2017 ORS 215.459¹
Private campground in forest zones and mixed farm and forest zones
  • yurts
  • rules

(1)(a) Subject to the approval of the county governing body or its designee, a private campground may be established in an area zoned for forest use or mixed farm and forest use. Subject to the approval of the county governing body or its designee, the campground may provide yurts for overnight camping. No more than one-third or a maximum of 10 campsites, whichever is smaller, may include a yurt. The yurt shall be located on the ground or on a wood floor with no permanent foundation.

(b) A public park or campground may be established as provided in ORS 195.120 (Rules and planning goal amendments for parks required) in an area zoned for forest use or mixed farm and forest use.

(2) Upon request of a county governing body, the Land Conservation and Development Commission may provide by rule for an increase in the number of yurts allowed on all or a portion of the campgrounds in a county if the commission determines that the increase will comply with the standards described in ORS 215.296 (Standards for approval of certain uses in exclusive farm use zones) (1).

(3) As used in this section, “yurt” means a round, domed shelter of cloth or canvas on a collapsible frame with no plumbing, sewage disposal hookup or internal cooking appliance. [1999 c.758 §4]

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 ([former] 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/­ors/­ors215.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 215, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano215.­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.