2) Cities and counties shall adopt and amend comprehensive plans and land use regulations under subsection (1) of this section according to the provisions of ORS 197.610 (Submission of proposed comprehensive plan or land use regulation changes to Department of Land Conservation and Development) to 197.651 (Appeal to Court of Appeals for judicial review of final order of Land Conservation and Development Commission).

(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to any area designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation as a historic district or residential land immediately adjacent to a historic landmark.

(4) Manufactured homes on individual lots zoned for single-family residential use in subsection (1) of this section shall be in addition to manufactured homes on lots within designated manufactured dwelling subdivisions.

(5) Within any residential zone inside an urban growth boundary where a manufactured dwelling park is otherwise allowed, a city or county shall not adopt, by charter or ordinance, a minimum lot size for a manufactured dwelling park that is larger than one acre.

(6) A city or county may adopt the following standards for the approval of manufactured homes located in manufactured dwelling parks that are smaller than three acres:

(a) 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.

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

(7) This section shall not be construed as abrogating a recorded restrictive covenant. [1993 c.184 §2; 1997 c.295 §1; 1999 c.348 §7; 2005 c.22 §139; 2011 c.354 §5]

Note: Sections 1 to 9, chapter 52, Oregon Laws 2016, provide:

Sec. 1. Sections 2 to 9 of this 2016 Act are added to and made a part of ORS 197.295 to 197.314 (Required siting of manufactured homes) [series became 197.286 (Definitions for ORS 197.286 to 197.314 and 197.475 to 197.490) to 197.314 (Required siting of manufactured homes)]. [2016 c.52 §1]

Sec. 2. Legislative findings. The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that a supply of land dedicated to affordable housing, planned and zoned to encourage development of affordable housing and protected for affordable housing siting over a long period, is necessary for the economic prosperity of communities in this state. [2016 c.52 §2]

Sec. 3. Affordable housing pilot program. The Land Conservation and Development Commission, working with the Housing and Community Services Department, other state agencies and local governments, shall establish and implement an affordable housing pilot program. Notwithstanding any statewide land use planning goal provisions specifying requirements for amending urban growth boundaries, the commission shall adopt rules to implement the pilot program on or before July 1, 2017. The pilot program is intended to:

(1) Encourage local governments to provide an adequate supply of land within urban growth boundaries that is dedicated to affordable housing;

(2) Encourage the development of affordable housing on land dedicated to affordable housing; and

(3) Protect land dedicated to affordable housing from conversion to other uses before or after the development of affordable housing. [2016 c.52 §3]

Sec. 4. Establishment of site selection process. (1) Under the rules adopted under section 3, chapter 52, Oregon Laws 2016, the Land Conservation and Development Commission shall establish a site selection process by which the commission shall select two pilot projects, one from a city with a population of 25,000 or less and one from a city with a population greater than 25,000, from among nominations made by local governments. However, if the commission has not received any qualifying nominations from a city with a population of 25,000 or less on or before the effective date of this 2019 Act [January 1, 2020], the commission may select any two pilot projects eligible for selection on or before August 17, 2018.

(2) A local government may nominate a pilot project that provides a site dedicated to affordable housing within the jurisdiction of the local government.

(3) When nominating a pilot project for the site selection process, a local government shall:

(a) Submit a concept plan for the pilot project, including any proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan and land use regulations required to implement the pilot project; and

(b) Demonstrate that the landowner of the site has agreed to designation of the landowner’s property as a pilot project for the purposes of sections 2 to 9, chapter 52, Oregon Laws 2016.

(4) The commission shall select pilot projects that are:

(a) Reasonably likely to provide a site for affordable housing that would not otherwise be provided without the special provisions of the pilot program;

(b) Reasonably likely to serve identified populations in the area that require affordable housing;

(c) Adjacent to the city’s existing urban growth boundary;

(d) Near public facilities and services, including roadways and an identified transit corridor to serve the area, or for which public facilities and services are planned and reasonably likely to be provided at a reasonable cost in the near future;

(e) Located, planned and zoned to avoid or minimize adverse effects on natural resources and nearby farm and forest uses if the pilot project would require amending an urban growth boundary to include the pilot project site; and

(f) Nominated by a local government that demonstrates efforts by the local government to accommodate and encourage the development of needed housing within its existing urban growth boundary.

(5) The following local governments are not eligible for nomination or selection under the pilot program:

(a) Clackamas, Marion, Multnomah, Polk and Washington Counties and cities within Clackamas, Marion, Multnomah, Polk and Washington Counties;

(b) Metro and cities and counties included in the Metro urban growth boundary; and

(c) Local governments within Jefferson County that are served by the North Unit Irrigation District. [2016 c.52 §4; 2019 c.32 §1]

Sec. 5. Rules. (1) The Land Conservation and Development Commission shall, by rule:

(a) Define “affordable housing”;

(b) Specify types of affordable housing allowed on pilot project sites, including sites that are used as manufactured dwelling parks;

(c) Limit the total acreage of all lots and parcels included in each pilot project site to not greater than 50 acres; and

(d) Specify local government efforts that serve to demonstrate that the local government is accommodating and encouraging development of needed housing within its existing urban growth boundary.

