215.705
Dwellings in farm or forest zone; criteria; transferability of application. (1) A governing body of a county
or its designate may allow the establishment of a single-unit dwelling on a lot
or parcel located within a farm or forest zone as set forth in this section and
ORS 215.710, 215.720, 215.740 and 215.750 after notifying the county assessor
that the governing body intends to allow the dwelling. A dwelling under this
section may be allowed if:
(a) The lot or
parcel on which the dwelling will be sited was lawfully created and was
acquired by the present owner:
(A) Prior to
January 1, 1985; or
(B) By devise or
by intestate succession from a person who acquired the lot or parcel prior to
January 1, 1985.
(b) The tract on
which the dwelling will be sited does not include a dwelling.
(c) The proposed
dwelling is not prohibited by, and will comply with, the requirements of the
acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations and other provisions
of law.
(d) The lot or
parcel on which the dwelling will be sited, if zoned for farm use, is not on
that high-value farmland described in ORS 215.710 except as provided in
subsections (2) and (3) of this section.
(e) The lot or
parcel on which the dwelling will be sited, if zoned for forest use, is
described in ORS 215.720, 215.740 or 215.750.
(f) When the lot
or parcel on which the dwelling will be sited lies within an area designated in
an acknowledged comprehensive plan as habitat of big game, the siting of the
dwelling is consistent with the limitations on density upon which the
acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations intended to protect
the habitat are based.
(g) When the lot
or parcel on which the dwelling will be sited is part of a tract, the remaining
portions of the tract are consolidated into a single lot or parcel when the
dwelling is allowed.
(2)(a)
Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection (1)(d) of this section, a
single-unit dwelling not in conjunction with farm use may be sited on
high-value farmland if:
(A) It meets the
other requirements of ORS 215.705 to 215.750;
(B) The lot or
parcel is protected as high-value farmland as described under ORS 215.710 (1);
and
(C) A hearings
officer of a county determines that:
(i) The lot or
parcel cannot practicably be managed for farm use, by itself or in conjunction
with other land, due to extraordinary circumstances inherent in the land or its
physical setting that do not apply generally to other land in the vicinity.
(ii) The dwelling
will comply with the provisions of ORS 215.296 (1).
(iii) The
dwelling will not materially alter the stability of the overall land use
pattern in the area.
(b) A local government
shall provide notice of all applications for dwellings allowed under this
subsection to the State Department of Agriculture. Notice shall be provided in
accordance with the governing body’s land use regulations but shall be mailed
at least 20 calendar days prior to the public hearing before the hearings
officer under paragraph (a) of this subsection.
(3)
Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection (1)(d) of this section, a
single-unit dwelling not in conjunction with farm use may be sited on
high-value farmland if:
(a) It meets the
other requirements of ORS 215.705 to 215.750.
(b) The tract on
which the dwelling will be sited is:
(A) Identified in
ORS 215.710 (3) or (4);
(B) Not protected
under ORS 215.710 (1); and
(C) Twenty-one
acres or less in size.
(c)(A) The tract
is bordered on at least 67 percent of its perimeter by tracts that are smaller
than 21 acres, and at least two such tracts had dwellings on them on January 1,
1993;
(B) The tract is
not a flaglot and is bordered on at least 25 percent of its perimeter by tracts
that are smaller than 21 acres, and at least four dwellings existed on January
1, 1993, within one-quarter mile of the center of the subject tract. Up to two
of the four dwellings may lie within the urban growth boundary, but only if the
subject tract abuts an urban growth boundary; or
(C) The tract is
a flaglot and is bordered on at least 25 percent of its perimeter by tracts
that are smaller than 21 acres, and at least four dwellings existed on January
1, 1993, within one-quarter mile of the center of the subject tract and on the
same side of the public road that provides access to the subject tract. The
governing body of a county must interpret the center of the subject tract as
the geographic center of the flaglot if the applicant makes a written request
for that interpretation and that interpretation does not cause the center to be
located outside the flaglot. Up to two of the four dwellings may lie within the
urban growth boundary, but only if the subject tract abuts an urban growth
boundary. As used in this subparagraph:
(i) “Flaglot”
means a tract containing a narrow strip or panhandle of land providing access
from the public road to the rest of the tract.
(ii) “Geographic
center of the flaglot” means the point of intersection of two perpendicular
lines of which the first line crosses the midpoint of the longest side of a
flaglot, at a 90-degree angle to that side, and the second line crosses the
midpoint of the longest adjacent side of the flaglot.
