By RAELYNN RICARTE
News staff writer
June 11, 2007

Hood River County has processed all 234 of its Measure 37 claims — but might soon be deluged with development applications.

A rewrite of the law could nullify the development rights regained by Measure 37 landowners — unless they have “cement in the dirt” by December.

“This basically forces people with waivers to do something. Whereas, before, it (the filing of a claim) was an estate move for many people,” said Commission Chair Ron Rivers at Monday’s discussion of the issue.

Mike Benedict, planning director, told the elected body on June 4 that claimants might attempt to protect a land use by moving ahead with building plans. However, he said it was virtually impossible to get subdivision applications through the review process within the next six months.

He wanted direction from the county board about how to deal with the situation. Especially when “normal” applications had already been on hold for six months to get Measure 37 claims processed.

Benedict warned that citizens would be upset if Measure 37 issues were once against given top priority — and if they weren’t.

“This is really more of a policy question than a planning question,” he said.

Last December, the county reduced the hours for the general public to have development plans scrutinized. The agency’s intent was to ensure that all Measure 37 claims were processed by June. The law allows landowners to take their case to court if a government entity does not render a decision on their claim within 180 days of its filing.

In November, the county was flooded by claims as citizens rushed to meet the Dec. 2 deadline for an easier path to restored development rights.

“I know that there are a fair number of contactors out there who are basically unemployed right now,” said Commissioner Maui Meyer.

The Oregon Legislature is referring a new version of Measure 37 to voters in November. House Bill 3540C appears to send all claimants back to the drawing board, except landowners who are at work on building projects by early December.

“There are a lot of aspects to this 26-page bill that haven’t been thought through as far as the law is concerned and I think there are a lot of wrinkles,” said Will Carey, county counsel. “If everybody thought Measure 37, a two-page bill, was confusing — this is confusing times 10.”

He said HB 3540C is not only unclear in its definition of “vested rights,” but a pending case before the state Court of Appeals could also come into play. If the legal action is successful, Carey said property uses restored by a Measure 37 claim would be preserved even if passage of a new law overturned them.

At the heart of that case is the protected property interest of a claimant for worker’s compensation benefits. A judge determined that once the medical claim of the plaintiff had been accepted as valid, even if not clearly defined, he was entitled to a full spectrum of disability benefits.

Carey said the court was now being asked to apply that same test to a Measure 37 claim. He said a determination would be made on whether the Department of Land Conservation and Development had created the same entitlement to benefits by accepting claims and waiving regulations.

At the end of the discussion with Benedict and Carey, the commission agreed unanimously that applications should be addressed in the order that they arrived. And preferential treatment should not be given to Measure 37 development proposals.