197.455 Siting
of destination resorts; sites from which destination resort excluded. (1) A destination resort may be
sited only on lands mapped as eligible for destination resort siting by the
affected county. 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 necessary for the staff and
management of the resort.
(b)(A) On a site
with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farmland identified and
mapped by the United States Natural Resources Conservation Service, or its
predecessor agency.
(B) On a site
within three miles of a high value crop area unless the resort complies with
the requirements of ORS 197.445 (6) in which case the resort may not be closer
to a high value crop area than one-half mile for each 25 units of overnight
lodging or fraction thereof.
(c) On
predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forestlands as determined by the
State Forestry Department, which are not subject to an approved goal exception.
(d) In the
Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area as defined by the Columbia River
Gorge National Scenic Act, P.L. 99-663.
(e) In an
especially sensitive big game habitat area:
(A) As determined
by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife in July 1984, and in additional
especially sensitive big game habitat areas designated by a county in an
acknowledged comprehensive plan; or
(B) If the State
Fish and Wildlife Commission amends the 1984 determination with respect to an
entire county and the county amends its comprehensive plan to reflect the
commission’s subsequent determination, as designated in the acknowledged
comprehensive plan.
(f) On a site in
which the lands are predominantly classified as being in Fire Regime Condition
Class 3, unless the county approves a wildfire protection plan that
demonstrates the site can be developed without being at a high overall risk of
fire.
(2) In carrying
out subsection (1) of this section, a county shall adopt, as part of its
comprehensive plan, a map consisting of eligible lands within the county. The
map must be based on reasonably available information and may be amended
pursuant to ORS 197.610 to 197.625, but not more frequently than once every 30
months. The county shall develop a process for collecting and processing
concurrently all map amendments made within a 30-month planning period. A map
adopted pursuant to this section shall be the sole basis for determining
whether tracts of land are eligible for destination resort siting pursuant to
ORS 197.435 to 197.467. [1987 c.886 §6; 1993 c.590 §3; 1997 c.249 §57; 2003
c.812 §3; 2005 c.22 §142; 2005 c.205 §1; 2010 c.32 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Root v. Klamath Cnty., 320 P.3d 631 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 5× “Pertinent to the issues raised in this proceeding, LUBA concluded that the county was required to more thoroughly analyze whether any “tract” proposed to be included in the DRO map contained lands ineligible for destination resort siting under ORS 197.455(1)(e) 1 and, if so,…”
Foland v. Jackson Cnty., 807 P.2d 801 (Or. 1991).
· cites it 2× “By way of direction, our decision today does nothing to change what the issues will be on remand; all that we decide is that the county is not bound by its original map.”
Cent. Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes Cnty., 262 P.3d 1153 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 25× ““Legislative amendments to the destination resort statutes in 1993 provided that destination resorts are allowed only on land mapped for destination resorts, pursuant to *169 ORS 197.455. * * * Before 2003, an acknowledged destination resort [map] could be amended only during a…”
Foland v. Jackson Cnty., 792 P.2d 1228 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 3× “465(1) requires comprehensive plans that allow destination resort siting to contain, among other implementing measures, a map of “areas where a destination resort * * * is permitted pursuant to ORS 197.455.” Jackson County has adopted plan and ordinance provisions pursuant to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.455(1) — 1 case
Cent. Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes Cnty., 262 P.3d 1153 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
““Legislative amendments to the destination resort statutes in 1993 provided that destination resorts are allowed only on land mapped for destination resorts, pursuant to *169 ORS 197.455. * * * Before 2003, an acknowledged destination resort [map] could be amended only during a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.455(1)(e) — 1 case
Root v. Klamath Cnty., 320 P.3d 631 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“Pertinent to the issues raised in this proceeding, LUBA concluded that the county was required to more thoroughly analyze whether any “tract” proposed to be included in the DRO map contained lands ineligible for destination resort siting under ORS 197.455(1)(e) 1 and, if so,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.455(2) — 4 cases
Foland v. Jackson Cnty., 807 P.2d 801 (Or. 1991).
“By way of direction, our decision today does nothing to change what the issues will be on remand; all that we decide is that the county is not bound by its original map.”
Foland v. Jackson Cnty., 792 P.2d 1228 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
“465(1) requires comprehensive plans that allow destination resort siting to contain, among other implementing measures, a map of “areas where a destination resort * * * is permitted pursuant to ORS 197.455.” Jackson County has adopted plan and ordinance provisions pursuant to…”
Cent. Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes Cnty., 262 P.3d 1153 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
““Legislative amendments to the destination resort statutes in 1993 provided that destination resorts are allowed only on land mapped for destination resorts, pursuant to *169 ORS 197.455. * * * Before 2003, an acknowledged destination resort [map] could be amended only during a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.455(l)(b)(A) — 1 case
Cent. Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes Cnty., 262 P.3d 1153 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
““Legislative amendments to the destination resort statutes in 1993 provided that destination resorts are allowed only on land mapped for destination resorts, pursuant to *169 ORS 197.455. * * * Before 2003, an acknowledged destination resort [map] could be amended only during a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.455(l)(e) — 1 case
Root v. Klamath Cnty., 320 P.3d 631 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“Pertinent to the issues raised in this proceeding, LUBA concluded that the county was required to more thoroughly analyze whether any “tract” proposed to be included in the DRO map contained lands ineligible for destination resort siting under ORS 197.455(1)(e) 1 and, if so,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.455(l)(f) — 1 case
Cent. Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes Cnty., 262 P.3d 1153 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
““Legislative amendments to the destination resort statutes in 1993 provided that destination resorts are allowed only on land mapped for destination resorts, pursuant to *169 ORS 197.455. * * * Before 2003, an acknowledged destination resort [map] could be amended only during a…”
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.