Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.254 (2026)

Bar to contesting acknowledgment, appealing or seeking amendment

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

197.254 Bar to contesting acknowledgment, appealing or seeking amendment. (1) A state agency is barred, after the date set for submission of programs by the Land Conservation and Development Commission as provided in ORS 197.180 (4), from contesting a request for acknowledgment submitted by a local government under ORS 197.251 or from filing an appeal of a post-acknowledgement change under ORS 197.610 to 197.625 to a comprehensive plan or a land use regulation, if the commission finds that:

(a) The state agency has not complied with ORS 197.180; or

(b) The state agency has not coordinated its plans, programs or rules affecting land use with the comprehensive plan or land use regulations of the city or county pursuant to a coordination program approved by the commission under ORS 197.180.

(2) A state agency is barred from seeking a commission order under ORS 197.644 requiring amendment of a local government comprehensive plan or a land use regulation in order to comply with the agency’s plan or program unless the agency has first requested the amendment from the local government and has had its request denied.

(3) A special district is barred from contesting a request for initial compliance acknowledgment submitted by a local government under ORS 197.251 or from filing an appeal of a post-acknowledgement change under ORS 197.610 to 197.625 to a comprehensive plan or a land use regulation, if the county or metropolitan service district assigned coordinative functions under ORS 195.025 (1) finds that:

(a) The special district has not entered into a cooperative agreement under ORS 195.020; or

(b) The special district has not coordinated its plans, programs or regulations affecting land use with the comprehensive plan or land use regulations of the local government pursuant to its cooperative agreement made under ORS 195.020.

(4) A special district is barred from seeking a commission order under ORS 197.644 requiring amendment of a local government comprehensive plan or a land use regulation in order to comply with the special district’s plan or program unless the special district has first requested the amendment from the local government and has had its request denied. [1977 c.664 §16; 1981 c.748 §11; 1983 c.827 §57; 1991 c.612 §11; 2009 c.606 §4; 2011 c.280 §7]

197.255 [1973 c.80 §39; 1981 c.748 §29b; 1983 c.827 §57a; renumbered 195.035 in 1993]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1981–1982 · leading case: Jackson Cnty. v. Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Auth., 645 P.2d 532 (Or. 1982).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jackson Cnty. v. Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Auth., 645 P.2d 532 (Or. 1982). · cites it 2× “The board further cited provisions that bar an uncooperative special district from contesting the acknowledgment of the county’s comprehensive plan by LCDC, ORS 197.254(2), and that subjects such a district’s nonconforming plan to an enforcement order.”

Jackson Cnty. v. Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Auth., 632 P.2d 1349 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 3× “As LUBA notes, ORS 197.254(2) 11 provides that if a district fails to enter into or violates a cooperative agreement, it may not contest the county’s acknowledgment request.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.254(2) — 2 cases

Jackson Cnty. v. Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Auth., 645 P.2d 532 (Or. 1982). “The board further cited provisions that bar an uncooperative special district from contesting the acknowledgment of the county’s comprehensive plan by LCDC, ORS 197.254(2), and that subjects such a district’s nonconforming plan to an enforcement order.”

Jackson Cnty. v. Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Auth., 632 P.2d 1349 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “As LUBA notes, ORS 197.254(2) 11 provides that if a district fails to enter into or violates a cooperative agreement, it may not contest the county’s acknowledgment request.”

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.