FILED: December 15, 2010

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STEVE DAVIS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

JEFFERSON COUNTY,

Respondent-Respondent,

and

CONNIE SHOWN,
as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Gordon Shown,

Intervenor-Respondent-Respondent.

Jefferson County Circuit Court
08CV0042
A141921

Greg Hendrix, Judge pro tempore.

Argued and submitted on July 02, 2010.

Jannett Wilson argued the cause for appellant. With her on the briefs was Western Environmental Law Center.

Edward P. Fitch argued the cause for respondent Connie Shown. With him on the brief was Bryant, Emerson & Fitch, LLP.

No appearance for respondent Jefferson County.

Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Ortega, Judge, and Sercombe, Judge.

SERCOMBE, J.

Reversed and remanded.

SERCOMBE, J.,

This case arises under Measure 49, a law adopted by the voters in 2007. Measure 49 qualifies property for special zoning allowances if, among other things, the right to develop the property vested under the common law. The county determined that claimant's right to continue development of a residential subdivision had vested and that the subdivision was eligible for the zoning allowance provided under Measure 49.(1) Petitioner petitioned for review of the county decision in circuit court. The reviewing court entered a judgment that affirmed the county decision and dismissed petitioner's writ of review.

Petitioner appeals that judgment and contends that the court erred in concluding that the county properly construed the applicable law in its vesting decision. Claimant cross-assigns error, asserting that the reviewing court erred in not dismissing the petition for writ of review because of delay in its service on the county. We conclude that the court did not err in failing to dismiss the petition on that ground and affirm on the cross-assignment of error without further discussion. For the reasons stated below, we further determine that the reviewing court erred in concluding that the county properly construed Measure 49 in its vesting decision. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Many of the issues in this appeal were decided in Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of Commissioners, 237 Or App 149, 238 P3d 1016 (2010) (Friends). That opinion more fully describes the legal setting for the case. Briefly put, Measure 37 was adopted by the voters in 2004 and codified at ORS 197.352 (2005). The law was subsequently amended, Or Laws 2007, ch 424,