215.284
Dwelling not in conjunction with farm use; existing lots or parcels; new lots
or parcels. (1) In
the Willamette Valley, a single-unit residential dwelling not provided in
conjunction with farm use may be established, subject to approval of the
governing body or its designee, in any area zoned for exclusive farm use upon a
finding that:
(a) The dwelling
or activities associated with the dwelling will not force a significant change
in or significantly increase the cost of accepted farming or forest practices
on nearby lands devoted to farm or forest use;
(b) The dwelling
will be sited on a lot or parcel that is predominantly composed of Class IV
through Class VIII soils that would not, when irrigated, be classified as
prime, unique, Class I or Class II soils;
(c) The dwelling
will be sited on a lot or parcel created before January 1, 1993;
(d) The dwelling
will not materially alter the stability of the overall land use pattern of the
area; and
(e) The dwelling
complies with such other conditions as the governing body or its designee
considers necessary.
(2) In counties
not described in subsection (1) of this section, a single-unit residential
dwelling not provided in conjunction with farm use may be established, subject
to approval of the governing body or its designee, in any area zoned for
exclusive farm use upon a finding that:
(a) The dwelling
or activities associated with the dwelling will not force a significant change
in or significantly increase the cost of accepted farming or forest practices
on nearby lands devoted to farm or forest use;
(b) The dwelling
is situated upon a lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel that is
generally unsuitable land for the production of farm crops and livestock or
merchantable tree species, considering the terrain, adverse soil or land
conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, location and size of the tract.
A lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel may not be considered unsuitable
solely because of size or location if it can reasonably be put to farm or
forest use in conjunction with other land;
(c) The dwelling
will be sited on a lot or parcel created before January 1, 1993;
(d) The dwelling
will not materially alter the stability of the overall land use pattern of the
area; and
(e) The dwelling
complies with such other conditions as the governing body or its designee
considers necessary.
(3) In counties
in western Oregon, as defined in ORS 321.257, not described in subsection (4)
of this section, a single-unit residential dwelling not provided in conjunction
with farm use may be established, subject to approval of the governing body or
its designee, in any area zoned for exclusive farm use upon a finding that:
(a) The dwelling
or activities associated with the dwelling will not force a significant change
in or significantly increase the cost of accepted farming or forest practices
on nearby lands devoted to farm or forest use;
(b) The dwelling
is situated upon a lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel that is
generally unsuitable land for the production of farm crops and livestock or
merchantable tree species, considering the terrain, adverse soil or land
conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, location and size of the tract.
A lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel may not be considered unsuitable
solely because of size or location if it can reasonably be put to farm or
forest use in conjunction with other land;
(c) The dwelling
will be sited on a lot or parcel created after January 1, 1993, as allowed
under ORS 215.263 (4);
(d) The dwelling
will not materially alter the stability of the overall land use pattern of the
area; and
(e) The dwelling
complies with such other conditions as the governing body or its designee
considers necessary.
(4)(a) In the
Willamette Valley, a lot or parcel allowed under paragraph (b) of this
subsection for a single-unit residential dwelling not provided in conjunction
with farm use may be established, subject to approval of the governing body or
its designee, in any area zoned for exclusive farm use upon a finding that the
originating lot or parcel is equal to or larger than the applicable minimum lot
or parcel size and:
(A) Is not
stocked to the requirements under ORS 527.610 to 527.770;
(B) Is composed
of at least 95 percent Class VI through Class VIII soils; and
(C) Is composed
of at least 95 percent soils not capable of producing 50 cubic feet per acre
per year of wood fiber.
(b) Any parcel to
be created for a dwelling from the originating lot or parcel described in
paragraph (a) of this subsection will not be smaller than 20 acres.
(c) The dwelling
or activities associated with the dwelling allowed under this subsection will
not force a significant change in or significantly increase the cost of
accepted farming or forest practices on nearby lands devoted to farm or forest
use.
(d) The dwelling
allowed under this subsection will not materially alter the stability of the
overall land use pattern of the area.
(e) The dwelling
allowed under this subsection complies with such other conditions as the
governing body or its designee considers necessary.
(5) No final
approval of a nonfarm use under this section shall be given unless any
additional taxes imposed upon the change in use have been paid.
