275.335
Exchanging land within county forest; reserving rights of way. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions
of ORS 275.330 or 275.340, the governing body of a county may provide for the
exchange of land within a designated county forest for other land when in the
judgment of the governing body of the county, supported as provided in
subsection (3) of this section, such exchange is for equal value and is in the
best interest of the county. Such exchanges shall be authorized under this
section only when the land obtained by the county in exchange is immediately
incorporated into the designated county forest.
(2) Before making
an order for exchange of property, the governing body of the county shall hold
a hearing at which objections to the proposed exchange of real property may be
heard. Notice of the hearing shall be given by publication weekly for two consecutive
weeks, or two publications in all, in a newspaper circulated generally within
the county, such notice to describe particularly the property affected. The
date of hearing shall be not less than five days following the last date of
publication of notice.
(3) The exchange
authorized in subsection (1) of this section shall be made by order of the
governing body of the county and supported by reports of the value of the
properties being exchanged submitted by:
(a) The county
assessor; and
(b) The county
forester or other qualified agent selected by the governing body.
(4) The exchanges
authorized in this section may include any timber on the land involved if the
value of such timber is established as provided in subsection (3) of this
section.
(5) The governing
body of the county shall reserve all rights of way in all lands exchanged as
provided in subsection (1) of this section to permit proper administration and
management of county lands and forests retained or received in exchange by the
county. [1961 c.227 §2; 2005 c.243 §29]
Notes of Decisions
Hood River Valley Residents' Comm., Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 91 P.3d 748 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 13× “In respondents’ briefs, they reiterated their arguments that (1) the county’s land exchange decision pursuant to ORS 275.335 was “legislative” and not “quasi-judicial” in nature and, thus, was not subject to writ of review; and (2) the first amended petition did not allege a…”
Kozak v. City of Bend, 217 P.3d 1118 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“According to the agreement, the exchange was subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, including compliance with ORS 275.335, the statute governing particular types of land exchanges.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 275.335(1) — 1 case
Hood River Valley Residents' Comm., Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 91 P.3d 748 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“In respondents’ briefs, they reiterated their arguments that (1) the county’s land exchange decision pursuant to ORS 275.335 was “legislative” and not “quasi-judicial” in nature and, thus, was not subject to writ of review; and (2) the first amended petition did not allege a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 275.335(2) — 1 case
Hood River Valley Residents' Comm., Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 91 P.3d 748 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“In respondents’ briefs, they reiterated their arguments that (1) the county’s land exchange decision pursuant to ORS 275.335 was “legislative” and not “quasi-judicial” in nature and, thus, was not subject to writ of review; and (2) the first amended petition did not allege a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 275.335(3) — 1 case
Hood River Valley Residents' Comm., Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 91 P.3d 748 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“In respondents’ briefs, they reiterated their arguments that (1) the county’s land exchange decision pursuant to ORS 275.335 was “legislative” and not “quasi-judicial” in nature and, thus, was not subject to writ of review; and (2) the first amended petition did not allege a…”
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.