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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.448 (2026)

Home occupations; parking; where allowed; conditions

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

      215.448 Home occupations; parking; where allowed; conditions. (1) The governing body of a county or its designate may allow, subject to the approval of the governing body or its designate, the establishment of a home occupation and the parking of vehicles in any zone. However, in an exclusive farm use zone, forest zone or a mixed farm and forest zone that allows residential uses, the following standards apply to the home occupation:

      (a) It shall be operated by a resident or employee of a resident of the property on which the business is located;

      (b) It shall employ on the site no more than five full-time or part-time persons;

      (c) It shall be operated substantially in:

      (A) The dwelling; or

      (B) Other buildings normally associated with uses permitted in the zone in which the property is located; and

      (d) It shall not unreasonably interfere with other uses permitted in the zone in which the property is located.

      (2) The governing body of the county or its designate may establish additional reasonable conditions of approval for the establishment of a home occupation under subsection (1) of this section.

      (3) Nothing in this section authorizes the governing body or its designate to permit construction of any structure that would not otherwise be allowed in the zone in which the home occupation is to be established.

      (4) The existence of home occupations shall not be used as justification for a zone change. [1983 c.743 §2; 1995 c.465 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Clackamas Cnty., 483 P.3d 706 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Clackamas Cnty., 483 P.3d 706 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 52× “LUBA affirmed a hearings officer’s determinations that the applicant would qualify as the “operator” of the proposed home occupation and that no more than five persons would be employed on the site of the home occu- pation, as required by ORS 215.448. However, LUBA remanded to…”
Green v. Douglas Cnty., 263 P.3d 355 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 34× “) Thus, according to LUBA, the legislature intended that, to be a building within the meaning of ORS 215.448, a structure in question would need to be “ ‘more or less completely enclosed by walls.”
Brentmar v. Jackson Cnty., 900 P.2d 1030 (Or. 1995). · cites it 2× “8 The emphasized phrase in ORS 215.448 indicates a legislative recognition that not all counties may decide to allow residential uses in an EFU zone.”
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Clackamas Cnty., 514 P.3d 553 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “283(2)(i) authorizes “home occupations as provided in ORS 215.448.”9 We agree with LUBA’s assessment that those express reg- ulations of uses and living arrangements within existing dwellings “undermines the county’s broad contention that any residential use of an existing…”
Friends of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 529 P.3d 1007 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 14× “” ORS 215.448 sets forth the standards for a “home occupa- tion” and provides, as relevant: “(1)(a) It shall be operated by a resident or employee of a resident of the property on which the business is located; “* * * * * “(c) It shall be operated substantially in: “(A) The…”
Friends of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 373 Or. 790 (Or. 2025). · cites it 51× “According to LUBA, that general requirement for a “primary dwelling” was not relevant to whether the structure would be a “dwelling” as Cite as 373 Or 790 (2025) 793 required by ORS 215.448. The Court of Appeals reversed LUBA’s decision, however, concluding that the proposed…”
Kupillas v. Sage & Soc. LLC, 337 Or. App. 67 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “” On appeal, the parties disagree on the proper defi- nition of the phrase “authorized by this section” in ORS 215.”
Kupillas v. Sage & Soc. LLC, 337 Or. App. 67 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “” On appeal, the parties disagree on the proper defi- nition of the phrase “authorized by this section” in ORS 215.”
Holsheimer v. Columbia Cnty., 890 P.2d 447 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 6× “‘Home occupations consistent with ORS 215.448’ are listed among the ‘Uses Allowed Under Prescribed Conditions’ in the RR-5 district.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.448(1) — 5 cases
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Clackamas Cnty., 483 P.3d 706 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “LUBA affirmed a hearings officer’s determinations that the applicant would qualify as the “operator” of the proposed home occupation and that no more than five persons would be employed on the site of the home occu- pation, as required by ORS 215.448. However, LUBA remanded to…”
Green v. Douglas Cnty., 263 P.3d 355 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “) Thus, according to LUBA, the legislature intended that, to be a building within the meaning of ORS 215.448, a structure in question would need to be “ ‘more or less completely enclosed by walls.”
Brentmar v. Jackson Cnty., 900 P.2d 1030 (Or. 1995). “8 The emphasized phrase in ORS 215.448 indicates a legislative recognition that not all counties may decide to allow residential uses in an EFU zone.”
Friends of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 373 Or. 790 (Or. 2025). “According to LUBA, that general requirement for a “primary dwelling” was not relevant to whether the structure would be a “dwelling” as Cite as 373 Or 790 (2025) 793 required by ORS 215.448. The Court of Appeals reversed LUBA’s decision, however, concluding that the proposed…”
Holsheimer v. Columbia Cnty., 890 P.2d 447 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “‘Home occupations consistent with ORS 215.448’ are listed among the ‘Uses Allowed Under Prescribed Conditions’ in the RR-5 district.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.448(1)(a) — 1 case
