390.640 Permit
required for improvements on ocean shore; exceptions. (1) In order to promote the public
health, safety and welfare, to protect the state recreation areas recognized
and declared by ORS 390.610 and 390.615, to protect the safety of the public
using such areas, and to preserve values adjacent to and adjoining such areas,
the natural beauty of the ocean shore and the public recreational benefit
derived therefrom, it is necessary to control and regulate improvements on the
ocean shore. Unless a permit therefor is granted as provided by ORS 390.650, no
person shall make an improvement on any property that is within the ocean
shore.
(2) This section
does not apply to permits granted pursuant to ORS 390.715, or to rules adopted
or permits granted under ORS 390.725.
(3) This section
does not apply to continuous extensions of densely vegetated land areas that
were, as of August 22, 1969, both seaward of the line established by ORS
390.770 and above the 16-foot contour. The elevation mentioned in this
subsection refers to the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey Sea-Level
Datum of 1929 through the Pacific Northwest Supplementary Adjustment of 1947.
(4) This section
does not apply to the removal, filling or alteration of material on the ocean
shore where those activities are regulated under a state-assumed permit program
as provided in 33 U.S.C. 1344(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended. [1967 c.601 §5; 1969 c.601 §7; 1973 c.642 §14; 1999 c.373 §3]
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. Thornton v. Hay, 462 P.2d 671 (Or. 1969).
· cites it 6× “The state asserts two theories: (1) the landowners' record title to the disputed area is encumbered by a superior right in the public to go upon and enjoy the land for recreational purposes; and (2) if the disputed area is not encumbered by the asserted public easement, then the…”
Stevens v. City of Cannon Beach, 854 P.2d 449 (Or. 1993).
· cites it 2× “2 Any person who wants to make an improvement on any property subject to ORS 390.640 must obtain a permit from the department.”
Hay v. Oregon Dep't of Transp., 719 P.2d 860 (Or. 1986).
“660 provides: “The Department of Transportation is hereby directed to protect, to maintain and to promulgate rules governing use of the public of property that is subject to ORS 390.640, property subject to public rights or easements declared by ORS 390.”
Hay v. Bruno, 344 F. Supp. 286 (D. Or. 1972).
· cites it 2× “” To protect and administer the easements, the Legislature enacted ORS § 390.640. It prohibits the building of any structure on the land between the extreme low tide line and the 16-foot elevation line (this area will be called “the beach”) unless a permit is issued for the…”
McDonald v. Halvorson, 780 P.2d 714 (Or. 1989).
“On appeal, the state argued two theories: (1) the public had acquired an easement by prescription over the subject beach; and (2) the state had the right, by virtue of zoning controls contained in a recently enacted portion of the Oregon Beach Bill, ORS 390.640, 7 to prevent any…”
State High. Comm'n v. Fultz, 491 P.2d 1171 (Or. 1971).
· cites it 2× “ORS 390.640 states that it is necessary to protect the state recreation areas, preserve the natural beauty of the ocean shore, etc.”
State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Bauman, 492 P.2d 284 (Or. Ct. App. 1971).
“660 provides: “The State Highway Commission is hereby directed to protect, to maintain and to promulgate rules governing use of the public of property that is subject to ORS 390.640, property subject to public rights or easements declared by ORS 390.”
McDonald v. Halvorson, 760 P.2d 263 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
“ORS 390.640. 10 Defendants’ reliance on a right to recover on the basis of “ ‘fairness’ in protecting investment backed expectancies” does not necessarily state a “taking” claim under Article I, section 18.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 390.640(1) — 1 case
Stevens v. City of Cannon Beach, 854 P.2d 449 (Or. 1993).
“2 Any person who wants to make an improvement on any property subject to ORS 390.640 must obtain a permit from the department.”
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.