Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.435 (2026)

Definitions for ORS 197.435 to 197.467

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      197.435 Definitions for ORS 197.435 to 197.467. As used in ORS 197.435 to 197.467:

      (1) “Developed recreational facilities” means improvements constructed for the purpose of recreation and may include but are not limited to golf courses, tennis courts, swimming pools, marinas, ski runs and bicycle paths.

      (2) “High value crop area” means an area in which there is a concentration of commercial farms capable of producing crops or products with a minimum gross value of $1,000 per acre per year. These crops and products include field crops, small fruits, berries, tree fruits, nuts or vegetables, dairying, livestock feedlots or Christmas trees as these terms are used in the 1983 County and State Agricultural Estimates prepared by the Oregon State University Extension Service. The “high value crop area” designation is used for the purpose of minimizing conflicting uses in resort siting and does not revise the requirements of an agricultural land goal or administrative rules interpreting the goal.

      (3) “Map of eligible lands” means a map of the county adopted pursuant to ORS 197.455.

      (4) “Open space” means any land that is retained in a substantially natural condition or is improved for recreational uses such as golf courses, hiking or nature trails or equestrian or bicycle paths or is specifically required to be protected by a conservation easement. Open spaces may include ponds, lands protected as important natural features, lands preserved for farm or forest use and lands used as buffers. Open space does not include residential lots or yards, streets or parking areas.

      (5) “Overnight lodgings” means:

      (a) With respect to lands not identified in paragraph (b) of this subsection, permanent, separately rentable accommodations that are not available for residential use, including hotel or motel rooms, cabins and time-share units. Individually owned units may be considered overnight lodgings if they are available for overnight rental use by the general public for at least 45 weeks per calendar year through a central reservation and check-in service. Tent sites, recreational vehicle parks, manufactured dwellings, dormitory rooms and similar accommodations do not qualify as overnight lodgings for the purpose of this definition.

      (b) With respect to lands in eastern Oregon, as defined in ORS 321.805, permanent, separately rentable accommodations that are not available for residential use, including hotel or motel rooms, cabins and time-share units. Individually owned units may be considered overnight lodgings if they are available for overnight rental use by the general public for at least 38 weeks per calendar year through a central reservation system operated by the destination resort or by a real estate property manager, as defined in ORS 696.010. Tent sites, recreational vehicle parks, manufactured dwellings, dormitory rooms and similar accommodations do not qualify as overnight lodgings for the purpose of this definition.

      (6) “Self-contained development” means a development for which community sewer and water facilities are provided on-site and are limited to meet the needs of the development or are provided by existing public sewer or water service as long as all costs related to service extension and any capacity increases are borne by the development. A “self-contained development” must have developed recreational facilities provided on-site.

      (7) “Tract” means a lot or parcel or more than one contiguous lot or parcel in a single ownership. A tract may include property that is not included in the proposed site for a destination resort if the property to be excluded is on the boundary of the tract and constitutes less than 30 percent of the total tract.

      (8) “Visitor-oriented accommodations” means overnight lodging, restaurants and meeting facilities that are designed to and provide for the needs of visitors rather than year-round residents. [1987 c.886 §3; 1989 c.648 §52; 1993 c.590 §1; 2003 c.812 §1; 2005 c.22 §140]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2022 · leading case: Cent. Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes Cnty., 396 P.3d 968 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
Cent. Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes Cnty., 396 P.3d 968 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 38× “The resort was approved in 2006 under the destination-resort land use statutes, ORS 197.435 to 197.467, which were promulgated in accordance with Statewide Planning Goal 8.”
Root v. Klamath Cnty., 320 P.3d 631 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 12× “JWTR owns land in Klamath County for which it seeks approval for the siting of a destination resort under ORS 197.435 to 197.467. To that end, JWTR applied to Klamath County for an amendment to the county’s comprehensive plan and zoning maps.”
Foland v. Jackson Cnty., 807 P.2d 801 (Or. 1991). · cites it 2× “We must decide whether what petitioners on review label as a “Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment” to Jackson County’s comprehensive plan is reviewable for compliance with ORS 197.435 et seq and state-wide planning Goal 8, and whether the county is bound by its original…”
Gould v. Deschutes Cnty., 171 P.3d 1017 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “ORS 197.435 to 197.467; OAR 660-015-0000(8) (Statewide Planning Goal 8 (Recreational Needs)); Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapter 18.”
Gould v. Deschutes Cnty., 206 P.3d 1106 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 197.435 to 197.467; OAR 660-015-0000(8) (Statewide Planning Goal 8 (Recreational Needs)); Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapter 18.”
All. for Responsible Land Use v. Deschutes Cnty., 839 P.2d 746 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “Although counties that choose to provide for destination resorts must comply with ORS 197.435 et seq and Goal 8, no county is required to adopt destination resort provisions or to make the concomitant determinations about high value crop areas within its territory.”
Friends of Marion Cnty. v. Marion Cnty., 227 P.3d 198 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “445 provides that ‘[t]o qualify as a destination resort under’ various statutes, including ORS 197.435 to 197.467, ‘a proposed development must meet the following standards[.”
Gould v. Deschutes Cnty., 518 P.3d 978 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “Goal 8; ORS 197.435 to 197.467. Deschutes County provides for the development of destination resorts by a three-step approval process described in Deschutes County Code (DCC) 18.”
Cent. Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes Cnty., 262 P.3d 1153 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 10× “The county may not allow destination resorts approved pursuant to ORS 197.435 to 197.467 to be sited in any of the following areas: “(a) Within 24 air miles of an urban growth boundary with an existing population of 100,000 or more unless residential uses are limited to those…”
Foland v. Jackson Cnty., 792 P.2d 1228 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 3× “” ORS 197.435 through 197.465 were enacted in an apparent effort to codify the destination resort section of the goal.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.435(1) — 1 case
Cent. Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes Cnty., 396 P.3d 968 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “The resort was approved in 2006 under the destination-resort land use statutes, ORS 197.435 to 197.467, which were promulgated in accordance with Statewide Planning Goal 8.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.435(2) — 1 case
All. for Responsible Land Use v. Deschutes Cnty., 839 P.2d 746 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “Although counties that choose to provide for destination resorts must comply with ORS 197.435 et seq and Goal 8, no county is required to adopt destination resort provisions or to make the concomitant determinations about high value crop areas within its territory.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.435(5)(b) — 1 case
Cent. Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes Cnty., 396 P.3d 968 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “The resort was approved in 2006 under the destination-resort land use statutes, ORS 197.435 to 197.467, which were promulgated in accordance with Statewide Planning Goal 8.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.435(7) — 2 cases
Root v. Klamath Cnty., 320 P.3d 631 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “JWTR owns land in Klamath County for which it seeks approval for the siting of a destination resort under ORS 197.435 to 197.467. To that end, JWTR applied to Klamath County for an amendment to the county’s comprehensive plan and zoning maps.”
Cent. Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes Cnty., 262 P.3d 1153 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “The county may not allow destination resorts approved pursuant to ORS 197.435 to 197.467 to be sited in any of the following areas: “(a) Within 24 air miles of an urban growth boundary with an existing population of 100,000 or more unless residential uses are limited to those…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.