2007 ORS 92.065¹
Monumenting certain subdivision corners after recording plat
  • bond, cash deposit or other security

(1) Except for exterior monuments described in ORS 92.060 (Marking subdivision, partition or condominium plats with monuments) (5), if the remaining corners of a subdivision are to be monumented on or before a specified date after the recording of the plat of the subdivision, the person subdividing the land described in the subdivision plat shall furnish to the county surveyor, prior to approval of the subdivision plat by the county surveyor, a bond, cash deposit, irrevocable letter of credit issued by an insured institution as defined in ORS 706.008 (Additional definitions for Bank Act) or other security, as required at the option of the city or county, in an amount equal to 120 percent of the estimated cost of performing the work for the remaining monumentation.

(2) The county surveyor may require that the setting of the remaining corners of the subdivision be delayed, according to the provisions of this section, if the installation of street and utility improvements has not been completed, or if other conditions or circumstances justify the delay.

(3) The person subdividing the lands described in subsection (1) of this section shall pay the surveyor for performing the remaining monumentation work and notify the county surveyor of the payment. The county surveyor, within three months after the notice, shall release the bond, irrevocable letter of credit or other required security, or return the cash deposit upon a finding that the payment has been made. Upon written request from the person subdividing the land, the governing body may pay the surveyor from moneys within a cash deposit held by it for that purpose and return the excess of the cash deposit, if any, to the person who made the deposit. If the subdivider has not paid the surveyor within 30 days of final approval of the remaining monumentation, the city or county may pay the surveyor from moneys held in a cash deposit, if any, or require payment to be made from other security.

(4) In the event of the death, disability or retirement from practice of the surveyor charged with the responsibility for setting remaining monuments for a subdivision or upon the failure or refusal of the surveyor to set the monuments, the county surveyor shall cause the monumentation to be completed and referenced for recording as provided in ORS 92.070 (Surveyor's certificates). If another surveyor completes the remaining monumentation, the surveyor shall submit an affidavit to the county surveyor complying with ORS 92.070 (Surveyor's certificates) (3)(b). The county surveyor shall note on the original, and on any exact copies filed in accordance with ORS 92.120 (Recording plats) (3) the surveyor’s name and business address. Payment of the fees for completing said monumentation shall be made by the subdivider within 30 days of the completion of such work. In the event that the subdivider fails to pay such fees within 30 days, the bond, cash deposit, irrevocable letter of credit or other security may be used to pay such fees; and when such cash or other securities are inadequate to cover the cost incurred by the county surveyor, the balance due will constitute a lien on any lots in the subdivision that are still in the ownership of the subdivider when recorded pursuant to ORS 93.600 (Description of real property for purposes of recordation) to 93.800 (Matter not to be recorded when accompanying mortgage or trust deed). [1973 c.696 §14; 1983 c.309 §5; 1989 c.772 §10; 1991 c.331 §21; 1991 c.763 §12; 1995 c.382 §6; 1997 c.631 §392; 1999 c.1018 §4]

Notes of Decisions

Due process standards applicable to land use decisions apply to ad­min­is­tra­­tion of subdivision ordinance. Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or App 761, 566 P2d 904 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Due process require­ments for granting of variances are identical regardless of whether variance is area variance or use variance. Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or App 761, 566 P2d 904 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Approval of tentative plan under subdivision ordinance is final order reviewable in writ of review pro­ceed­ing. Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or App 761, 566 P2d 904 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Modifica­tion of sought-after approval of tentative plan must be treated same procedurally as initial applica­tion. Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or App 761, 566 P2d 904 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Owner of parcel unlawfully conveyed without having been parti­tioned could not unilaterally seek to parti­tion parcel from remainder of original prop­erty remaining in separate ownership. Kilian v. City of West Linn, 88 Or App 242, 744 P2d 1314 (1987)

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 398, 399 (1974)

Chapter 92

Chapter 92

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Standards county may impose for approval of private roads created in parti­tioning land, (1972) Vol 35, p 1230; effect of county zoning ordinances on approved subdivision plat, (1973) Vol 36, p 702; applica­tion of Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., decision, (1974) Vol 36, p 960

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 394-403 (1974)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 92—Subdivisions and Partitions, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­092.­html (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 92, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­092ano.­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.