(2) The commission shall specify by rule related requirements for affordable housing that may include a sales price or rental rate range, taking into consideration:

(a) Housing prices within the region compared to the income of residents of that region;

(b) The availability of government assisted housing in the region;

(c) The need for sites to accommodate manufactured dwellings, as defined in ORS 446.003 (Definitions for ORS 446.003 to 446.200 and 446.225 to 446.285 and ORS chapters 195, 196, 197, 215 and 227), due to the conversion of manufactured dwelling parks or mobile home parks in the region to other uses; and

(d) Other relevant factors as identified by the commission.

(3) The commission may adopt rules that authorize mixed income housing developments that include affordable housing on pilot project sites. [2016 c.52 §5]

Sec. 6. Expedited process for amending urban growth boundaries to include selected site. (1) Notwithstanding ORS 197A.320 and without regard to whether an urban growth boundary already contains a 20-year supply of buildable lands, the Land Conservation and Development Commission by rule may establish an expedited process for amending urban growth boundaries to include pilot project sites selected under section 4 of this 2016 Act.

(2) An amendment to an urban growth boundary pursuant to this section must identify the specific goal and rule requirements related to urban growth boundaries from which a local government is exempt for the purpose of implementing the pilot program.

(3) Pilot project sites included within an urban growth boundary amended pursuant to this section must:

(a) Be dedicated to affordable housing; and

(b) Remain planned and zoned for affordable housing, except as otherwise provided in rules adopted pursuant to section 5 (3) of this 2016 Act. [2016 c.52 §6]

Sec. 7. Site protection from conversion to other uses. (1) The local government of a pilot project site selected by the Land Conservation and Development Commission under section 4 of this 2016 Act shall protect the pilot project site within its urban growth boundary from conversion to other uses before, during and after the development of affordable housing at the pilot project site, except as provided otherwise in rules adopted by the commission under section 5 (3) of this 2016 Act.

(2) The local government of a pilot project site selected by the commission shall ensure that housing developed on the site continues to be used to provide affordable housing for a period of at least 50 years after the selection of the pilot project site through:

(a) Zoning restrictions;

(b) Guaranteed rental rates or sales prices;

(c) Incentives, contract commitments, density bonuses or other voluntary regulations, provisions or conditions designed to increase the supply of moderate or lower cost housing units;

(d) Other regulations, provisions or conditions determined by the local government to be effective in maintaining the affordability of housing on land selected for a pilot project under section 4 of this 2016 Act; or

(e) Restrictive agreements entered into with sources of affordable housing funding.

(3) The local government of a pilot project site selected by the commission may authorize a mix of affordable housing and other housing types on the site, provided that the percentage of affordable housing units developed on the site meets or exceeds requirements specified in rules adopted by the commission pursuant to section 5 (3) of this 2016 Act. [2016 c.52 §7]

Sec. 8. Certain local government actions prohibited. (1) The local government of a pilot project site selected by the Land Conservation and Development Commission under section 4 of this 2016 Act may not plan or zone the site to allow a use or mix of uses not authorized under sections 2 to 9 of this 2016 Act unless the local government withdraws the pilot project site from the urban growth boundary and rezones the site pursuant to law, statewide land use planning goals and land use regulations implementing the goals that regulate allowable uses of land outside urban growth boundaries.

(2) A local government may not use sections 2 to 9 of this 2016 Act to bring high-value farmland, as determined by the commission, within its urban growth boundary.

(3) The inclusion of pilot project sites dedicated to affordable housing within an urban growth boundary pursuant to sections 2 to 9 of this 2016 Act does not authorize a local government to convert buildable lands within the urban growth boundary that are planned for needed housing, as defined in ORS 197.303 (“Needed housing” defined), to other uses.

(4) Notwithstanding ORS 197.309 (Local ordinances or approval conditions effectively establishing housing sale or rental price) (2), for a pilot project site selected under section 4 of this 2016 Act, and affordable housing developed on a selected pilot project site, a local government may take any action described in ORS 197.309 (Local ordinances or approval conditions effectively establishing housing sale or rental price) that has the effect of establishing the sales price for a housing unit or residential building lot or parcel, or that requires a housing unit or residential building lot or parcel to be designated for sale to a particular class or group of purchasers.

(5) Sections 2 to 9 of this 2016 Act do not constitute a statutory contract. A pilot project site selected under section 4 of this 2016 Act and affordable housing developed on a selected pilot project site remain subject to new or additional regulatory requirements authorized by law, statewide land use planning goals and land use regulations implementing the goals.

(6) As used in this section, “lot” and “parcel” have the meanings given those terms in ORS 92.010 (Definitions for ORS 92.010 to 92.192). [2016 c.52 §8]

Sec. 9. Reporting requirement. The Land Conservation and Development Commission shall report on the progress of the pilot program, in the manner provided in ORS 192.245 (Form of report to legislature), to the committees of the Legislative Assembly related to housing and human services:

(1) At least once during each of three consecutive regular sessions of the Legislative Assembly, beginning with the 2017 regular session of the Legislative Assembly; and

(2) At least once following adjournment sine die of the regular sessions of the Legislative Assembly described in subsection (1) of this section, but no later than the convening of the next regular session of the Legislative Assembly. [2016 c.52 §9]

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