Title: Stacey v. Myers (S54218)

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

FILED: March 8, 2007
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
ROBERT STACEY,
Petitioner,
HARDY MYERS, 
Attorney General, State of Oregon,
Respondent.
(SC S54218)
En Banc
On petition to review ballot title.
Submitted on the record January 17, 2007.
Margaret S. Olney, Smith, Diamond & Olney, Portland, filed the petition and the
reply memorandum for petitioner.
Denise G. Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the answering
memorandum for respondent.  With her on the answering memorandum were Hardy
Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.
BALMER, J.
Ballot title referred to Attorney General for modification.
BALMER, J.
This ballot title review proceeding brought under ORS 250.085(2) concerns
the Attorney General's certified ballot title for a proposed initiative measure that the
Secretary of State has denominated as Initiative Petition 45 (2008).  The proposed
measure, which we describe in greater detail below, would permit owners of land zoned
for exclusive farm use to build one (or, in some circumstances, two) single-family
residences where current zoning restrictions generally prohibit such building.   
Petitioner is an elector who timely submitted written comments to the
Secretary of State concerning the Attorney General's draft ballot title and who therefore is
entitled to seek review in this court of the resulting certified ballot title.  See ORS
250.085(2) (stating that requirement).  We review the Attorney General's certified ballot
title to determine whether it substantially complies with the requirements of ORS
250.035(2)(a) to (d).  ORS 250.085(5).  In the present case, we conclude that the certified
ballot title fails to comply in several respects.  We therefore refer the ballot title to the
Attorney General for modification.
Under current law, a landowner generally is not allowed to develop or sell
for housing land that is zoned for "exclusive farm use."  See ORS 215.213 and ORS
215.283 (describing permitted uses of land zoned for exclusive farm use).  There are,
however, exceptions to that general prohibition, including one for the construction of
"[p]rimary or accessory dwellings customarily provided in conjunction with farm use." 
ORS 215.213(1)(g).  One of the criteria for determining whether a dwelling is
"customarily provided in conjunction with farm use" is that the land be used to produce
farm income, and the applicable administrative rule currently provides that land is
employed for "farm use" if the land "produced at least $80,000 in gross annual income
from the sale of farm products in the last two years or three of the last five years[.]"  OAR
660-033-0135(7)(a).  
The proposed measure would alter the rules regarding the construction of
dwellings on exclusive farm use land in several respects.  First, the measure would
eliminate the farm income criterion as a condition for building a single-family residence
on such land under the exception for dwellings "customarily provided in conjunction with
farm use."  Second, the measure would permit a landowner to build a single-family
residence on the land if there is an existing residence on any similarly zoned adjacent land
or if there are "multiple instances" in the same county of residential structures "having
been allowed" on similarly zoned land.  Third, the measure would permit the landowner
to build a second single-family residence on the land if there is an existing second single-family residence on any similarly zoned adjacent land or if there are "multiple instances"
in the same county of second residential structures on similarly zoned land.  Fourth, the
measure would permit a landowner who builds a second single-family residence to sell
one of the two residences, as long as not less than one acre of land is included with the
residence that is sold and the remaining parcel is not less than one acre in size.
The Attorney General certified the following ballot title:
"ELIMINATES FARM INCOME CRITERION FOR FARM USE DWELLINGS;
ALLOWS CERTAIN DWELLINGS WHERE ZONING OTHERWISE
PROHIBITS
"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE:  'Yes' vote eliminates farm income
criterion for dwelling on farm land; allows dwelling otherwise prohibited if
adjoining owner or two similarly-situated county owners qualify.
"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE:  'No' vote retains current requirement
that a farm generate income for dwelling in conjunction with farm use to be
built; retains current zoning, variance standards.
"SUMMARY:  Under current law, a dwelling may be sited on land
zoned for exclusive farm use if (among other exceptions) a dwelling is
'customarily allowed in conjunction with farm use.'  Criterion for measuring
customary farm use is the generation of a minimum amount of farm income. 
Proposed measure would eliminate any such farm income criterion, and
would allow a dwelling on land suitable for exclusive farm use that is not
used to generate farm income.  Proposed measure would also allow
exceptions to established zoning restrictions for building a dwelling if an
adjoining neighbor with similar zoning is granted an exception or variance,
or if two other similarly-situated properties in same county are granted
exceptions or variances to allow building an otherwise prohibited dwelling. 
Other provisions."
Petitioner challenges the "yes" vote result statement, the "no" vote result
statement, and the summary.  We have considered petitioner's challenge to the "yes" vote
result statement and conclude that petitioner's specific objections are not well-taken. (1) 
As to petitioner's challenge to the "no" vote result statement, we agree with petitioner's
