Plywood houses fuel land-use fight
MCMINNVILLE, Ore. – Nine plywood structures of 120 square feet each on 41 acres in Oregon wine country constitute the latest skirmish in Oregon’s long-running land-use wars.
Neighbors say the 10-by-12 buildings are plumbed, wired and hooked to septic tanks. The county says they’re legal.
According to county records, developers Ralph and Norma Johnson have spent $1.5 million for plans, excavation, road grading, wells, utilities – and the nine buildings.
Courts have typically held that developers who have spent enough money, done significant work and proceeded in good faith have a vested right to complete a project even if the land-use rules change in mid-development – as they did when Measure 49 revised Measure 37.
Neighbors call the tiny structures a ruse to slide past a land-use law voters approved in November to keep subdivisions off rural farmland and forestland.
They say the legal conditions with the Johnsons’ development specify homes of at least 2,500 square feet. So lot buyers would have to tear down the little houses and build either bigger homes or ludicrous additions.
“So there’s no purpose for these shacks,” said Charlie Swindells, a Portland attorney for one of the Johnsons’ neighbors.
But a hearings officer appointed by the county sides with the Johnsons. “If you go to the government and get the permits you’re supposed to get, that can’t possibly be in bad faith,” said Todd Sadlo, also a Portland lawyer.
Last year, Measure 49 eased development rights granted by Measure 37 passed three years earlier.
Under Measure 37, the Johnsons filed to build a 41-lot subdivision on the property they’d owned since 1956, with each house sitting on about an acre.
Measure 49 gave claimants such as the Johnsons three options: Build one to three homes under an “express” route, build four to 10 homes based on a complicated appraisal process or seek a determination of vested rights that would exempt them from Measure 49’s limits.
Most have chosen the express option.
But several dozen vested rights cases remain unresolved, including some such as the Johnson’s‘ in Yamhill County, where most of the county’s commissioners support property rights arguments.
Sadlo said the Johnsons didn’t even need to put up the plywood structures to establish their right to develop the property and were “just exercising an abundance of caution.”
“These people got a subdivision platted, approved and recorded,” he said. “They have a right to sell lots. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a completed subdivision.”
“Sadlo said once government said it’s OK, you’ve got a vested right,” said Swindells. “Well, we’ll see.”
Mike Brandt, Yamhill County’s development director, said drawn-out appeals may bankrupt some property owners.
“What I’ve always maintained – if they’re truly vested and the fights go on too long – is that instead of the Measure 37 claimants reaping the benefit from their work on the development,” he said, “it’s going to be the banks.”