Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/04/2008

Home

f ) " f August 25, 2008 I Volume 21 No. 16 /,.=-.,. Validity of Development Agreement- Development agreement fails to meet certain statutory requirements. Property owners argue development agreement is therefore invalid . Citation: Pavey v. City of Mosier, 220 Or. App. 552, 2008 WL 2439688 (2008) OREGON (06/18/08)-David Povey, Lavonne Pavey and Owen Min- nick (collectively, the Poveys) owned land (the Property) in the city. The prior owners of the Property and the city had entered' into an agree- ment governing development of the Property (the Agreement). Under the Agreement, the city granted the prior owners approval to partition the Property on the condition that, when they or future owners of the Prop- erty developed the parcels, they or the future owners had to construct and dedicate to the city a road serving those parcels. The Poveys planned to develop the parcels on th,e Property. Seeking to avoid the road-building and dedication obligations under the Agreement, \ . , they brought an action against the city. The~ action asked the court to ) declare that the Agreement was invalid because it did not comply with Oregon statutes that established requirements for development agree- ments, Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) ~S 94.504 to 95.528. ORS S 94.504 provided, in part, that acity ox county could enter into a development agreement, as provided under those statutes. It also pro- vided that a development' agreement must have certain cOntents, dura- tion, and other characteristics. . The Poveys argued once a developer and a city entered into an agree- ment governing development of real property, the agreement had to meet' . the requirements of ORS S 94.504. They said it had to include those cer- tain contents, duration, and 'other characteristics. They argued that since the Agreement governing development on their Property did not contain meet these requirements, it was invalid. The city argued that ORS S 94.504 provided a statutory development agreement that property owners and cities might use. The city argued that the Agreement governing development on the Property was not such a "statutdry" development agreement. The city argued it was instead a valid nonstatutory agreement that need not meet the requirements of ORS S 94.504, but was enforceable according to its own terms. . The circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of the city. In doing so, it found there were no material issues of fact and found for the city on the law alone. . ,-----. @ 2008 Thomson ReuterslWest 5 99