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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.465 (2026)

Comprehensive plan implementing measures

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

      197.465 Comprehensive plan implementing measures. An acknowledged comprehensive plan that allows for siting of a destination resort shall include implementing measures which:

      (1) Map areas where a destination resort described in ORS 197.445 (1) to (5) is permitted pursuant to ORS 197.455;

      (2) Limit uses and activities to those defined by ORS 197.435 and allowed by ORS 197.445; and

      (3) Assure that developed recreational facilities and key facilities intended to serve the entire development and visitor-oriented accommodations are physically provided or are guaranteed through surety bonding or substantially equivalent financial assurances prior to closure of sale of individual lots or units. In phased developments, developed recreational facilities and other key facilities intended to serve a particular phase shall be constructed prior to sales in that phase or guaranteed through surety bonding. [1987 c.886 §8]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1990–2017 · leading case: Foland v. Jackson Cnty., 807 P.2d 801 (Or. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Foland v. Jackson Cnty., 807 P.2d 801 (Or. 1991). · cites it 3× “4 ORS 197.465; Statewide Planning Goals, at 8.”
Cent. Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes Cnty., 396 P.3d 968 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “See ORS 197.465(3) (requiring that in phased developments recreational amenities *278 intended to serve a phase must be constructed prior to sales of residential units in that phase).”
All. for Responsible Land Use v. Deschutes Cnty., 839 P.2d 746 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “435 to ORS 197.465. The statutes codify and largely replicate the destination resort siting provisions of Goal 8.”
Foland v. Jackson Cnty., 792 P.2d 1228 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 3× “” LUBA agreed with the county and respondent that the statute does not make adopted plan maps the exclusive means for determining whether the “50 contiguous acres” siting criterion is present in particular cases. Therefore, the supplemental SCS mapping permitted by the…”
Cent. Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes Cnty., 262 P.3d 1153 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “]” ORS 197.465(1). DCC 23.84.030(3)(a)(6) provides that “[s]ites less than 160 acres” may not be included in mapping for destination resorts.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.465(1) — 3 cases
Foland v. Jackson Cnty., 807 P.2d 801 (Or. 1991). “4 ORS 197.465; Statewide Planning Goals, at 8.”
Foland v. Jackson Cnty., 792 P.2d 1228 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “” LUBA agreed with the county and respondent that the statute does not make adopted plan maps the exclusive means for determining whether the “50 contiguous acres” siting criterion is present in particular cases. Therefore, the supplemental SCS mapping permitted by the…”
Cent. Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes Cnty., 262 P.3d 1153 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “]” ORS 197.465(1). DCC 23.84.030(3)(a)(6) provides that “[s]ites less than 160 acres” may not be included in mapping for destination resorts.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.465(3) — 1 case
Cent. Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes Cnty., 396 P.3d 968 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “See ORS 197.465(3) (requiring that in phased developments recreational amenities *278 intended to serve a phase must be constructed prior to sales of residential units in that phase).”
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.