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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.290 (2026)

Building setback lines established by city council; criteria

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

      227.290 Building setback lines established by city council; criteria. (1) The council or other governing body of any incorporated city, under an exercise of its police powers, may establish or alter building setback lines on private property adjacent to any alley, street, avenue, boulevard, highway or other public way in such city. It may make it unlawful and provide a penalty for erecting after said establishment any building or structure closer to the street line than such setback line, except as may be expressly provided by ordinance. The council or body shall pass and put into effect such ordinances as may be needed for the purpose of providing for a notice to and hearing of persons owning property affected before establishing any such setback line. Such setback lines may be established without requiring a cutting off or removal of buildings existing at the time.

      (2) The council may consider, in enacting ordinances governing building setback lines, the site slope and tree cover of the land with regard to solar exposure. The council shall not restrict construction where site slope and tree cover make incident solar energy collection unfeasible, except an existing solar structure’s sun plane shall not be substantially impaired.

      (3) The council may consider, in enacting ordinances governing building setback lines and maximum building height, the impact on available wind resources. The ordinances shall protect an existing wind energy system’s wind source to the extent feasible.

      (4) The powers given in this section shall be so exercised as to preserve constitutional rights. [Amended by 1979 c.671 §4; 1981 c.590 §9]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2018–2020 · leading case: Moore v. City of Eugene, 482 P.3d 190 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Moore v. City of Eugene, 482 P.3d 190 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 7× “300(14)(b) to a swath of statutes that includes ORS 227.290 shows that “a ‘land use regulation’ is already a restriction on use and that only a prohibition of use gives rise to the restriction contained in the Measure 49 defini- tion of ‘land use regulation.”
1000 Friends of Or. v. Jackson Cnty., 423 P.3d 793 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “See also ORS 227.290(2). 5 Those general distinctions in the separate regulation of energy facilities and industrial land uses in LCDC rules and related state statutes reinforce the conclusion that, in OAR 660-004-0020(3)(c), LCDC intended a different meaning for rural…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.290(1): 1 case
Moore v. City of Eugene, 482 P.3d 190 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “300(14)(b) to a swath of statutes that includes ORS 227.290 shows that “a ‘land use regulation’ is already a restriction on use and that only a prohibition of use gives rise to the restriction contained in the Measure 49 defini- tion of ‘land use regulation.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.290(2): 1 case
1000 Friends of Or. v. Jackson Cnty., 423 P.3d 793 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “See also ORS 227.290(2). 5 Those general distinctions in the separate regulation of energy facilities and industrial land uses in LCDC rules and related state statutes reinforce the conclusion that, in OAR 660-004-0020(3)(c), LCDC intended a different meaning for rural…”
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.