2017 ORS 215.740¹
Large tract forestland dwelling
  • criteria
  • rules

(1) If a dwelling is not allowed under ORS 215.720 (Criteria for forestland dwelling under ORS 215.705) (1), a dwelling may be allowed on land zoned for forest use under a goal protecting forestland if it complies with other provisions of law and is sited on a tract:

(a) In eastern Oregon of at least 240 contiguous acres except as provided in subsection (3) of this section; or

(b) In western Oregon of at least 160 contiguous acres except as provided in subsection (3) of this section.

(2) For purposes of subsection (1) of this section, a tract shall not be considered to consist of less than 240 acres or 160 acres because it is crossed by a public road or a waterway.

(3)(a) An owner of tracts that are not contiguous but are in the same county or adjacent counties and zoned for forest use may add together the acreage of two or more tracts to total 320 acres or more in eastern Oregon or 200 acres or more in western Oregon to qualify for a dwelling under subsection (1) of this section.

(b) If an owner totals 320 or 200 acres, as appropriate, under paragraph (a) of this subsection, the owner shall submit proof of nonrevocable deed restrictions recorded in the deed records for the tracts in the 320 or 200 acres, as appropriate. The deed restrictions shall preclude all future rights to construct a dwelling on the tracts or to use the tracts to total acreage for future siting of dwellings for present and any future owners unless the tract is no longer subject to protection under goals for agricultural lands or forestlands.

(c) The Land Conservation and Development Commission shall adopt rules that prescribe the language of the deed restriction, the procedures for recording, the procedures under which counties shall keep records of lots or parcels used to create the total, the mechanisms for providing notice to subsequent purchasers of the limitations under paragraph (b) of this subsection and other rules to implement this section. [1993 c.792 §4(2),(3),(5)]

Law Review Cita­tions

36 WLR 441 (2000)

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.