2017 ORS 197.445¹
Destination resort criteria
  • phase-in requirements
  • annual accounting

A destination resort is a self-contained development that provides for visitor-oriented accommodations and developed recreational facilities in a setting with high natural amenities. To qualify as a destination resort under ORS 30.947 (Effect of siting of destination resorts or other nonfarm or nonforest uses), 197.435 (Definitions for ORS 197.435 to 197.467) to 197.467 (Conservation easement to protect resource site), 215.213 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in counties that adopted marginal lands system prior to 1993), 215.283 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in nonmarginal lands counties) and 215.284 (Dwelling not in conjunction with farm use), a proposed development must meet the following standards:

(1) The resort must be located on a site of 160 acres or more except within two miles of the ocean shoreline where the site shall be 40 acres or more.

(2) At least 50 percent of the site must be dedicated to permanent open space, excluding streets and parking areas.

(3) At least $7 million must be spent on improvements for on-site developed recreational facilities and visitor-oriented accommodations exclusive of costs for land, sewer and water facilities and roads. Not less than one-third of this amount must be spent on developed recreational facilities.

(4) Visitor-oriented accommodations including meeting rooms, restaurants with seating for 100 persons and 150 separate rentable units for overnight lodging shall be provided. However, the rentable overnight lodging units may be phased in as follows:

(a) On lands not described in paragraph (b) of this subsection:

(A) A total of 150 units of overnight lodging must be provided.

(B) At least 75 units of overnight lodging, not including any individually owned homes, lots or units, must be constructed or guaranteed through surety bonding or equivalent financial assurance prior to the closure of sale of individual lots or units.

(C) The remaining overnight lodging units must be provided as individually owned lots or units subject to deed restrictions that limit their use to use as overnight lodging units. The deed restrictions may be rescinded when the resort has constructed 150 units of permanent overnight lodging as required by this subsection.

(D) The number of units approved for residential sale may not be more than two units for each unit of permanent overnight lodging provided under this paragraph.

(E) The development approval must provide for the construction of other required overnight lodging units within five years of the initial lot sales.

(b) On lands in eastern Oregon, as defined in ORS 321.805 (Definitions for ORS 321.805 to 321.855):

(A) A total of 150 units of overnight lodging must be provided.

(B) At least 50 units of overnight lodging must be constructed prior to the closure of sale of individual lots or units.

(C) At least 50 of the remaining 100 required overnight lodging units must be constructed or guaranteed through surety bonding or equivalent financial assurance within five years of the initial lot sales.

(D) The remaining required overnight lodging units must be constructed or guaranteed through surety bonding or equivalent financial assurances within 10 years of the initial lot sales.

(E) The number of units approved for residential sale may not be more than 2-1/2 units for each unit of permanent overnight lodging provided under this paragraph.

(F) If the developer of a resort guarantees the overnight lodging units required under subparagraphs (C) and (D) of this paragraph through surety bonding or other equivalent financial assurance, the overnight lodging units must be constructed within four years of the date of execution of the surety bond or other equivalent financial assurance.

(5) Commercial uses allowed are limited to types and levels of use necessary to meet the needs of visitors to the development. Industrial uses of any kind are not permitted.

(6) In lieu of the standards in subsections (1), (3) and (4) of this section, the standards set forth in subsection (7) of this section apply to a destination resort:

(a) On land that is not defined as agricultural or forest land under any statewide planning goal;

(b) On land where there has been an exception to any statewide planning goal on agricultural lands, forestlands, public facilities and services and urbanization; or

(c) On such secondary lands as the Land Conservation and Development Commission deems appropriate.

(7) The following standards apply to the provisions of subsection (6) of this section:

(a) The resort must be located on a site of 20 acres or more.

(b) At least $2 million must be spent on improvements for on-site developed recreational facilities and visitor-oriented accommodations exclusive of costs for land, sewer and water facilities and roads. Not less than one-third of this amount must be spent on developed recreational facilities.

(c) At least 25 units, but not more than 75 units, of overnight lodging must be provided.

(d) Restaurant and meeting room with at least one seat for each unit of overnight lodging must be provided.

(e) Residential uses must be limited to those necessary for the staff and management of the resort.

(f) The governing body of the county or its designee has reviewed the resort proposed under this subsection and has determined that the primary purpose of the resort is to provide lodging and other services oriented to a recreational resource which can only reasonably be enjoyed in a rural area. Such recreational resources include, but are not limited to, a hot spring, a ski slope or a fishing stream.

(g) The resort must be constructed and located so that it is not designed to attract highway traffic. Resorts may not use any manner of outdoor advertising signing except:

(A) Tourist oriented directional signs as provided in ORS 377.715 (Application of ORS 377.700 to 377.844) to 377.830 (Limitation on motorist informational sign permits); and

(B) On-site identification and directional signs.

(8) Spending required under subsections (3) and (7) of this section is stated in 1993 dollars. The spending required shall be adjusted to the year in which calculations are made in accordance with the United States Consumer Price Index.

(9) When making a land use decision authorizing construction of a destination resort in eastern Oregon, as defined in ORS 321.805 (Definitions for ORS 321.805 to 321.855), the governing body of the county or its designee shall require the resort developer to provide an annual accounting to document compliance with the overnight lodging standards of this section. The annual accounting requirement commences one year after the initial lot or unit sales. The annual accounting must contain:

(a) Documentation showing that the resort contains a minimum of 150 permanent units of overnight lodging or, during the phase-in period, documentation showing the resort is not yet required to have constructed 150 units of overnight lodging.

(b) Documentation showing that the resort meets the lodging ratio described in subsection (4) of this section.

(c) For a resort counting individually owned units as qualified overnight lodging units, the number of weeks that each overnight lodging unit is available for rental to the general public as described in ORS 197.435 (Definitions for ORS 197.435 to 197.467). [1987 c.886 §4; 1993 c.590 §2; 2003 c.812 §2; 2005 c.22 §141; 2007 c.593 §1]

Notes of Decisions

County may approve develop­ment that does not meet require­ments for destina­tion resorts if county takes into account excep­tions to statewide planning goals for agricultural lands, forestlands, public facilities and services or urbaniza­tion. Friends of Marion County v. Marion County, 233 Or App 488, 227 P3d 198 (2010)

Site on which destina­tion resort is located does not need to be owned by single per­son. Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, 245 Or App 166, 262 P3d 1153 (2011)

Notes of Decisions

Determina­tion of whether area consists of 50 or more acres of contiguous prime farmland may be based on later soil capability studies, rather than being limited to local jurisdic­tion’s adopted destina­tion resort siting map. Foland v. Jackson County, 101 Or App 632, 792 P2d 1228 (1990), aff’d 311 Or 167, 807 P2d 801 (1991)

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 (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 197, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano197.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
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.