(6) If a
single-unit dwelling is established on a lot or parcel as set forth in ORS
215.705 to 215.750, no additional dwelling may later be sited under subsection
(1), (2), (3), (4) or (7) of this section.
(7) In counties
in eastern Oregon, as defined in ORS 321.805, a single-unit residential
dwelling not provided in conjunction with farm use may be established, subject
to the approval of the county governing body or its designee, in any area zoned
for exclusive farm use upon a finding that:
(a) The dwelling
or activities associated with the dwelling will not force a significant change
in or significantly increase the cost of accepted farming or forest practices
on nearby lands devoted to farm or forest use;
(b) The dwelling
will be sited on a lot or parcel created after January 1, 1993, as allowed
under ORS 215.263 (5);
(c) The dwelling
will not materially alter the stability of the overall land use pattern of the
area; and
(d) The dwelling
complies with such other conditions as the governing body or its designee
considers necessary. [Formerly subsections (3) to (8) of 215.283; 2001 c.704 §4;
2003 c.621 §71; 2015 c.27 §24; 2025 c.38 §32]
215.285 [Formerly 215.200; repealed by
1971 c.13 §1]
215.288 [1983 c.826 §16; 1985 c.565 §33;
1985 c.811 §8; repealed by 1993 c.792 §55]
215.290 [Repealed by 1963 c.619 §16]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1996–2022 · leading case:
Wetherell v. Douglas Cnty., 146 P.3d 343 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
Wetherell v. Douglas Cnty., 146 P.3d 343 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “1 ORS 215.284(2) is implemented in Douglas County by Douglas County Land Use and Development Ordinance 3.”
Moore v. Coos Cnty., 925 P.2d 927 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 10× “284(2)(b) was meant to apply in that literal and limited sense, because the legislature has demonstrated in other statutes pertaining to agriculture that, when it chooses to describe broader operations, it uses broader language. For example, ORS 215.”
Lindquist v. Clackamas Cnty., 932 P.2d 1190 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 15× “In the aftermath, the amended provisions were recodified at ORS 215.284. The 1993 amendments deleted ORS 215.”
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Clackamas Cnty., 514 P.3d 553 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“ORS 215.284 restricts the establishment of single- family dwellings not provided in conjunction with farm use on land zoned EFU; the meaning of that statute is not implicated by the parties’ arguments on review before us.”
Dorvinen v. Crook Cnty., 957 P.2d 180 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 15× “3 “Nonfarm dwellings” is a term commonly used as a synonym for the phrase “dwellings not provided in conjunction with farm use” that appears in ORS 215.284 and other statutes. We emphasize that other provisions govern the permissibility of nonfarm dwellings in other…”
Gould v. Deschutes Cnty., 520 P.3d 433 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“4 See also ORS 215.284(2)(b) (providing, in part, that a nonfarm dwelling may be established on EFU land upon a finding that “[t]he dwelling is situated upon a lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel that is generally unsuitable land for the production of farm crops and…”
Cent. Or. Landwatch v. Crook Cnty., 432 P.3d 1161 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 27× “See ORS 215.284 (2)(b). 2 The county, in concluding that the property met that standard, emphasized the property's lack of historical *765 agricultural use, the present lack of irrigation rights and infrastructure needed to irrigate, and the absence of non-irrigated agriculture…”
Cent. Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes Cnty., 514 P.3d 1201 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 26× “050(G)(1)(a)(6) and ORS 215.284 (2)(c). In decisions dated August 10, 2021, the hearings offi- cer rejected petitioner’s arguments and approved the con- ditional use permit applications.”
Carlson v. Benton Cnty., 961 P.2d 248 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“The other statute, ORS 215.284(4), regulates “nonfarm dwellings” in agricultural zones and makes their permissibility contingent, inter alia, on the lot or parcel being comprised “of at least 95 percent soils not capable of producing 50 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.284(1) — 1 case
Lindquist v. Clackamas Cnty., 932 P.2d 1190 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“In the aftermath, the amended provisions were recodified at ORS 215.284. The 1993 amendments deleted ORS 215.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.284(1)(e) — 1 case
Lindquist v. Clackamas Cnty., 932 P.2d 1190 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“In the aftermath, the amended provisions were recodified at ORS 215.284. The 1993 amendments deleted ORS 215.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.284(2) — 5 cases
Wetherell v. Douglas Cnty., 146 P.3d 343 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“1 ORS 215.284(2) is implemented in Douglas County by Douglas County Land Use and Development Ordinance 3.”