(4) If land is in
a zone that allows both farm and forest uses, is acknowledged to be in
compliance with goals relating to both agriculture and forestry and may qualify
as an exclusive farm use zone under this chapter, the county may apply the
standards for siting a dwelling under either subsection (1)(d) of this section
or ORS 215.720, 215.740 and 215.750 as appropriate for the predominant use of
the tract on January 1, 1993.
(5) A county may,
by application of criteria adopted by ordinance, deny approval of a dwelling
allowed under this section in any area where the county determines that
approval of the dwelling would:
(a) Exceed the
facilities and service capabilities of the area;
(b) Materially
alter the stability of the overall land use pattern in the area; or
(c) Create
conditions or circumstances that the county determines would be contrary to the
purposes or intent of its acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use
regulations.
(6) For purposes
of subsection (1)(a) of this section, “owner” includes the spouses in a
marriage, son, daughter, parent, brother, brother-in-law, sister,
sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, parent-in-law, aunt, uncle, niece,
nephew, stepparent, stepchild, grandparent or grandchild of the owner or a
business entity owned by any one or combination of these family members.
(7) When a local
government approves an application for a single-unit dwelling under the
provisions of this section, the application may be transferred by a person who
has qualified under this section to any other person after the effective date
of the land use decision. [1993 c.792 §2; 1995 c.812 §7; 2001 c.358 §1; 2015
c.629 §34; 2025 c.38 §39]
Notes of Decisions
Friends of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 211 P.3d 297 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 5× “Those statutes authorize, subject to various conditions and approval criteria, the construction of lot-of-record dwellings, ORS 215.705; large-tract dwellings, ORS 215.”
Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 942 P.2d 278 (Or. 1997).
· cites it 4× “ORS 215.705. Finally, the enactment discontinued the marginal *576 lands program, although it allowed those counties that already had elected to become marginal lands counties to continue as such if they did not opt to use the new “lot of record” provisions.”
Craven v. Jackson Cnty., 898 P.2d 809 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 15× “*253 ORS 215.705(1) provides, in material part, that a lot of record dwelling may be permitted if: “ (a) The lot or parcel on which the dwelling will be sited was lawfully created and was acquired by the present owner: “(A) Prior to January 1, 1985; or “(B) By devise or by…”
Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev. v. Yamhill Cnty., 949 P.2d 1245 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 34× “In 1996, their son Robert Duncan (Duncan) bought the property from them and applied to the county for permission to site a dwelling on it pursuant to ORS 215.705 and corresponding local legislation.”
Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 910 P.2d 414 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “ORS 215.705. The abolition of the marginal lands designation process was made prospective only; the two counties that previously had opted to apply the marginal land statutes were expressly allowed to continue to do so, as long as they do not opt to apply the new lot of record…”
Jones v. Douglas Cnty., 270 P.3d 264 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 5× “*60 In May 1995, a prior owner of the Boweses’ property applied to the county for the approval of a single-family dwelling — commonly referred to as a “lot-of-record” dwelling — under the pertinent provision of the county’s code that implemented ORS 215.705(1). 3 Ultimately, on…”
Citizens for Responsibility v. Lane Cnty., 142 P.3d 486 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“” Another example is found in ORS 215.705, which controls the construction of dwellings on lots of record within farm and forest use zones.”
Nichols v. Clackamas Cnty., 932 P.2d 1185 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“213 does not apply to all counties, only to those that had previously participated in the marginal lands designation process and had not opted to apply the new lot of record’ provisions of ORS 215.705 et seq. See ORS 215.316(2). LCDC contends that our opinion could be read to…”
Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 914 P.2d 1114 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“213 does not apply to all counties, only to those that had previously participated in the marginal lands designation process and had not opted to apply the new “lot of record” provisions of ORS 215.705 et seq. See ORS 215.316(2). LCDC contends that our opinion could be read to…”
Bruggere v. Clackamas Cnty., 7 P.3d 634 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 13× “ORS 215.705, the so-called “lot-of-record” statute, provides, in part: “(1) A governing body of a county or its designate may allow the establishment of a single-family dwelling on a lot or parcel located within a farm or forest zone as set forth in this section and ORS 215.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.705(1) — 6 cases
Friends of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 211 P.3d 297 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“Those statutes authorize, subject to various conditions and approval criteria, the construction of lot-of-record dwellings, ORS 215.705; large-tract dwellings, ORS 215.”
