ORS 215.448¹
Home occupations
  • parking
  • where allowed
  • conditions

(1) The governing body of a county or its designate may allow, subject to the approval of the governing body or its designate, the establishment of a home occupation and the parking of vehicles in any zone. However, in an exclusive farm use zone, forest zone or a mixed farm and forest zone that allows residential uses, the following standards apply to the home occupation:

(a) It shall be operated by a resident or employee of a resident of the property on which the business is located;

(b) It shall employ on the site no more than five full-time or part-time persons;

(c) It shall be operated substantially in:

(A) The dwelling; or

(B) Other buildings normally associated with uses permitted in the zone in which the property is located; and

(d) It shall not unreasonably interfere with other uses permitted in the zone in which the property is located.

(2) The governing body of the county or its designate may establish additional reasonable conditions of approval for the establishment of a home occupation under subsection (1) of this section.

(3) Nothing in this section authorizes the governing body or its designate to permit construction of any structure that would not otherwise be allowed in the zone in which the home occupation is to be established.

(4) The existence of home occupations shall not be used as justification for a zone change. [1983 c.743 §2; 1995 c.465 §1]

Chapter 215

Notes of Decisions

Published notice is adequate if prop­erty owners can reasonably ascertain that prop­erty in which they hold interest may be affected. Clackamas County v. Emmert, 14 Or App 493, 513 P2d 532 (1973), Sup Ct review denied

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

Where county had not yet adopted comprehensive plan but had zoned certain por­tions "primarily agricultural," county had not enacted adequate interim measures to protect its agricultural land until exclusive farm use zoning was completed. Columbia County v. LCDC, 44 Or App 749, 606 P2d 1184 (1980)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., applica­tion to county governing bodies and planning com­mis­sions, (1974) Vol 36, p 960; binding effect on govern­mental agencies of the adop­tion of interim Willamette River Greenway boundaries, (1975) Vol 37, p 894

Law Review Cita­tions

36 EL 25 (2006)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 215—County Planning; Zoning; Housing Codes, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­Archive/­2007ors215.­pdf (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 215, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­215ano.­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. Currency Information