## Facts

- Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goal 5 directs local governments to identify historic properties and adopt protective regulations.
- In 1990, the City of Lake Oswego designated the Carman House property as a local historic landmark under its Goal 5 program; the then-owner initially objected but did not complete the objection process, and the designation took effect.
- In 1995, the legislature enacted ORS 197.772: subsection (1) requires owner consent for new local historic designations, and subsection (3) requires local governments to allow a property owner to remove a previously imposed local historic designation.
- The Carman House designation predated ORS 197.772; the then-owner did not seek removal after the statute’s enactment.
- The property later transferred to a trust; in 2013, the trustee requested removal of the designation under ORS 197.772(3), and the City voted to remove it.
- Historic-preservation advocates appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), which reversed, concluding successor owners could not use ORS 197.772(3).
- The Court of Appeals reversed LUBA, concluding successor owners could invoke ORS 197.772(3).
- The Oregon Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether ORS 197.772(3)’s directive that a local government “shall allow a property owner to remove” a previously imposed local historic designation gives that removal right to successor owners who acquire the property after designation.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed LUBA.
- ORS 197.772(3) does not grant successor owners the right to remove an existing local historic designation.
- The removal right applies only to persons who owned the property when the local government imposed the designation.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory interpretation considers text in context and, where helpful, legislative history.
- ORS 197.772(1) creates a predesignation consent requirement for new local historic landmark designations.
- ORS 197.772(3) provides a limited remedial mechanism aimed at owners whose property was designated without the consent protections later required by subsection (1).
- The removal right under ORS 197.772(3) is not freely transferable to later purchasers; successor owners take the property subject to the existing designation and its land-use restrictions.

## Conclusion

The court held that ORS 197.772(3) was enacted as a targeted remedy for owners burdened by earlier, nonconsensual local historic designations and does not allow successor owners to compel removal of a designation that existed when they acquired the property.


Lake Oswego Preservation Soc'y v. City of Lake Oswego, 360 Or. 115, 379 P.3d 462 (2016)