Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.505 (2026)
Definitions for ORS 197.505 to 197.540
✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
197.505 Definitions for ORS 197.505 to 197.540. As used in ORS 197.505 to 197.540:
(1) “Public facilities” means those public facilities for which a public facilities plan is required under ORS 197.712.
(2) “Special district” refers to only those entities as defined in ORS 197.015 (19) that provide services for which public facilities plans are required. [1980 c.2 §2; 1991 c.839 §1; 1993 c.438 §4; 1995 c.463 §1; 1999 c.838 §1; 2005 c.22 §144; 2007 c.354 §29]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1991–2011 · leading case: Thunderbird Hotels, LLC v. City of Portland, 180 P.3d 87 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
Thunderbird Hotels, LLC v. City of Portland, 180 P.3d 87 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “See ORS 197.505 to 197.540 (setting out requirements for adoption by cities, counties, and special districts of moratoria on construction or development).”
Gisler v. Deschutes Cnty., 945 P.2d 1051 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “” Therefore, petitioner asserts, the county’s action is inconsistent with ORS 197.505 et seq. ORS 197.505(1) provides: “ ‘Moratorium on construction or land development’ means engaging in a pattern or practice of delaying or stopping issuance of permits, authorizations or…”
Dep't of Transp. v. City of Klamath Falls, 34 P.3d 667 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “768 or (2) a formal declaration of a moratorium under ORS 197.505 to ORS 197.540 when a local government engages in a pattern or practice of delaying or stopping the issuance of permits or approvals based on a shortage of public facilities.”
Woosley v. Marion Cnty., 846 P.2d 1170 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “Petitioners also assert that the county has established a de facto development moratorium, without complying with the requirements of ORS 197.505 et seq. That is not correct. Denials of the kind in question are specifically excluded from the scope of the statutory moratorium…”
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Springfield, 129 P.3d 713 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “” ORS 197.505 provides, in part: “As used in ORS 197.”
Yamhill Cty. Asse. v. Johnson Living Trust, No. TC-MD 090691B (Or. T.C. Mar. 14, 2011). “) Veatch cited ORS 197.505, concluding that Yamhill County did "none of the items required to enact or continue a moratorium.”
Davis v. City of Bandon, 805 P.2d 709 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). “They seek review of LUBA’s affirmance of a moratorium on residential development in the area, imposed by the city pursuant to ORS 197.505 et seq. 1 The area is planned and zoned for residential use but also contains valuable wildlife habitat and other significant resources.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.505(1): 3 cases
Gisler v. Deschutes Cnty., 945 P.2d 1051 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “” Therefore, petitioner asserts, the county’s action is inconsistent with ORS 197.505 et seq. ORS 197.505(1) provides: “ ‘Moratorium on construction or land development’ means engaging in a pattern or practice of delaying or stopping issuance of permits, authorizations or…”
Dep't of Transp. v. City of Klamath Falls, 34 P.3d 667 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “768 or (2) a formal declaration of a moratorium under ORS 197.505 to ORS 197.540 when a local government engages in a pattern or practice of delaying or stopping the issuance of permits or approvals based on a shortage of public facilities.”
Woosley v. Marion Cnty., 846 P.2d 1170 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “Petitioners also assert that the county has established a de facto development moratorium, without complying with the requirements of ORS 197.505 et seq. That is not correct. Denials of the kind in question are specifically excluded from the scope of the statutory moratorium…”
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.