215.010
Definitions. As
used in this chapter:
(1) The terms
defined in ORS 92.010 shall have the meanings given therein, except that “parcel”:
(a) Includes a
unit of land created:
(A) By
partitioning land as defined in ORS 92.010;
(B) In compliance
with all applicable planning, zoning and partitioning ordinances and
regulations; or
(C) By deed or
land sales contract, if there were no applicable planning, zoning or
partitioning ordinances or regulations.
(b) Does not
include a unit of land created solely to establish a separate tax account.
(2) “Tract” means
one or more contiguous lots or parcels under the same ownership.
(3) The terms
defined in ORS chapters 197 and 197A shall have the meanings given therein.
(4) “Farm use”
has the meaning given that term in ORS 215.203.
(5) “Recreational
structure” means a campground structure with or without plumbing, heating or
cooking facilities intended to be used by any particular occupant on a
limited-time basis for recreational, seasonal, emergency or transitional
housing purposes and may include yurts, cabins, fabric structures or similar
structures as further defined, by rule, by the Director of the Department of
Consumer and Business Services.
(6) “Recreational
vehicle” has the meaning given that term in ORS 174.101.
(7) “The
Willamette Valley” is Clackamas, Linn, Marion, Multnomah, Polk, Washington and
Yamhill Counties and the portion of Benton and Lane Counties lying east of the
summit of the Coast Range. [Amended by 1955 c.756 §25; 1963 c.619 §1 (1); 1985
c.717 §4; 1993 c.792 §8; 1999 c.327 §1; 2019 c.585 §19a; 2022 c.54 §15]
Notes of Decisions
Friends of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 211 P.3d 297 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 17× “” According to petitioner, all that the statute requires is that a certain number of parcels—whether or not lawfully created—existed as of January 1, 1993. Petitioner advances no argument concerning LUBA’s construction of the term “lots” as it is used in ORS 215.”
Allison v. Washington Cnty., 548 P.2d 188 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 4× “130, which provides: "(1) Any ordinance adopted under ORS 215.010 to 215.190 * * * shall be a local law within the meaning of, and subject to, ORS 254.”
Cyrus v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Deschutes, 202 P.3d 274 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “190 provides: "No person shall locate, construct, maintain, repair, alter, or use a building or other structure or use or transfer land in violation of an ordinance or regulation authorized by ORS 215.010 to 215.190 and 215.402 to 215.”
Clackamas Cnty. v. Dunham, 579 P.2d 223 (Or. 1978).
· cites it 6× “766 § 16) provided: "The location, erection, construction, maintenance, repair, alteration, or use of a building or other structure, or the subdivision, other partitioning, or use of land, in violation of an ordinance or regulation authorized by ORS 215.010 to 215.190 and…”
Brentmar v. Jackson Cnty., 900 P.2d 1030 (Or. 1995).
· cites it 2× “213 (1963) provided: “The following nonfarm uses may be established in any area zoned under ORS 215.010 to 215.190 for farm use: “(1) Public or private schools.”
Windlinx Ranch Trust v. Deschutes Cnty. (A179142), 323 Or. App. 290 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 8× “If the 1990 Partition created a fourth ‘parcel,’ the action would have qualified not as a partition but, rather, as 6 ORS 215.010 has been amended since the Kerrs filed their application; how- ever, because those amendments do not affect our analysis, we refer to the cur- rent…”
Tatum v. Clackamas Cnty., 529 P.2d 393 (Or. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 7× “130(1), which provides: "Any ordinance adopted under ORS 215.010 to 215.190 and 215.402 to 215.”
Rutherford v. Armstrong, 572 P.2d 1331 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “213(3) which provides: "(3) Single-family residential dwellings, not provided in conjunction with farm use, may be established, subject to the approval of the governing body of the county, in any area zoned under ORS 215.010 to 215.190 and 215.402 to 215.”
Hunnicutt v. Myers, 127 P.3d 1182 (Or. 2006).
· cites it 2× “(5) "Homestead tract" means a tract as defined in ORS 215.010 owned by a property owner, as that tract existed on January 1, 2005.”
Fasano v. Bd. of Cnty. Com'rs of Washington Cty., 507 P.2d 23 (Or. 1973).
“(1) The plan and all legislation and regulations authorized by ORS 215.010 to 215.233 shall be designed to promote the public health, safety and general welfare and shall be based on the following considerations, among others: The various characteristics of the various areas in…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.010(1) — 4 cases
Friends of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 211 P.3d 297 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“” According to petitioner, all that the statute requires is that a certain number of parcels—whether or not lawfully created—existed as of January 1, 1993. Petitioner advances no argument concerning LUBA’s construction of the term “lots” as it is used in ORS 215.”
Windlinx Ranch Trust v. Deschutes Cnty. (A179142), 323 Or. App. 290 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“If the 1990 Partition created a fourth ‘parcel,’ the action would have qualified not as a partition but, rather, as 6 ORS 215.010 has been amended since the Kerrs filed their application; how- ever, because those amendments do not affect our analysis, we refer to the cur- rent…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.010(1)(a) — 4 cases
Windlinx Ranch Trust v. Deschutes Cnty. (A179142), 323 Or. App. 290 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“If the 1990 Partition created a fourth ‘parcel,’ the action would have qualified not as a partition but, rather, as 6 ORS 215.010 has been amended since the Kerrs filed their application; how- ever, because those amendments do not affect our analysis, we refer to the cur- rent…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.010(1)(a)(A) — 1 case
Windlinx Ranch Trust v. Deschutes Cnty. (A179142), 323 Or. App. 290 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“If the 1990 Partition created a fourth ‘parcel,’ the action would have qualified not as a partition but, rather, as 6 ORS 215.010 has been amended since the Kerrs filed their application; how- ever, because those amendments do not affect our analysis, we refer to the cur- rent…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.010(2) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.010(l)(a) — 1 case
Friends of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 211 P.3d 297 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“” According to petitioner, all that the statute requires is that a certain number of parcels—whether or not lawfully created—existed as of January 1, 1993. Petitioner advances no argument concerning LUBA’s construction of the term “lots” as it is used in ORS 215.”
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.