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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.750 (2026)

Alternative forestland dwelling; criteria

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

      215.750 Alternative forestland dwelling; criteria. (1) As used in this section, “center of the subject tract” means the mathematical centroid of the tract.

      (2) In western Oregon, 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 forest zone if the lot or parcel is predominantly composed of soils that are:

      (a) Capable of producing 0 to 49 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber if:

      (A) All or part of at least three other lots or parcels that existed on January 1, 1993, are within a 160-acre square centered on the center of the subject tract; and

      (B) At least three dwellings existed on January 1, 1993, on the other lots or parcels;

      (b) Capable of producing 50 to 85 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber if:

      (A) All or part of at least seven other lots or parcels that existed on January 1, 1993, are within a 160-acre square centered on the center of the subject tract; and

      (B) At least three dwellings existed on January 1, 1993, on the other lots or parcels; or

      (c) Capable of producing more than 85 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber if:

      (A) All or part of at least 11 other lots or parcels that existed on January 1, 1993, are within a 160-acre square centered on the center of the subject tract; and

      (B) At least three dwellings existed on January 1, 1993, on the other lots or parcels.

      (3) In eastern Oregon, 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 forest zone if the lot or parcel is predominantly composed of soils that are:

      (a) Capable of producing 0 to 20 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber if:

      (A) All or part of at least three other lots or parcels that existed on January 1, 1993, are within a 160-acre square centered on the center of the subject tract; and

      (B) At least three dwellings existed on January 1, 1993, on the other lots or parcels;

      (b) Capable of producing 21 to 50 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber if:

      (A) All or part of at least seven other lots or parcels that existed on January 1, 1993, are within a 160-acre square centered on the center of the subject tract; and

      (B) At least three dwellings existed on January 1, 1993, on the other lots or parcels; or

      (c) Capable of producing more than 50 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber if:

      (A) All or part of at least 11 other lots or parcels that existed on January 1, 1993, are within a 160-acre square centered on the center of the subject tract; and

      (B) At least three dwellings existed on January 1, 1993, on the other lots or parcels.

      (4) Lots or parcels within urban growth boundaries may not be used to satisfy the eligibility requirements under subsection (2) or (3) of this section.

      (5) A proposed dwelling under this section is allowed only if:

      (a) It will comply with the requirements of an acknowledged comprehensive plan, acknowledged land use regulations and other provisions of law;

      (b) It complies with the requirements of ORS 215.730;

      (c) No dwellings are allowed on other lots or parcels that make up the tract and deed restrictions established under ORS 215.740 (3) for the other lots or parcels that make up the tract are met;

      (d) The tract on which the dwelling will be sited does not include a dwelling;

      (e) The lot or parcel on which the dwelling will be sited was lawfully established;

      (f) Any property line adjustment to the lot or parcel complied with the applicable property line adjustment provisions in ORS 92.192;

      (g) Any property line adjustment to the lot or parcel after January 1, 2019, did not have the effect of qualifying the lot or parcel for a dwelling under this section; and

      (h) If the lot or parcel on which the dwelling will be sited was part of a tract on January 1, 2019, no dwelling existed on the tract on that date, and no dwelling exists or has been approved on another lot or parcel that was part of the tract.

      (6) Except as described in subsection (7) of this section, if the tract under subsection (2) or (3) of this section abuts a road that existed on January 1, 1993, the measurement may be made by creating a 160-acre rectangle that is one mile long and one-fourth mile wide centered on the center of the subject tract and that is to the maximum extent possible, aligned with the road.

      (7)(a) If a tract 60 acres or larger described under subsection (2) or (3) of this section abuts a road or perennial stream, the measurement shall be made in accordance with subsection (6) of this section. However, one of the three required dwellings must be on the same side of the road or stream as the tract and:

      (A) Be located within a 160-acre rectangle that is one mile long and one-fourth mile wide centered on the center of the subject tract and that is, to the maximum extent possible, aligned with the road or stream; or

      (B) Be within one-quarter mile from the edge of the subject tract but not outside the length of the 160-acre rectangle, and on the same side of the road or stream as the tract.

      (b) If a road crosses the tract on which the dwelling will be located, at least one of the three required dwellings must be on the same side of the road as the proposed dwelling.