Jones v. Douglas Cnty., 270 P.3d 264 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“*60 In May 1995, a prior owner of the Boweses’ property applied to the county for the approval of a single-family dwelling — commonly referred to as a “lot-of-record” dwelling — under the pertinent provision of the county’s code that implemented ORS 215.705(1). 3 Ultimately, on…”
Craven v. Jackson Cnty., 898 P.2d 809 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
“*253 ORS 215.705(1) provides, in material part, that a lot of record dwelling may be permitted if: “ (a) The lot or parcel on which the dwelling will be sited was lawfully created and was acquired by the present owner: “(A) Prior to January 1, 1985; or “(B) By devise or by…”
Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev. v. Yamhill Cnty., 949 P.2d 1245 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“In 1996, their son Robert Duncan (Duncan) bought the property from them and applied to the county for permission to site a dwelling on it pursuant to ORS 215.705 and corresponding local legislation.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.705(1)(a) — 3 cases
Craven v. Jackson Cnty., 898 P.2d 809 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
“*253 ORS 215.705(1) provides, in material part, that a lot of record dwelling may be permitted if: “ (a) The lot or parcel on which the dwelling will be sited was lawfully created and was acquired by the present owner: “(A) Prior to January 1, 1985; or “(B) By devise or by…”
Bruggere v. Clackamas Cnty., 7 P.3d 634 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“ORS 215.705, the so-called “lot-of-record” statute, provides, in part: “(1) A governing body of a county or its designate may allow the establishment of a single-family dwelling on a lot or parcel located within a farm or forest zone as set forth in this section and ORS 215.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.705(1)(b) — 1 case
Craven v. Jackson Cnty., 898 P.2d 809 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
“*253 ORS 215.705(1) provides, in material part, that a lot of record dwelling may be permitted if: “ (a) The lot or parcel on which the dwelling will be sited was lawfully created and was acquired by the present owner: “(A) Prior to January 1, 1985; or “(B) By devise or by…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.705(2)(a)(C)(i) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.705(6) — 3 cases
Craven v. Jackson Cnty., 898 P.2d 809 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
“*253 ORS 215.705(1) provides, in material part, that a lot of record dwelling may be permitted if: “ (a) The lot or parcel on which the dwelling will be sited was lawfully created and was acquired by the present owner: “(A) Prior to January 1, 1985; or “(B) By devise or by…”
Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev. v. Yamhill Cnty., 949 P.2d 1245 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“In 1996, their son Robert Duncan (Duncan) bought the property from them and applied to the county for permission to site a dwelling on it pursuant to ORS 215.705 and corresponding local legislation.”
Bruggere v. Clackamas Cnty., 7 P.3d 634 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“ORS 215.705, the so-called “lot-of-record” statute, provides, in part: “(1) A governing body of a county or its designate may allow the establishment of a single-family dwelling on a lot or parcel located within a farm or forest zone as set forth in this section and ORS 215.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.705(l)(a) — 1 case
Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev. v. Yamhill Cnty., 949 P.2d 1245 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“In 1996, their son Robert Duncan (Duncan) bought the property from them and applied to the county for permission to site a dwelling on it pursuant to ORS 215.705 and corresponding local legislation.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.705(l)(a)(A) — 1 case
Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev. v. Yamhill Cnty., 949 P.2d 1245 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“In 1996, their son Robert Duncan (Duncan) bought the property from them and applied to the county for permission to site a dwelling on it pursuant to ORS 215.705 and corresponding local legislation.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.705(l)(a)(B) — 1 case
Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev. v. Yamhill Cnty., 949 P.2d 1245 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“In 1996, their son Robert Duncan (Duncan) bought the property from them and applied to the county for permission to site a dwelling on it pursuant to ORS 215.705 and corresponding local legislation.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.705(l)(b) — 2 cases
Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev. v. Yamhill Cnty., 949 P.2d 1245 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“In 1996, their son Robert Duncan (Duncan) bought the property from them and applied to the county for permission to site a dwelling on it pursuant to ORS 215.705 and corresponding local legislation.”
Bruggere v. Clackamas Cnty., 7 P.3d 634 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“ORS 215.705, the so-called “lot-of-record” statute, provides, in part: “(1) A governing body of a county or its designate may allow the establishment of a single-family dwelling on a lot or parcel located within a farm or forest zone as set forth in this section and ORS 215.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.705(l)(c) — 1 case
Jones v. Douglas Cnty., 270 P.3d 264 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“*60 In May 1995, a prior owner of the Boweses’ property applied to the county for the approval of a single-family dwelling — commonly referred to as a “lot-of-record” dwelling — under the pertinent provision of the county’s code that implemented ORS 215.705(1). 3 Ultimately, on…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.705(l)(g) — 1 case
Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev. v. Yamhill Cnty., 949 P.2d 1245 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“In 1996, their son Robert Duncan (Duncan) bought the property from them and applied to the county for permission to site a dwelling on it pursuant to ORS 215.705 and corresponding local legislation.”
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.