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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 374.305 (2026)

Necessity of permission to build on rights of way

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

      374.305 Necessity of permission to build on rights of way. (1) A person may not place, build or construct on the right of way of any state highway or county road, any approach road, structure, pipeline, ditch, cable or wire, or any other facility, thing or appurtenance, or substantially alter any such facility, thing or appurtenance or change the manner of using any such approach road without first obtaining written permission from the Department of Transportation with respect to state highways or the county court or board of county commissioners with respect to county roads. In reviewing or granting an application for written permission, the department or a county court or board of county commissioners may not discriminate against or favor a renewable energy facility.

      (2) After written notice of not less than 10 days to the permittee and an opportunity for a hearing, the department with respect to crossings over a state highway and the county court or board of county commissioners with respect to crossings over a county road may abolish any crossing at grade by a private road or may alter or change any private road crossing when the public safety, public convenience and the general welfare require the alteration or change. [Amended by 1955 c.424 §1; 1957 c.323 §1; 1967 c.497 §1; 2011 c.330 §3; 2023 c.336 §2]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1966–2014 · leading case: Deupree v. Dep't of Transp., 43 P.3d 1122 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Deupree v. Dep't of Transp., 43 P.3d 1122 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 22× “In November 1998, ODOT issued notices of intent to cancel both permits, in the context of a project that included widening Highway 62 and constructing a raised median. Petitioners filed objections to the cancellations and requested a hearing.”
Doney v. Clatsop Cnty., 921 P.2d 1346 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 5× “Plaintiffs brought this action for mandamus and other relief arising from the refusal by defendants Clatsop County and its roadmaster (collectively “county”) to issue a road access permit to plaintiffs pursuant to ORS 374.305 et seq. The trial court entered an ORCP 67 B judgment…”
Spaght v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp., 564 P.2d 1092 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 7× “We agree with the trial judge’s holding that plaintiffs are required by ORS 374.305 to obtain written consent from the defendant before altering the approach road, and to comply with the conditions of that consent.”
Oregon Telecomm. Ass'n v. Oregon Dep't of Transp., 144 P.3d 935 (Or. 2006). · cites it 2× “” Those disputed costs arise from “ ‘Schedule B’ permit fees” that ODOT assessed pursuant to OAR 734-055-0017(l)(b) (describing fees applicable under Utility Facility Permit Fee Schedule “B”). The legislature adopted Oregon Laws 2001, chapter 664, section 4, in 2001 as a…”
Curran v. State, 951 P.2d 183 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “See ORS 374.305(1). Initially, plaintiffs applied for a permit to reopen the original approach road.”
Foster Auto Parts, Inc. v. City of Portland, 15 P.3d 573 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “See ORS 374.305. Plaintiff never applied for a permit from the county, city, or state for the driveway.”
Lucas v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp., 4 P.3d 745 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “The decisive issue on appeal is whether a declaratory judgment is a proper proceeding to resolve the issues that plaintiffs raise.”
Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Multnomah Cnty., 681 P.2d 797 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “310(1) provides, in pertinent part: “* * * [T]he county court or board of county commissioners with respect to county roads shall adopt reasonable rules and regulations and may issue permits, not inconsistent with law, for the use of the rights of way of such highways and roads…”
State High. Comm'n v. Beach, 416 P.2d 316 (Or. 1966). “The relevant statutes are as follows: ORS 374.305 “No person * * * may place, build or construct on the right of way of any state highway * * * any approach road * * * without first obtaining written permission from the State Highway Commission * * ORS 374.”
Regency Centers, L.P. v. Washington Cnty., 335 P.3d 856 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Finally, LUBA’s remand on petitioners’ third assignments of error requires the county to determine the applicability of the notice and hearing requirements in ORS 374.305(2) and “whether ORS 374.309(3) applies in the circumstances presented in this appeal and, if it does, apply…”
State Ex Rel. State High. Comm'n v. Ctr., 543 P.2d 1084 (Or. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× ““[6] However, if you find that the access reserved to the Defendant is reasonable, then the Defendant is not entitled to recover any compensation for the restriction of access which is caused by the lawful exercise of the Highway Commission’s right to regulate the number,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 374.305(1) — 5 cases
Curran v. State, 951 P.2d 183 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “See ORS 374.305(1). Initially, plaintiffs applied for a permit to reopen the original approach road.”
Oregon Telecomm. Ass'n v. Oregon Dep't of Transp., 144 P.3d 935 (Or. 2006). “” Those disputed costs arise from “ ‘Schedule B’ permit fees” that ODOT assessed pursuant to OAR 734-055-0017(l)(b) (describing fees applicable under Utility Facility Permit Fee Schedule “B”). The legislature adopted Oregon Laws 2001, chapter 664, section 4, in 2001 as a…”
Deupree v. Dep't of Transp., 43 P.3d 1122 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “In November 1998, ODOT issued notices of intent to cancel both permits, in the context of a project that included widening Highway 62 and constructing a raised median. Petitioners filed objections to the cancellations and requested a hearing.”
Spaght v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp., 564 P.2d 1092 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “We agree with the trial judge’s holding that plaintiffs are required by ORS 374.305 to obtain written consent from the defendant before altering the approach road, and to comply with the conditions of that consent.”
Lucas v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp., 4 P.3d 745 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “The decisive issue on appeal is whether a declaratory judgment is a proper proceeding to resolve the issues that plaintiffs raise.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 374.305(2) — 2 cases
Deupree v. Dep't of Transp., 43 P.3d 1122 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “In November 1998, ODOT issued notices of intent to cancel both permits, in the context of a project that included widening Highway 62 and constructing a raised median. Petitioners filed objections to the cancellations and requested a hearing.”
Regency Centers, L.P. v. Washington Cnty., 335 P.3d 856 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “Finally, LUBA’s remand on petitioners’ third assignments of error requires the county to determine the applicability of the notice and hearing requirements in ORS 374.305(2) and “whether ORS 374.309(3) applies in the circumstances presented in this appeal and, if it does, apply…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 374.305(3)(a) — 1 case
Deupree v. Dep't of Transp., 43 P.3d 1122 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “In November 1998, ODOT issued notices of intent to cancel both permits, in the context of a project that included widening Highway 62 and constructing a raised median. Petitioners filed objections to the cancellations and requested a hearing.”
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.