State v. Crook County
242 Or. App. 580
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Measure 37 waivers allowed Hudspeth to develop a 59-lot subdivision; Hudspeth spent hundreds of thousands of dollars before Measure 49 took effect.
- Hudspeth sought a vested-right determination to complete the described use under the waivers.
- County planning director found a vested right but excluded residences from the denominator of the expenditure ratio; it held expenditures totaled about $502,300 with total project cost $5,081,946.
- DLCD appealed the county court’s decision; circuit court initially denied relief and Hudspeth moved to dismiss DLCD’s appeal for lack of standing.
- Legislature amended ORS 197.090(2)(a) in 2010, clarifying DLCD’s standing to participate in and seek review of matters within its statutory authority; this appeal concerns whether Hudspeth’s vested-right determination should have remanded for proper expenditure ratio analysis.
- The court ultimately remands for the county to determine the extent and general cost of the project and to apply the expenditure ratio appropriately under Friends of Yamhill County, Biggerstaff, and Kleikamp.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DLCD has standing to appeal the vesting decision. | Hudspeth argues DLCD lacks standing as vested-right decisions are not within DLCD’s statutory authority. | DLCD contends amended ORS 197.090(2)(a) (2010) grants standing for ‘any other matter’ within its authority, including Measure 37/49 waivers. | DLCD has standing to participate and appeal. |
| Whether the denominator in the expenditure ratio must include home construction costs. | Hudspeth contends homes’ costs are speculative or not required in the denominator. | DLCD argues Home costs may be included and must be considered for accuracy. | The circuit court erred by not requiring denominator determination; remand for proper weighting of expenditures. |
| Whether the court should remand to determine total project cost and proper expenditure ratio weight. | DLCD seeks remand to determine the extent and general cost of the project as of December 6, 2007. | Hudspeth argues substantial investment exists even without precise home-cost figures. | Remand required to determine extent and general cost and to weight expenditure ratio properly. |
| Whether the 2010 amendments to ORS 197.090(2)(a) apply to the pending case. | DLCD relies on the amended statute to establish standing. | Hudspeth contends prior reading limited DLCD standing. | Amendments apply; DLCD has standing to proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of Commissioners, 237 Or.App. 149 (2010) (expenditure ratio necessary; vesting requires total project cost analysis)
- Biggerstaff v. Board of County Commissioners, 240 Or.App. 46 (2010) (sine qua non; substantial expenditures depend on ratio and total cost)
- Kleikamp v. Board of County Commissioners, 240 Or.App. 57 (2010) (reiterates need to identify likely total project cost and December 6, 2007 framework)
- Davis v. Jefferson County, 239 Or.App. 564 (2010) (county’s failure to consider actual project costs including homes was error)
- Corey v. DLCD, 344 Or. 457 (2008) (Measure 37 vesting framework and compensation/remedies)