- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Land Use
- Date Filed: 12-29-2011
- Case #: A139641
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Sercombe, P.J. for the Court; Brewer, C.J.; & Carson, S.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Campbell purchased property in 1969 when zoning laws allowed residences to be built on one-acre parcels. Subsequently, more restrictive zoning limited the land to agricultural and forestry use. Campbell obtained county and state waivers for the land use and sought judgment. The trial court denied Campbell’s request for a Measure 49 waiver on the grounds that the expenditure ratio was insubstantial at 4.7%. Campbell contended on appeal that the court’s reasoning was an improper base for denying the relief sought by the waivers. The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court’s decision and held that because the expenditure ratio was 4.7%, some construction costs resulted during the preliminary appeals process, and some of the costs were allowed under Measure 49, the trial court did not err in denying Campbell’s Measure 49 claim. However, the trial court did err because if improperly entered the correct form of relief. The trial court should have entered a judgment that Campbell’s expenditures were insubstantial as calculated using the Holmes factors. Vacated and remanded