197.520 Manner
of declaring moratorium.
(1) No city, county or special district may adopt a moratorium on construction
or land development unless it first:
(a) Provides
written notice to the Department of Land Conservation and Development at least
45 days prior to the final public hearing to be held to consider the adoption
of the moratorium;
(b) Makes written
findings justifying the need for the moratorium in the manner provided for in
this section; and
(c) Holds a
public hearing on the adoption of the moratorium and the findings which support
the moratorium.
(2) For urban or
urbanizable land, a moratorium may be justified by demonstration of a need to
prevent a shortage of public facilities which would otherwise occur during the
effective period of the moratorium. Such a demonstration shall be based upon
reasonably available information, and shall include, but need not be limited
to, findings:
(a) Showing the
extent of need beyond the estimated capacity of existing public facilities
expected to result from new land development, including identification of any
public facilities currently operating beyond capacity, and the portion of such
capacity already committed to development;
(b) That the
moratorium is reasonably limited to those areas of the city, county or special
district where a shortage of key public facilities would otherwise occur; and
(c) That the
housing and economic development needs of the area affected have been
accommodated as much as possible in any program for allocating any remaining
public facility capacity.
(3) A moratorium
not based on a shortage of public facilities under subsection (2) of this
section may be justified only by a demonstration of compelling need. Such a
demonstration shall be based upon reasonably available information and shall
include, but need not be limited to, findings:
(a) For urban or
urbanizable land:
(A) That
application of existing development ordinances or regulations and other
applicable law is inadequate to prevent irrevocable public harm from
development in affected geographical areas;
(B) That the
moratorium is sufficiently limited to ensure that a needed supply of affected
housing types and the supply of commercial and industrial facilities within or
in proximity to the city, county or special district are not unreasonably
restricted by the adoption of the moratorium;
(C) Stating the
reasons alternative methods of achieving the objectives of the moratorium are
unsatisfactory;
(D) That the
city, county or special district has determined that the public harm which
would be caused by failure to impose a moratorium outweighs the adverse effects
on other affected local governments, including shifts in demand for housing or
economic development, public facilities and services and buildable lands, and
the overall impact of the moratorium on population distribution; and
(E) That the
city, county or special district proposing the moratorium has determined that
sufficient resources are available to complete the development of needed
interim or permanent changes in plans, regulations or procedures within the
period of effectiveness of the moratorium.
(b) For rural
land:
(A) That
application of existing development ordinances or regulations and other
applicable law is inadequate to prevent irrevocable public harm from
development in affected geographical areas;
(B) Stating the
reasons alternative methods of achieving the objectives of the moratorium are
unsatisfactory;
(C) That the
moratorium is sufficiently limited to ensure that lots or parcels outside the
affected geographical areas are not unreasonably restricted by the adoption of
the moratorium; and
(D) That the
city, county or special district proposing the moratorium has developed a work
plan and time schedule for achieving the objectives of the moratorium.
(4) No moratorium
adopted under subsection (3)(a) of this section shall be effective for a period
longer than 120 days, but such a moratorium may be extended provided the city,
county or special district adopting the moratorium holds a public hearing on the
proposed extension and adopts written findings that:
(a) Verify the
problem giving rise to the need for a moratorium still exists;
(b) Demonstrate
that reasonable progress is being made to alleviate the problem giving rise to
the moratorium; and
(c) Set a
specific duration for the renewal of the moratorium. No extension may be for a
period longer than six months.
(5) Any city,
county or special district considering an extension of a moratorium shall give
the department at least 14 days’ notice of the time and date of the public
hearing on the extension. [1980 c.2 §3; 1991 c.839 §3; 1995 c.463 §3]
197.522 [1999 c.838 §4; 2015 c.374 §3;
2023 c.13 §85; 2024 c.102 §31; 2025 c.38 §7; renumbered 197A.402 in 2025]
Notes of Decisions
Thunderbird Hotels, LLC v. City of Portland, 180 P.3d 87 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 32× “ORS 197.520 sets out substantive and procedural requirements for the adoption of moratoria; it provides, in part: “(1) No city, county or special district may adopt a moratorium on construction or land development unless it first: *558 “(a) Provides written notice to the…”
Thunderbird Hotels, LLC v. City of Portland, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (D. Or. 2009).
