Subdivisions and Partitions

ORS 92.185
Reconfiguration of lots or parcels and public easements

  • vacation
  • notice
  • utility easements


The act of replatting shall allow the reconfiguration of lots or parcels and public easements within a recorded plat. Except as provided in subsection (5) of this section, upon approval by the reviewing agency or body as defined in ORS 92.180 (Authority to review replats), replats will act to vacate the platted lots or parcels and easements within the replat area with the following conditions:

(1)

A replat, as defined in ORS 92.010 (Definitions for ORS 92.010 to 92.192) shall apply only to a recorded plat.

(2)

Notice shall be provided as described in ORS 92.225 (Review of undeveloped or developed subdivision plat lands) (4) when the replat is replatting all of an undeveloped subdivision as defined in ORS 92.225 (Review of undeveloped or developed subdivision plat lands).

(3)

Notice, consistent with the governing body of a city or county approval of a tentative plan of a subdivision plat, shall be provided by the governing body to the owners of property adjacent to the exterior boundaries of the tentative subdivision replat.

(4)

When a utility easement is proposed to be realigned, reduced in width or omitted by a replat, all affected utility companies or public agencies shall be notified, consistent with a governing body’s notice to owners of property contiguous to the proposed plat. Any utility company that desires to maintain an easement subject to vacation under this section must notify the governing body in writing within 14 days of the mailing or other service of the notice.

(5)

A replat shall not serve to vacate any public street or road.

(6)

A replat shall comply with all subdivision provisions of this chapter and all applicable ordinances and regulations adopted under this chapter. [1985 c.369 §3; 1991 c.763 §19; 1993 c.702 §9]
§§ 92.010 to 92.190

Notes of Decisions

Due process standards applicable to land use decisions apply to administration of subdivision ordinance. Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or App 761, 566 P2d 904 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Due process requirements for granting of variances are identical regardless of whether variance is area variance or use variance. Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or App 761, 566 P2d 904 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Approval of tentative plan under subdivision ordinance is final order reviewable in writ of review proceeding. Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or App 761, 566 P2d 904 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Modification of sought-after approval of tentative plan must be treated same procedurally as initial application. Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or App 761, 566 P2d 904 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Owner of parcel unlawfully conveyed without having been partitioned could not unilaterally seek to partition parcel from remainder of original property remaining in separate ownership. Kilian v. City of West Linn, 88 Or App 242, 744 P2d 1314 (1987)

Under statutes in effect in 1981, partitioning of land parcel had effect of vacating previous lot lines unless partition map indicates continued existence of partitioned lots. Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Development Co. v. Polk County, 246 Or App 548, 267 P3d 855 (2011)

Law Review Citations

10 WLJ 398, 399 (1974)

Chapter 92

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Standards county may impose for approval of private roads created in partitioning land, (1972) Vol 35, p 1230; effect of county zoning ordinances on approved subdivision plat, (1973) Vol 36, p 702; application of Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., decision, (1974) Vol 36, p 960

Law Review Citations

10 WLJ 394-403 (1974)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021