Moore v. Coos Cnty., 925 P.2d 927 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“284(2)(b) was meant to apply in that literal and limited sense, because the legislature has demonstrated in other statutes pertaining to agriculture that, when it chooses to describe broader operations, it uses broader language. For example, ORS 215.”
Cent. Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes Cnty., 514 P.3d 1201 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“050(G)(1)(a)(6) and ORS 215.284 (2)(c). In decisions dated August 10, 2021, the hearings offi- cer rejected petitioner’s arguments and approved the con- ditional use permit applications.”
Cent. Or. Landwatch v. Crook Cnty., 432 P.3d 1161 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“See ORS 215.284 (2)(b). 2 The county, in concluding that the property met that standard, emphasized the property's lack of historical *765 agricultural use, the present lack of irrigation rights and infrastructure needed to irrigate, and the absence of non-irrigated agriculture…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.284(2)(b) — 5 cases
Wetherell v. Douglas Cnty., 146 P.3d 343 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“1 ORS 215.284(2) is implemented in Douglas County by Douglas County Land Use and Development Ordinance 3.”
Gould v. Deschutes Cnty., 520 P.3d 433 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“4 See also ORS 215.284(2)(b) (providing, in part, that a nonfarm dwelling may be established on EFU land upon a finding that “[t]he dwelling is situated upon a lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel that is generally unsuitable land for the production of farm crops and…”
Cent. Or. Landwatch v. Crook Cnty., 432 P.3d 1161 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“See ORS 215.284 (2)(b). 2 The county, in concluding that the property met that standard, emphasized the property's lack of historical *765 agricultural use, the present lack of irrigation rights and infrastructure needed to irrigate, and the absence of non-irrigated agriculture…”
Moore v. Coos Cnty., 925 P.2d 927 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“284(2)(b) was meant to apply in that literal and limited sense, because the legislature has demonstrated in other statutes pertaining to agriculture that, when it chooses to describe broader operations, it uses broader language. For example, ORS 215.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.284(2)(c) — 2 cases
Cent. Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes Cnty., 514 P.3d 1201 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“050(G)(1)(a)(6) and ORS 215.284 (2)(c). In decisions dated August 10, 2021, the hearings offi- cer rejected petitioner’s arguments and approved the con- ditional use permit applications.”
Dorvinen v. Crook Cnty., 957 P.2d 180 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“3 “Nonfarm dwellings” is a term commonly used as a synonym for the phrase “dwellings not provided in conjunction with farm use” that appears in ORS 215.284 and other statutes. We emphasize that other provisions govern the permissibility of nonfarm dwellings in other…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.284(3) — 1 case
Dorvinen v. Crook Cnty., 957 P.2d 180 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“3 “Nonfarm dwellings” is a term commonly used as a synonym for the phrase “dwellings not provided in conjunction with farm use” that appears in ORS 215.284 and other statutes. We emphasize that other provisions govern the permissibility of nonfarm dwellings in other…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.284(4) — 1 case
Carlson v. Benton Cnty., 961 P.2d 248 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“The other statute, ORS 215.284(4), regulates “nonfarm dwellings” in agricultural zones and makes their permissibility contingent, inter alia, on the lot or parcel being comprised “of at least 95 percent soils not capable of producing 50 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.284(l)(a) — 1 case
Lindquist v. Clackamas Cnty., 932 P.2d 1190 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“In the aftermath, the amended provisions were recodified at ORS 215.284. The 1993 amendments deleted ORS 215.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.284(l)(b) — 1 case
Lindquist v. Clackamas Cnty., 932 P.2d 1190 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“In the aftermath, the amended provisions were recodified at ORS 215.284. The 1993 amendments deleted ORS 215.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.284(l)(e) — 1 case
Lindquist v. Clackamas Cnty., 932 P.2d 1190 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“In the aftermath, the amended provisions were recodified at ORS 215.284. The 1993 amendments deleted 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.