      (8) Notwithstanding subsection (5)(a) of this section, if the acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations of a county require that a dwelling be located in a 160-acre square or rectangle described in subsection (2), (3), (6) or (7) of this section, a dwelling is in the 160-acre square or rectangle if any part of the dwelling is in the 160-acre square or rectangle. [1993 c.792 §4(6),(7),(8); 1999 c.59 §58; 2005 c.289 §1; 2019 c.433 §1; 2025 c.38 §41]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Friends of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 211 P.3d 297 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Friends of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 211 P.3d 297 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 12× “740; alternative, or “template,” dwellings, ORS 215.750; replacement dwellings, ORS 215.”
Carlson v. Benton Cnty., 961 P.2d 248 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 20× “” LUBA also determined that the legislative history of ORS 215.750 supported its conclusion. LUBA held that the “county err[ed] in interpreting ‘wood fiber’ to exclude other commercial tree species.”
Windlinkx Ranch Trust v. Deschutes Cnty., 334 Or. App. 240 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “1 Petitioner argued that the Kerrs did not show that certain lots, including lots 7a, 7b and 7c, were “lawfully created” lots as of January 1, 1993, as required by ORS 215.750 and, there- fore, that the Kerrs had not identified the seven qualifying lots required under that…”
Windlinx Ranch Trust v. Deschutes Cnty. (A179142), 323 Or. App. 290 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “ORS 215.750 does not define “parcel”; however, the definition of “parcel” contained in ORS 215.”
LandWatch Lane Cnty. v. Lane Cnty., 336 Or. App. 534 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “830(9), any person may file with [LUBA] a notice of intent to appeal a land use decision made by the county if: “(a) The challenged decision approved an application for a template dwelling pursuant to ORS 215.750 * * *; “(b) The approval of the challenged decision was based on…”
Miller v. Multnomah Cnty., 956 P.2d 209 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 14× “On the merits of the application, the board applied the county’s own land use regulations which, in relevant part, are more restrictive than ORS 215.750 and related state regulations, with respect to the permissibility of dwellings of the kind in question.”
Windlinx Ranch Trust v. Deschutes Cnty., 341 Or. App. 619 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “” ORS 215.750(3) (b)(A). Intervenors identified up to nine parcels that they contended were proper lots within the 160-acre template.”
Windlinx Ranch Trust v. Deschutes Cnty., 341 Or. App. 619 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “” ORS 215.750 (3)(b)(A). Intervenors identified up to nine parcels that they contended were proper lots within the 160-acre template.”
West v. Multnomah Cnty., 350 P.3d 203 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “ORS 215.750(l)(c). The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) promulgated an administrative rule that sets out the same template test, but also requires that the dwellings “continue to exist.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.750(1) — 2 cases
Friends of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 211 P.3d 297 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “740; alternative, or “template,” dwellings, ORS 215.750; replacement dwellings, ORS 215.”
Carlson v. Benton Cnty., 961 P.2d 248 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “” LUBA also determined that the legislative history of ORS 215.750 supported its conclusion. LUBA held that the “county err[ed] in interpreting ‘wood fiber’ to exclude other commercial tree species.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.750(2) — 1 case
Windlinx Ranch Trust v. Deschutes Cnty. (A179142), 323 Or. App. 290 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “ORS 215.750 does not define “parcel”; however, the definition of “parcel” contained in ORS 215.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.750(2)(b) — 1 case
Windlinx Ranch Trust v. Deschutes Cnty. (A179142), 323 Or. App. 290 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “ORS 215.750 does not define “parcel”; however, the definition of “parcel” contained in ORS 215.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.750(3) — 1 case
Windlinx Ranch Trust v. Deschutes Cnty., 341 Or. App. 619 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “” ORS 215.750(3) (b)(A). Intervenors identified up to nine parcels that they contended were proper lots within the 160-acre template.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.750(3)(b)(A) — 1 case
Windlinkx Ranch Trust v. Deschutes Cnty., 334 Or. App. 240 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “1 Petitioner argued that the Kerrs did not show that certain lots, including lots 7a, 7b and 7c, were “lawfully created” lots as of January 1, 1993, as required by ORS 215.750 and, there- fore, that the Kerrs had not identified the seven qualifying lots required under that…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.750(4)(a) — 1 case
Miller v. Multnomah Cnty., 956 P.2d 209 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “On the merits of the application, the board applied the county’s own land use regulations which, in relevant part, are more restrictive than ORS 215.750 and related state regulations, with respect to the permissibility of dwellings of the kind in question.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.750(5)(e) — 1 case
LandWatch Lane Cnty. v. Lane Cnty., 336 Or. App. 534 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “830(9), any person may file with [LUBA] a notice of intent to appeal a land use decision made by the county if: “(a) The challenged decision approved an application for a template dwelling pursuant to ORS 215.750 * * *; “(b) The approval of the challenged decision was based on…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.750(l)(a) — 1 case
Carlson v. Benton Cnty., 961 P.2d 248 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “” LUBA also determined that the legislative history of ORS 215.750 supported its conclusion. LUBA held that the “county err[ed] in interpreting ‘wood fiber’ to exclude other commercial tree species.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.750(l)(c) — 3 cases
Friends of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 211 P.3d 297 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “740; alternative, or “template,” dwellings, ORS 215.750; replacement dwellings, ORS 215.”
Miller v. Multnomah Cnty., 956 P.2d 209 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “On the merits of the application, the board applied the county’s own land use regulations which, in relevant part, are more restrictive than ORS 215.750 and related state regulations, with respect to the permissibility of dwellings of the kind in question.”
West v. Multnomah Cnty., 350 P.3d 203 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “ORS 215.750(l)(c). The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) promulgated an administrative rule that sets out the same template test, but also requires that the dwellings “continue to exist.”
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.