2015 ORS 92.042¹
Governing body having jurisdiction to approve plans, maps or plats

(1) Land within six miles outside of the corporate limits of a city is under the jurisdiction of the city for the purpose of giving approval of plans, maps and plats of subdivisions and partitions under ORS 92.040 (Application for approval of subdivision or partition) and 227.110 (City approval prior to recording of subdivision plats and plats or deeds dedicating land to public use within six miles of city). However, unless otherwise provided in an urban growth area management agreement jointly adopted by a city and county to establish procedures for regulating land use outside the city limits and within an urban growth boundary acknowledged under ORS 197.251 (Compliance acknowledgment), when the governing body of a county has adopted ordinances or regulations for subdivision and partition control as required by ORS 92.044 (Adoption of standards and procedures governing approval of plats and plans), land in the county within the six-mile limit shall be under the jurisdiction of the county for those purposes.

(2) Land over six miles from the corporate limits of a city is under the jurisdiction of the county for the purpose of giving approval of plans, maps and plats for subdivisions and partitions under ORS 92.040 (Application for approval of subdivision or partition). [1955 c.756 §4; 1973 c.261 §1; 1973 c.696 §8; 1983 c.570 §3; 1991 c.763 §7]

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)

Under statutes in effect in 1981, parti­tioning of land parcel had effect of vacating pre­vi­ous lot lines unless parti­tion map indicates continued existence of parti­tioned lots. Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Develop­ment Co. v. Polk County, 246 Or App 548, 267 P3d 855 (2011)

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 398, 399 (1974)

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/­ors092.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 92, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano092.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
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.