Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.685 (2026)

Location of farmworker housing; approval standards

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      197.685 Location of farmworker housing; approval standards. (1) The availability of decent, safe and sanitary housing opportunities for farmworkers is a matter of statewide concern.

      (2) Farmworker housing within the rural area of a county shall be permitted in a zone or zones in rural centers and areas committed to nonresource uses.

      (3) Any approval standards, special conditions and procedures for approval adopted by a local government shall be clear and objective and shall not have the effect, either in themselves or cumulatively, of discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay. [1989 c.964 §5; 2001 c.613 §4]

 

      197.705 [1973 c.482 §1; repealed by 1977 c.665 §24]

 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2001–2017 · leading case: Stop Dump Coalition v. Yamhill Cnty., 391 P.3d 932 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stop Dump Coalition v. Yamhill Cnty., 391 P.3d 932 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “015(10)(b)(B) (exempting from LUBA review decisions that approve or deny a building permit issued under “clear and objective land use standards”); ORS 197.”
Durig v. Washington Cnty., 34 P.3d 169 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 32× “In their second assignment of error, petitioners assert that ORS 197.685 requires the county to demonstrate that non-resource land is unavailable before approving seasonal farm-worker housing on EFU zoned land.”
Sisters Forest Plan. Comm. v. Deschutes Cnty., 108 P.3d 1175 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “307(3)(b) (requiring approval standards for certain types of housing within urban growth boundaries to be “clear and objective”); ORS 197.685 (requiring approval standards for farmworker housing to be “clear and objective”); ORS 215.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.685(1): 1 case
Durig v. Washington Cnty., 34 P.3d 169 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “In their second assignment of error, petitioners assert that ORS 197.685 requires the county to demonstrate that non-resource land is unavailable before approving seasonal farm-worker housing on EFU zoned land.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.685(2): 1 case
Durig v. Washington Cnty., 34 P.3d 169 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “In their second assignment of error, petitioners assert that ORS 197.685 requires the county to demonstrate that non-resource land is unavailable before approving seasonal farm-worker housing on EFU zoned land.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.685(3): 1 case
Durig v. Washington Cnty., 34 P.3d 169 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “In their second assignment of error, petitioners assert that ORS 197.685 requires the county to demonstrate that non-resource land is unavailable before approving seasonal farm-worker housing on EFU zoned land.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.685(3)(a): 1 case
Durig v. Washington Cnty., 34 P.3d 169 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “In their second assignment of error, petitioners assert that ORS 197.685 requires the county to demonstrate that non-resource land is unavailable before approving seasonal farm-worker housing on EFU zoned land.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.685(4): 1 case
Durig v. Washington Cnty., 34 P.3d 169 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “In their second assignment of error, petitioners assert that ORS 197.685 requires the county to demonstrate that non-resource land is unavailable before approving seasonal farm-worker housing on EFU zoned land.”
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.