objection to the statement that, if the measure is rejected, the result would be to retain the
"current requirement that a farm generate income for dwelling in conjunction with farm
use to be built."  To the extent that the quoted text is comprehensible at all, it appears to
suggest that, under current law, a dwelling is permitted on land zoned for exclusive farm
use only if the land generates income.  Current law, however, provides a number of
exceptions to the general prohibition on dwellings on exclusive farm use land, only one of
which requires that the land have produced any particular level of income from the sale of
farm products.  Other exceptions allow a dwelling to be constructed for a relative of the
farm operator who will help operate the farm, ORS 215.283(1)(e), or as an "accessory
dwelling" for farm workers not related to the farm operator.  ORS 215.278.  The "no"
vote result statement, by suggesting that the requirement of generating farm income is a
part of all the existing exceptions to the general prohibition on building a dwelling on
exclusive farm use land, is not an accurate statement of the result if voters reject the
measure.  See ORS 250.035(2)(c) (setting out requirements for "no" vote result
statement).
We turn to the ballot title summary, which must be "[a] concise and
impartial statement of not more than 125 words summarizing the state measure and its
major effect."  ORS 250.035(2)(d).  Petitioner argues that the summary fails accurately to
summarize the measure and its major effect in several respects.  We agree with two of
petitioner's arguments.  First, the summary states that the measure would allow a
landowner to build a single-family residence if "an adjoining neighbor with similar
zoning is granted an exception or variance, or if two similarly-situated properties in the
same county are granted exceptions or variances to allow building an otherwise
prohibited dwelling."  (Emphasis added.)  Petitioner notes that the emphasized words
suggest that the exceptions apply only if other landowners receive a variance from a
present or future regulation.  However, the measure itself provides that a landowner may
build a residence if there is "an existing residential structure" on adjacent, similarly zoned
land or if "there are multiple instances in the same county of residential structures having
been allowed" on similarly zoned land.  (Emphasis added.)
We agree with petitioner that the use of the phrases "is granted" and "are
granted" in the certified summary, both of which are in the present tense, strongly
suggests to the reader that the measure creates an exception to land use restrictions only if
other landowners receive an exception or variance now or in the future.  The measure
itself, however, would permit exceptions in the two circumstances described above: 
when other land owners have "existing" residential structures, and when there are
multiple instances of residential structures "having been allowed."  Both those exceptions
appear to refer to structures that were built in the past, in addition to new structures.  An
accurate summary would convey the fact that the measure grants exceptions based on
other residences that were constructed in the past -- "existing" residences and those that
"hav[e] been allowed" -- as well as on those that may be constructed in the future.
Petitioner also argues that the summary of the certified ballot title is
inadequate because it fails to mention that the proposed measure authorizes the building
of two residences on a piece of land and the sale of one of those residences.  The Attorney
General does not respond directly to petitioner's argument regarding the building of a
second residence.  As to the possible sale of one of the residences, the Attorney General
agrees that "transferability" is an effect of the measure, but disagrees that it is a "major
effect" within the context of the other changes that the proposed measure would make. 
We agree with petitioner.  Current law permits the construction of
residences on land that is zoned for exclusive farm use only in a few specific
circumstances.  See, e.g., ORS 215.283(1)(f) (primary or accessory dwelling in
conjunction with farm use); ORS 215.283(1)(e) (dwelling for use of farm operator's
relative).  The proposed measure would permit construction of a "second" single-family
residence (not to mention a "first" single-family residence) if adjacent, similarly zoned
land or multiple parcels of similarly zoned land in the county have such residential
structures.  It also would permit the landowner to sell one of those residences.  Those are
both significant changes to existing law and must be described, in some manner, in the
summary.
We conclude that the Attorney General's "no" vote result statement and the
summary do not comply substantially with the requirements of ORS 250.035(2)(c) and
(d).  The certified ballot title therefore must be referred to the Attorney General for
modification.
Ballot title referred to Attorney General for modification.  

1. We note, however, that, because we agree with petitioner's challenges to the "no"
vote result statement and to the summary, the ballot title will be referred to the Attorney
General for modification.  In the course of modifying the ballot title, the Attorney General
may wish to consider petitioner's arguments with respect to the "yes" vote result statement
and, if he finds it appropriate, to make changes in response to those arguments.  See
Mabon v. Myers, 332 Or 633, 640, 33 P3d 988 (2001) (Attorney General may, upon
referral of ballot title, modify parts of ballot title that court has determined substantially
comply with statutory requirements, if Attorney General finds modification is
appropriate).