260 P.3d 580
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Frasers obtained Measure 37 waivers in 2007 to subdivide ~32 acres into 120 lots and develop a dwelling on each.
- Frasers applied for a 52-lot subdivision; received conditional preliminary subdivision approval in September 2007.
- After Measure 49, Frasers sought a vested rights decision claiming $141,610.53 in expenditures.
- DLCD denied vested rights; the county board modified to find a vested right to complete 30 lots under Measure 49.
- Expenditure ratio calculations debated whether to include home construction costs in the denominator; circuit court adopted the board’s figures.
- This appeal holds the circuit court erred by not including construction costs in the denominator and remands for proper calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should construction costs be included in the denominator? | OSCC: include home construction costs in denominator. | Frasers: do not include construction costs in denominator. | Expenditure ratio must include home construction costs in denominator. |
| What costs form the denominator as of December 6, 2007? | OSCC: use December 6, 2007 construction costs. | Frasers: use current economic-condition costs as provided by Fraser experts. | Costs must reflect December 6, 2007 costs for completing the development. |
Key Cases Cited
- Friends of Yamhill County v. Bd. of Comm'rs, 237 Or.App. 149 (2010) (context on vested rights after Measure 49; applicability to ratio analysis)
- DLCD v. Clatsop County, 244 Or.App. 33 (2011) (addresses appropriate standard for vested-right analysis (A144073))
- Friends, 237 Or.App. 178, 238 P.3d 1016 (2010) (denotes expected method for calculating denominator in expenditure ratio)