Crosley v. Columbia County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED: August 8, 2012 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON JOHN CROSLEY, Petitioner, v. COLUMBIA COUNTY, Respondent. Land Use Board of Appeals 2011093 A151317 Submitted on July 02, 2012. Ross Day and T. Beau Ellis filed the brief for petitioner. Robin R. McIntyre, Assistant County Counsel, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Sercombe, Judge, and Hadlock, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. 1 PER CURIAM 2 Petitioner seeks review of a final order of the Land Use Board of Appeals 3 (LUBA) that affirmed an order of the Columbia County Board of Commissioners that 4 determined that petitioner had lost a vested right to complete construction of a dwelling 5 because he discontinued construction for 30 years. LUBA upheld the county's decision 6 based on a county ordinance and ORS 215.130(5), both of which provide that, when a 7 nonconforming use is discontinued or interrupted for a certain period of time, the right to 8 continue the nonconforming use is lost. 9 Petitioner argues that a vested right cannot be abandoned by operation of 10 law and asks us to reconsider our decision in Fountain Village Development Co. v. 11 Multnomah Cty., 176 Or App 213, 31 P3d 458 (2001), rev den, 334 Or 411 (2002), in 12 which we held that a vested right to construct a nonconforming use may be lost by 13 abandonment, interruption, or discontinuance. Petitioner argues that our decision in 14 Fountain Village ignored key differences between vested rights and nonconforming uses 15 that necessitate treating them differently in this context. In Fountain Village, we 16 explicitly characterized vested rights as "inchoate nonconforming uses" and held that 17 "[n]othing in Oregon's case law or statutes precludes subjecting vested rights to develop 18 property to the same limitations that apply to nonconforming uses generally[.]" Id. at 19 221. We decline to revisit that holding. 20 Affirmed. 1
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
