197.772
Historic property; consent for designation; portable cooling devices allowed. (1) Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a local government shall allow a property owner to refuse to
consent to any form of historic property designation at any point during the
designation process. Such refusal to consent shall remove the property from any
form of consideration for historic property designation under ORS 358.480 to
358.545 or other law, except for consideration or nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq.).
(2) A permit for
the demolition or modification of property removed from consideration for
historic property designation under subsection (1) of this section may not be
issued during the 120-day period following the date of the property owner’s
refusal to consent.
(3) A local
government shall allow a property owner to remove from the property a historic
property designation that was imposed on the property by the local government.
(4) A local
government may not enforce any ordinance or design regulation restricting the
use of a portable cooling device, as defined in ORS 90.355 (1), based on a
historic property designation for property used as a residential tenancy,
unless:
(a) The
restriction is necessary to protect or prohibit the removal of historical
architectural features of the property; or
(b) The
restriction only requires that the device be removed from October 1 through
April 30. [1995 c.693 §21; 2001 c.540 §19; 2021 c.97 §18; 2022 c.86 §5]
197.775 [1973 c.482 §11; repealed by 1977
c.665 §24]
197.779 [2019 c.640 §15; repealed by 2021
c.385 §6]
197.780 [1973 c.482 §12; repealed by 1977
c.665 §24]
Notes of Decisions
Lake Oswego Pres. Soc'y v. City of Lake Oswego, 379 P.3d 462 (Or. 2016).
· cites it 114× “This case concerns the interpretation of Oregon’s historic property designation consent statute, ORS 197.772. That statute provides that the owners of properties slated for local historic designation have the right to refuse to consent to that designation.”
Lake Oswego Pres. Soc'y v. City of Lake Oswego, 344 P.3d 26 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 28× “Marjorie Hanson, Trustee for the Wilmot Trust (Hanson), is the current owner of property subject to a historic designation that was placed on that property by the City of Lake Oswego in 1990, approximately five years before the enactment of ORS 197.772 — the statute at issue in…”
Lake Oswego Pres. Soc'y v. City of Lake Oswego (Or. 2016).
· cites it 119× “Held: In enacting ORS 197.772, the legislature intended to ensure that historic designations are not placed on properties unless the owner at the time of designation consents.”
Lake Oswego Pres. Soc'y v. City of Lake Oswego (Or. 2016).
· cites it 119× “Held: In enacting ORS 197.772, the legislature intended to ensure that historic designations are not placed on properties unless the owner at the time of designation consents.”
City of Portland v. Bartlett, 468 P.3d 980 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“Alternatively, the legislature could have recycled the oft-used phrase “notwithstanding any other provision of law” (or its close, but lesser used, cousin “notwithstanding any other provisions of law”), which can be found in, among other places, ORS 197.772(1), ORS 475B.968(7),…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.772(1) — 5 cases
Lake Oswego Pres. Soc'y v. City of Lake Oswego, 379 P.3d 462 (Or. 2016).
“This case concerns the interpretation of Oregon’s historic property designation consent statute, ORS 197.772. That statute provides that the owners of properties slated for local historic designation have the right to refuse to consent to that designation.”
City of Portland v. Bartlett, 468 P.3d 980 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“Alternatively, the legislature could have recycled the oft-used phrase “notwithstanding any other provision of law” (or its close, but lesser used, cousin “notwithstanding any other provisions of law”), which can be found in, among other places, ORS 197.772(1), ORS 475B.968(7),…”
Lake Oswego Pres. Soc'y v. City of Lake Oswego, 344 P.3d 26 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“Marjorie Hanson, Trustee for the Wilmot Trust (Hanson), is the current owner of property subject to a historic designation that was placed on that property by the City of Lake Oswego in 1990, approximately five years before the enactment of ORS 197.772 — the statute at issue in…”
Lake Oswego Pres. Soc'y v. City of Lake Oswego (Or. 2016).
“Held: In enacting ORS 197.772, the legislature intended to ensure that historic designations are not placed on properties unless the owner at the time of designation consents.”
Lake Oswego Pres. Soc'y v. City of Lake Oswego (Or. 2016).
“Held: In enacting ORS 197.772, the legislature intended to ensure that historic designations are not placed on properties unless the owner at the time of designation consents.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.772(2) — 3 cases
Lake Oswego Pres. Soc'y v. City of Lake Oswego, 379 P.3d 462 (Or. 2016).
“This case concerns the interpretation of Oregon’s historic property designation consent statute, ORS 197.772. That statute provides that the owners of properties slated for local historic designation have the right to refuse to consent to that designation.”
Lake Oswego Pres. Soc'y v. City of Lake Oswego (Or. 2016).
“Held: In enacting ORS 197.772, the legislature intended to ensure that historic designations are not placed on properties unless the owner at the time of designation consents.”
Lake Oswego Pres. Soc'y v. City of Lake Oswego (Or. 2016).
“Held: In enacting ORS 197.772, the legislature intended to ensure that historic designations are not placed on properties unless the owner at the time of designation consents.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.772(3) — 4 cases
Lake Oswego Pres. Soc'y v. City of Lake Oswego, 379 P.3d 462 (Or. 2016).
“This case concerns the interpretation of Oregon’s historic property designation consent statute, ORS 197.772. That statute provides that the owners of properties slated for local historic designation have the right to refuse to consent to that designation.”
Lake Oswego Pres. Soc'y v. City of Lake Oswego, 344 P.3d 26 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“Marjorie Hanson, Trustee for the Wilmot Trust (Hanson), is the current owner of property subject to a historic designation that was placed on that property by the City of Lake Oswego in 1990, approximately five years before the enactment of ORS 197.772 — the statute at issue in…”
Lake Oswego Pres. Soc'y v. City of Lake Oswego (Or. 2016).
“Held: In enacting ORS 197.772, the legislature intended to ensure that historic designations are not placed on properties unless the owner at the time of designation consents.”
Lake Oswego Pres. Soc'y v. City of Lake Oswego (Or. 2016).
“Held: In enacting ORS 197.772, the legislature intended to ensure that historic designations are not placed on properties unless the owner at the time of designation consents.”
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.