Kleikamp v. Board of County Commissioners, 240 Or. App. 57

Measure 37 waivers allowed a 13-lot subdivision with equestrian center on the Greggs' property in Yamhill County.
Greggs expended about $488,255.55, recorded the subdivision plat, and obtained building permits before Measure 49 took effect.
Measure 49 (2007) narrowed Measure 37; section 5(3) preserved a common law vested right to complete described uses if certain conditions were met.
Greggs sought a vested-right determination; the vesting officer found substantial expenditures and a vested right, not requiring a defined total project cost.
Circuit court affirmed, adopting a doctrine that did not require a denominator in the expenditure ratio; petitioners appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Greggs have a vested right without breaking ground?	Greggs contends initiation of construction is unnecessary for vesting.	Greggs argues factors justify vested rights regardless of ground breaking.	No determination on ground-breaking requirement; remand on cost ratio needed.
Were post-notice expenditures made in good faith?	Expenditures after notice may not be in good faith and could bar vesting.	Expenditures were in good faith and substantial, supporting vesting.	Contentions rejected; case remanded for total-cost analysis.
Must total project cost be identified for the expenditure ratio?	Total cost denominator is essential to properly weigh the ratio.	Ratio can be substantial without a precise denominator; other factors offset.	Total cost denominator required; appellate error to omit it; remand ordered.

Friends of Yamhill County v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 237 Or.App. 149 (2010) (establishes four Holmes factors and requires total cost for ratio in most cases)
Clackamas County v. Holmes, 265 Or. 193 (1973) (sets Holmes factors for vested rights)
Davis v. Jefferson County, 239 Or.App. 564 (2010) (applies Friends of Yamhill County framework)