264 P.3d 165
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Matter involves Measure 49 section 5(3) vesting for a Polk County tract (137 acres) divided by Highway 22, with a 30-acre Phase I subarea targeted for commercial use.
- Claimant Martinson sought vesting for the entire 137-acre tract and for the 30-acre subarea; petitioners challenged vesting as improperly narrowed or broader than waivers.
- County proceedings concluded the vested right applied only to the 30-acre subarea; director and hearings officer applied Holmes factors to phase I, but did not vest for the entire parcel.
- Circuit court reversed the vesting outcome, holding vesting for the entire tract; petitioners sought writ of review.
- Court held: vesting affirmed for the 30-acre subarea, but reversed to deny vesting for the entire tract; remanded for modification of writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 30-acre subarea vesting was properly proven | Martinson established costs and buildout for phase I | Petitioners contend evidence not substantial or law misapplied | Yes; 30-acre vesting affirmed |
| Whether vesting for the entire 137-acre tract was proven | Evidence showed overall project costs and expenditure ratio | Holmes factors insufficient for full tract vesting | No; entire-tract vesting reversed |
| Whether access-related costs can count in the expenditure ratio | Access acquisition/value properly included as related to development | Costs not properly tied to phase I development | Yes for applicable portion; ratio supported by equities; scope limited |
Key Cases Cited
- Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of County Commissioners, 237 Or.App. 149 (2010) (Holmes factors, vesting tests; ratio not sole measure; equity matters)
- Kleikamp v. Board of County Commissioners, 240 Or.App. 57 (2010) (adopts Holmes test for vested rights under Meas. 49)
- Clackamas County v. Holmes, 265 Or. 193 (1973) (established factors for common-law vested rights)
- Union Oil Co. v. Board of County Comm'rs of Clack. Co., 81 Or.App. 1 (1986) (land acquisition costs generally not expenditures; nexus if related to use)
- Fischer v. Benton County, 244 Or.App. 166 (2011) (requires proof of development costs for vesting under §5(3))
- DLCD v. Clatsop County, 244 Or.App. 27 (2011) (reiterates Holmes factors and substantiality considerations)
- Biggerstaff v. Board of County Commissioners, 240 Or.App. 46 (2010) (Holmes factors; equitable balancing in vesting)