2007 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 analysis of buildable land supply), 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 authority to prohibit certain kinds of housing, including farmworker housing) 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) (5).

(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 (Local government notice of proposed amendment or new regulation) to 197.650 (Appeal to Court of Appeals).

(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]

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 (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)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 197—Comprehensive Land Use Planning Coordination, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­197.­html (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 197, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­197ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
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.