Preview:

Filed: October 20, 2011 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FRIENDS OF YAMHILL COUNTY, INC., an Oregon non-profit corporation, Respondent on Review, v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF YAMHILL COUNTY, an Oregon municipal corporation, Respondent, and GORDON COOK, an individual resident of the State of Oregon and Yamhill County, Petitioner on Review.

(CC CV080305; CA A140899; SC S058915) On review from the Court of Appeals.* Argued and submitted May 2, 2011. Charles F. Hudson, Lane Powell PC, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner on review. Ralph O. Bloemers, Crag Law Center, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent on review. James N. Westwood, Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, filed the brief for amicus curiae Charles J. McClure and Ellen R. McClure. Stephen T. Janik, Ball Janik LLP, Portland, filed the brief for amicus curiae Eileen Marie Cadle Martinson. Denise G. Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for amicus curiae Department of Land Conservation and Development. With her on the brief were John R. Kroger, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.

Sean T. Malone, Eugene, filed the brief for amici curiae Friends of Polk County and Gloria Bennett. Lane P. Shetterly, Shetterly, Irick & Ozias, Dallas, filed the brief for amicus curiae Floyd Prozanski. Before De Muniz, Chief Justice, and Durham, Kistler, Balmer, Linder, and Landau, Justices.** KISTLER, J. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

*Appeal from Yamhill County Circuit Court, John L. Collins, Judge. 237 Or App 149, 238 P3d 1016 (2010). **Walters, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

KISTLER, J. The question in this case is whether a landowner holding a Measure 37 waiver had a common law vested right to construct a residential subdivision that he had begun but not completed by the effective date of Measure 49. Yamhill County found that the costs that the landowner had incurred were sufficient to establish a vested right to complete construction of the subdivision, and the circuit court upheld the county's decision on a writ of review. The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of Commissioners, 237 Or App 149, 238 P3d 1016 (2010). The Court of Appeals started from the proposition that, in the context of Measure 49, a common law vested right turns primarily on the ratio between the costs that a landowner has incurred and the projected cost of the development. It reversed because the county had given too little weight to that factor. We allowed the landowner's petition for review to clarify the standard for determining when, in the context of Measure 49, a common law right to complete a development will vest. We now affirm the Court of Appeals decision, although for different reasons than those stated in the Court of Appeals opinion. Before turning to the facts of this case, we first discuss briefly the statutory context in which this issue arises. Comprehensive zoning laws first emerged in the early part of the twentieth century. See Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 US 365, 386-87, 47 S Ct 114, 71 L Ed 303 (1926) (discussing the origins of zoning laws); Eugene McQuillin, 8 The Law of Municipal Corporations

Download S058915 Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of Commissioners.pdf

Oregon Law