Document text
Oral Argument 2026-010 Anderson Woods, LLC v. Wallowa County
YouTube video by Oregon LUBA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHP4kbVtJzY). Transcript is the auto-caption track — verbatim ASR, not a certified transcript.
Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Are we on? Are we good? Good morning. This is the time set for oral argument in LUPA number 2026-010, Anderson Woods LLC versus Latah County. I'm Board Chair Zamudio. Board Member Wilson is also present. Board Member Basham is not present and will not be participating in the final decision. Um We I think we have an attorney for petitioner on the line. If you could go on screen and unmute, that would be helpful. We're not hearing or seeing anything on our end other than a screen with an Anderson Woods LLC. I'm assuming that's the attorney for petitioner. If you could please um go on screen or unmute so we could Now we see a name for petitioner's attorney, but we still cannot hear or >> This is Ron Hostetter. >> Hello. Good to see you. >> Uh sorry, hey. We're from Enterprise. It takes us a little bit to get make this happen. >> It's all right. It's a lovely lovely part of the state. I've been fortunate enough to be out there. Uh we also had in the waiting room um attorneys for the county. The county did not file a brief in this appeal, so they may view oral argument that we live stream on YouTube, but they will not be able to present oral argument today. So we're only getting oral argument from the petitioner on your petition for review. I don't see any pending matters in this appeal. Is Is you need to bring to our attention? >> Well, I I do I get 15 minutes to argue the case, is that correct? >> Yes, I'm just saying there's no there are no pending motions. We have the substance before us. Nothing >> No preliminary matters, no. >> No preliminary matters, okay, thank you. You do have 15 minutes since you are the only one presenting oral argument today, you'll have that full 15 minutes. Um and whenever you're ready, please state restate your name for the record and begin. Thank you. >> Thank you. This is Ron Hostetler representing the petitioner Anderson Woods LLC. And by the way, you've advised that apparently attorneys for the county are in the room. Um also in my room are the members of Anderson Woods. Four of the five, and so they're listening in as well. Okay, well, to proceed um back in August of 2025, Anderson Woods, through me, applied for four discrete parcels for the acknowledgement of four discrete parcels located outside of the city of Joseph. Um and about a month later, that application was deemed complete. The part of the application that's salient for this day and this argument can be found at the record at page 66-3. I cited in my brief to 66 um {dash} one one through 16 because that's the full application. But the reference to this 10-acre parcel, which is the subject of this appeal, can be found at page six record 66-3. It can also be found at the record at 38-36 where the planning department acknowledged that the application sought approval, that is verification of four parcels, not three parcels. And including the 10-acre parcel that is a subject of this matter. Okay, so there was the application. Then skipping to the decision you'll find at the appendix to the petition um appendix one page seven. And maps are all I think maps are the best way to describe what's going on here. It's actually very straightforward. Um but on page seven of appendix one, you'll see a map of what the county commissioners did approve. That is three discrete parcels. And they did so based on the historical record of homestead patents that were pres- presented throughout title company. So, that's what they approved. Then if parcel four which is a 10-acre parcel. And that's the parcel that they didn't address. They didn't approve it. They didn't Well, they by not >> Uh Mr. Hostetler, um >> Um, I'm having trouble I don't know our connection is not great, but could you maybe walk me through the history of tax lot 8600, all the different parcels are involved? >> Sure. Sure. Uh, so understand that Vernon and Rita Anderson, who are the grandparents of those sitting in my in the room here, >> So, we are, um, >> And the deed is in the >> or on their connection. We are breaking up, uh, Council Hofstetter, you're breaking up. So, maybe if you could turn off your video stream and just go pure audio, we could not lose any of your argument. Turn off my video stream. Somebody help >> So, we're just going to shut her video off, but they can still hear you. And that was >> And we can we can still hear you. Just you were breaking up and we lost some of those words. So, if you could start again, please, on the history. Is that what the question is? We're going to listen. >> Yes. Okay. So, all the the the important part of the history is that in 1952, Vern and Rita Anderson, who are the grandparents of those sitting in the room here, uh, purchased all but 10 acres of the property that's shown on, uh, page seven, uh, of appendix one. Those, uh, and when they purchased that property, then, uh, those discrete parcels had already been formed as part of earlier, um, conveyances from the United States under the Homestead Act >> Are those 10 acres that you're referring to that were omitted from that, um, transfer? Is that parcel four or are those 10 acres what is on the dash line on your app two map? >> It's what's on the dash line of the app two map. >> That's the 10 acres that was omitted from that transfer. >> Yes. >> In 1952. >> Correct. >> Okay. Go on, please. >> All the rest of the property was The 10 acres had already been separated out and belonged to a third party whose names appear on the deed that can be found at at 64-17, which is a conveyance in 1955 when Vern and Rita Anderson then supplemented what they purchased in 1952 by purchasing this extra 10 acres from Stephen Kahn and Ruth Kahn. And again, that deed, that conveyance can be found at the record at 64-17. >> And again, just for clarity, that is the 10 acres that's within that dashed area in tax lot 8600, or is that the 10 acres >> On appendix two, is that what you're looking at? >> No, that you just described a 1955 conveyance that conveyed 10 acres, is that what created parcel four, or was that just the remaining the 10 acres that was within the dashed area? >> That's uh it didn't create parcel four. >> Okay, so what you're talking about is they got the remainder of what is in tax lot 8600 through that 1955 conveyance. We described what created what you're describing as parcel four. What How was that parcel created? And when? >> Oh, I see. >> She's talking this dash up here. It's not a dash. >> Oh. If you're looking up at the Okay, you're looking up at the dashed parcel in the northwest corner. >> Right. >> Okay. Yeah, that was created in 1986 when Vern and Rita Anderson