2007 ORS 92.185¹
Reconfiguration of lots or parcels and public easements
  • vacation
  • notice
  • utility easements

The act of replatting shall allow the reconfiguration of lots or parcels and public easements within a recorded plat. Except as provided in subsection (5) of this section, upon approval by the reviewing agency or body as defined in ORS 92.180 (Authority to review replats), replats will act to vacate the platted lots or parcels and easements within the replat area with the following conditions:

(1) A replat, as defined in ORS 92.010 (Definitions for ORS 92.010 to 92.190) shall apply only to a recorded plat.

(2) Notice shall be provided as described in ORS 92.225 (Review of undeveloped or developed subdivision plat lands) (4) when the replat is replatting all of an undeveloped subdivision as defined in ORS 92.225 (Review of undeveloped or developed subdivision plat lands).

(3) Notice, consistent with the governing body of a city or county approval of a tentative plan of a subdivision plat, shall be provided by the governing body to the owners of property adjacent to the exterior boundaries of the tentative subdivision replat.

(4) When a utility easement is proposed to be realigned, reduced in width or omitted by a replat, all affected utility companies or public agencies shall be notified, consistent with a governing body’s notice to owners of property contiguous to the proposed plat. Any utility company that desires to maintain an easement subject to vacation under this section must notify the governing body in writing within 14 days of the mailing or other service of the notice.

(5) A replat shall not serve to vacate any public street or road.

(6) A replat shall comply with all subdivision provisions of this chapter and all applicable ordinances and regulations adopted under this chapter. [1985 c.369 §3; 1991 c.763 §19; 1993 c.702 §9]

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.