County Planning

ORS 215.448
Home occupations

  • parking
  • where allowed
  • conditions


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:


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


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


It shall be operated substantially in:


The dwelling; or


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


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


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.


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.


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

Meaning of "building" is not confined to only walled structures. Green v. Douglas County, 245 Or App 430, 263 P3d 355 (2011)

Chapter 215

Notes of Decisions

Published notice is adequate if property owners can reasonably ascertain that property in which they hold interest may be affected. Clackamas County v. Emmert, 14 Or App 493, 513 P2d 532 (1973), Sup Ct review denied

Statutory scheme establishing LCDC and granting it authority to establish state-wide land use planning goals does not unconstitutionally delegate legislative power where both standards (under this chapter) and safeguards ([former] ORS 197.310) exist. Meyer v. Lord, 37 Or App 59, 586 P2d 367 (1978)

Where county had not yet adopted comprehensive plan but had zoned certain portions "primarily agricultural," county had not enacted adequate interim measures to protect its agricultural land until exclusive farm use zoning was completed. Columbia County v. LCDC, 44 Or App 749, 606 P2d 1184 (1980)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., application to county governing bodies and planning commissions, (1974) Vol 36, p 960; binding effect on governmental agencies of the adoption of interim Willamette River Greenway boundaries, (1975) Vol 37, p 894

Law Review Citations

36 EL 25 (2006)


Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021