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Clackamas Cnty., 483 P.3d 706 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “LUBA affirmed a hearings officer’s determinations that the applicant would qualify as the “operator” of the proposed home occupation and that no more than five persons would be employed on the site of the home occu- pation, as required by ORS 215.448. However, LUBA remanded to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.448(1)(b) — 1 case
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Clackamas Cnty., 483 P.3d 706 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “LUBA affirmed a hearings officer’s determinations that the applicant would qualify as the “operator” of the proposed home occupation and that no more than five persons would be employed on the site of the home occu- pation, as required by ORS 215.448. However, LUBA remanded to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.448(1)(c) — 1 case
Friends of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 373 Or. 790 (Or. 2025). “According to LUBA, that general requirement for a “primary dwelling” was not relevant to whether the structure would be a “dwelling” as Cite as 373 Or 790 (2025) 793 required by ORS 215.448. The Court of Appeals reversed LUBA’s decision, however, concluding that the proposed…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.448(1)(c)(A) — 2 cases
Friends of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 529 P.3d 1007 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “” ORS 215.448 sets forth the standards for a “home occupa- tion” and provides, as relevant: “(1)(a) It shall be operated by a resident or employee of a resident of the property on which the business is located; “* * * * * “(c) It shall be operated substantially in: “(A) The…”
Friends of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 373 Or. 790 (Or. 2025). “According to LUBA, that general requirement for a “primary dwelling” was not relevant to whether the structure would be a “dwelling” as Cite as 373 Or 790 (2025) 793 required by ORS 215.448. The Court of Appeals reversed LUBA’s decision, however, concluding that the proposed…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.448(1)(c)(B) — 1 case
Friends of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 373 Or. 790 (Or. 2025). “According to LUBA, that general requirement for a “primary dwelling” was not relevant to whether the structure would be a “dwelling” as Cite as 373 Or 790 (2025) 793 required by ORS 215.448. The Court of Appeals reversed LUBA’s decision, however, concluding that the proposed…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.448(3) — 3 cases
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Clackamas Cnty., 483 P.3d 706 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “LUBA affirmed a hearings officer’s determinations that the applicant would qualify as the “operator” of the proposed home occupation and that no more than five persons would be employed on the site of the home occu- pation, as required by ORS 215.448. However, LUBA remanded to…”
Friends of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 529 P.3d 1007 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “” ORS 215.448 sets forth the standards for a “home occupa- tion” and provides, as relevant: “(1)(a) It shall be operated by a resident or employee of a resident of the property on which the business is located; “* * * * * “(c) It shall be operated substantially in: “(A) The…”
Friends of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 373 Or. 790 (Or. 2025). “According to LUBA, that general requirement for a “primary dwelling” was not relevant to whether the structure would be a “dwelling” as Cite as 373 Or 790 (2025) 793 required by ORS 215.448. The Court of Appeals reversed LUBA’s decision, however, concluding that the proposed…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.448(4) — 1 case
Friends of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 373 Or. 790 (Or. 2025). “According to LUBA, that general requirement for a “primary dwelling” was not relevant to whether the structure would be a “dwelling” as Cite as 373 Or 790 (2025) 793 required by ORS 215.448. The Court of Appeals reversed LUBA’s decision, however, concluding that the proposed…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.448(l)(b) — 1 case
Green v. Douglas Cnty., 263 P.3d 355 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “) Thus, according to LUBA, the legislature intended that, to be a building within the meaning of ORS 215.448, a structure in question would need to be “ ‘more or less completely enclosed by walls.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.448(l)(c) — 2 cases
Green v. Douglas Cnty., 263 P.3d 355 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “) Thus, according to LUBA, the legislature intended that, to be a building within the meaning of ORS 215.448, a structure in question would need to be “ ‘more or less completely enclosed by walls.”
Holsheimer v. Columbia Cnty., 890 P.2d 447 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “‘Home occupations consistent with ORS 215.448’ are listed among the ‘Uses Allowed Under Prescribed Conditions’ in the RR-5 district.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.448(l)(c)(B) — 1 case
Green v. Douglas Cnty., 263 P.3d 355 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “) Thus, according to LUBA, the legislature intended that, to be a building within the meaning of ORS 215.448, a structure in question would need to be “ ‘more or less completely enclosed by walls.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.448(l)(d) — 1 case
Green v. Douglas Cnty., 263 P.3d 355 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “) Thus, according to LUBA, the legislature intended that, to be a building within the meaning of ORS 215.448, a structure in question would need to be “ ‘more or less completely enclosed by walls.”
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.