Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/04/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin The Poveys appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. On appeal, the court concluded that the Agreement was valid. In reaching its conclusion, the court explained that, at its most ba- sic level, the parties disagreed over how the language of ORS S 94.504 should be interpreted. The court found that the Poveys were arguing that the statute should be interpreted as providing that a city may enter into a development agreement, and if it did, the agreement must conform to the requirements provided in the statute. On the other hand, the city was arguing that the correct interpretation was that a city may enter into a development agreement as was provided in the statute. The court found that, ..looking at the grammar of the statute, either interpretation was plausible. However, looking at the legislative history and the intent of the legislature in drafting the statute, the court agreed with .the city's interpretation. The court found the legislative history in- dicated that the purpose of the statute was to createa "safe harbor" for government attorneys and developers who feared that, without such leg- islation, agreements for future development would be susceptible to at- tack as unlawful attempts to bind future councils. The court found that . the statute was not intended to prevent less cautious parties frQm enter- ing into agreements that did. not meet the requirements. of the statutory development agreements of ORS S 94.504. . In any case, the court said that the Poveys' interpretation of the stat- ute would conflict with the local government's home rule authority to enact nonconforming agreements. The court said this was because under the Povey's interpretation, the statute would impose mandatory require- ments on all local government development agreements, including the re- quirement that such agreements be enacted as ordinances. The court concluded that parties could choose to use the agreement outlined in ORS S 94.504, or they could use different forms of agree- ment. It found that the prior owners of the Property and the city had done the latter. Therefore, even though the Agreement failed to comply with the requirements of ORS S 94.504 it was valid. See also: City of La Grande v. Public Employes Retirement Bd., 281 Or. 137,576 P.2d 1204 (1978), on reh'g, 284 Or. 173,586 P.2d 765 (1978). 6 @ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West 100 '.) ) I )