· cites it 2× “On June 7, 2007, the City Council voted to extend the moratorium until January 1, 2008, and to amend certain substantive terms of the moratorium. In a decision issued on June 22, 2007, LUBA invalidated the original moratorium on the grounds that it had failed to accommodate as…”
Winters v. Tillamook Cnty., 330 Or. App. 188 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“First, petitioners contended that the county’s order was a “mor- atorium on construction or land development” under ORS 197.520(1) which LUBA has jurisdiction to review pursuant to that statute.”
Davis v. City of Bandon, 805 P.2d 709 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 8× “Petitioners’ third assignment ascribes error to LUBA’s conclusion that the city demonstrated a compelling need for the moratorium, as ORS 197.520 requires. Many of the points that petitioners make to support that assignment *433 have been answered elsewhere in this opinion, and…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.520(1) — 2 cases
Thunderbird Hotels, LLC v. City of Portland, 180 P.3d 87 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“ORS 197.520 sets out substantive and procedural requirements for the adoption of moratoria; it provides, in part: “(1) No city, county or special district may adopt a moratorium on construction or land development unless it first: *558 “(a) Provides written notice to the…”
Winters v. Tillamook Cnty., 330 Or. App. 188 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“First, petitioners contended that the county’s order was a “mor- atorium on construction or land development” under ORS 197.520(1) which LUBA has jurisdiction to review pursuant to that statute.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.520(2) — 1 case
Thunderbird Hotels, LLC v. City of Portland, 180 P.3d 87 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“ORS 197.520 sets out substantive and procedural requirements for the adoption of moratoria; it provides, in part: “(1) No city, county or special district may adopt a moratorium on construction or land development unless it first: *558 “(a) Provides written notice to the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.520(2)(a) — 1 case
Thunderbird Hotels, LLC v. City of Portland, 180 P.3d 87 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“ORS 197.520 sets out substantive and procedural requirements for the adoption of moratoria; it provides, in part: “(1) No city, county or special district may adopt a moratorium on construction or land development unless it first: *558 “(a) Provides written notice to the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.520(2)(b) — 1 case
Thunderbird Hotels, LLC v. City of Portland, 180 P.3d 87 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“ORS 197.520 sets out substantive and procedural requirements for the adoption of moratoria; it provides, in part: “(1) No city, county or special district may adopt a moratorium on construction or land development unless it first: *558 “(a) Provides written notice to the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.520(2)(c) — 2 cases
Thunderbird Hotels, LLC v. City of Portland, 180 P.3d 87 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“ORS 197.520 sets out substantive and procedural requirements for the adoption of moratoria; it provides, in part: “(1) No city, county or special district may adopt a moratorium on construction or land development unless it first: *558 “(a) Provides written notice to the…”
Thunderbird Hotels, LLC v. City of Portland, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (D. Or. 2009).
“On June 7, 2007, the City Council voted to extend the moratorium until January 1, 2008, and to amend certain substantive terms of the moratorium. In a decision issued on June 22, 2007, LUBA invalidated the original moratorium on the grounds that it had failed to accommodate as…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.520(3) — 1 case
Davis v. City of Bandon, 805 P.2d 709 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“Petitioners’ third assignment ascribes error to LUBA’s conclusion that the city demonstrated a compelling need for the moratorium, as ORS 197.520 requires. Many of the points that petitioners make to support that assignment *433 have been answered elsewhere in this opinion, and…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.520(3)(a) — 1 case
Davis v. City of Bandon, 805 P.2d 709 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“Petitioners’ third assignment ascribes error to LUBA’s conclusion that the city demonstrated a compelling need for the moratorium, as ORS 197.520 requires. Many of the points that petitioners make to support that assignment *433 have been answered elsewhere in this opinion, and…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.520(3)(c) — 1 case
Davis v. City of Bandon, 805 P.2d 709 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“Petitioners’ third assignment ascribes error to LUBA’s conclusion that the city demonstrated a compelling need for the moratorium, as ORS 197.520 requires. Many of the points that petitioners make to support that assignment *433 have been answered elsewhere in this opinion, and…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.520(4) — 2 cases
Davis v. City of Bandon, 805 P.2d 709 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“Petitioners’ third assignment ascribes error to LUBA’s conclusion that the city demonstrated a compelling need for the moratorium, as ORS 197.520 requires. Many of the points that petitioners make to support that assignment *433 have been answered elsewhere in this opinion, and…”
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.