applied for a partition. Um and the reason it's dashed and then bold line is they applied for a partition for the 10 acres that are shown in that dashed line. And then for whatever reason, the county in 1986 Uh no, that's not quite true. The county approved that 10-acre partition, and then the subsequent deed uh just months later or a year later um deeded it in the form of the bold line that is less than 10 acres. >> Okay, so when you were talking about a 1952 conveyance that omitted 10 acres and a 1955 conveyance that conveyed 10 acres, where is that 10 acres that you're describing in the 1952 and the 1955 conveyances? >> Okay, so that 10 acres is if you look at appendix two and on appendix two I have uh parcel four designated. That's the 10 acres that were that was conveyed to the Andersons in 1955. >> Okay. So, before they have applied for the partition in '85, '86, how many discrete parcels were there? Were there four or five? >> There there were four. >> Okay, cuz in your the the brief you submitted to the planning or to the Board of Commissioners on appeal said there were five, so I was confused about that. So, there really just four. >> Yeah, there uh no, I'm not sure. In my application I said there were four. Uh in the brief to the Board of I didn't submit a brief to the Board of Commissioners. I made an oral >> Memorandum. >> Uh oh, memorandum. Yes. Um I may have referred to five in the form that there's uh that there's now as a result of their decision, the Commissioners' decision they would have resulted in four parcels because of that if you include the five or so parcels that parcel that was split off in '86 then there would be five. >> Okay. >> All right, this this is sort of a long way of getting to to my point of like what was going on before the '86 partition. So, correct me if I'm wrong. When you when they applied for the partition in '85, '86, there is what is I'm looking at your that page seven of app one, there was what's parcel one, and it also included that five .7 river part that's separate now, but there was that parcel one, there was parcel two, there was parcel three, and you're saying there was also a parcel four that's that's inside of what they've labeled as parcel three. Is that correct? >> That is correctly stated. >> Okay. >> Thank you. You deciphered what I was saying accurately, yes. >> And then so it seems to me this all sort of comes down to what actually occurred in that 86 partition. Um and the So, it's again, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like the application was to partition 10 part 10 acres off of that parcel one. And then that was approved. And then when they filed the deeds, they only actually partitioned five something acres of it. Is that correct? >> All All of that was back in '86, yes. >> Right. Okay. And it seems to me that the planning commission decided when they did that partition that all that was left afterwards was the 10 acres, which eventually became five, but it was partitioned off of what was looks like parcel one, and then everything that was in parcel one, two, and three, and your four is now just one parcel. That's what the planning commission decided, right? >> Yes. And yes, that is what the planning commission decided. >> Okay. And then this gets me to the crux. And then the board of county commissioners on your appeal, they said, I'm quoting from this is page three of the decision, page three of your app one. It says, "The board interprets the outcome of that partition creating tax lot 8601 from two discrete parcels identified and then it describes them. In this case, the property line separating separating those discrete parcels was vacated because a new parcel was created from area subtracted from both." So, it sounds like they thought that 10 acres was getting created from two separate parcels and I don't understand that cuz it I thought that was just parcel one or parcel A. Yeah, parcel >> So what So what was going on there? I don't understand. >> Okay. So the planning commission, indeed the planning department and then we appealed to the planning commission and both of those bodies said that back in 1986 that 10 acre partition which ended up being a 5 acre partition vacated uh all of the rest of the whatever parcels existed in the larger 270 acre piece. That's what they said. We appealed that and the county commissioners said, "No, it did not. It did not vacate anything." Um and so they said that we are going to approve parcels one, two, and three that you find on page seven of appendix one. They didn't explain why since they ruled that the partition in '86 did not vacate any of the other parcel lines and then caused them then to approve and verify three parcels that existed after that why they didn't explain why they didn't add and approve that additional 10 acre piece that's shown on appendix two. >> Right, so do you have any idea why they did that cuz I don't understand. >> an idea. Um they uh they had a a report from Wallowa Title Company which routinely in our county does do what they call lot of record explorations and they just go back to the homesteads and pull out discrete parcels from there. And so the report from uh well, our title company and I I've explained this in my petition uh only referred to did not include the 10-acre piece because the 10-acre piece was not part of the homestead um conveyances. The 10-acre piece happened sometime between 1900 and 1952 1955. But we know by 1955, however that 10-acre piece was created, we know in 1955 it existed because it was conveyed to Vernon and Rita Anderson separately from the rest of the parcels. >> Were they not aware that you'd pointed out that that 10-acre parcel was its own discrete parcel? >> One commissioner was uh John Hillock saw the light and said we should approve all four. The other two commissioners well, and then uh Commissioner Hayward said I don't see any reason why not. And then without an explanation, Lisa Collier Commissioner Collier moved to approve three of the four discrete parcels and Commissioner Hayward voted along with her and Commissioner Hillock stuck to his guns that it should be four and voted no. But there was no explanation as to why she uh Miss uh Commissioner Collier uh moved to approve three. >> No more questions. >> One last then. Okay, okay. Okay, so I think I'm following all that, but I'm I'm going to go back to my question about the board's decision. It sure seems like they thought that 10-acre parcel that eventually became 5-acre parcel that was created out of two separate parcels, cuz that's what they say. As far as I can tell, it was only created out of one parcel, parcel one. Am I missing something? >> Oh, I see what I know what you're referring to. Um that part of that irregular 5 acres or so that you're referring to does arguably uh intrude not on it intrudes into uh two dis- separately distinct parcels. So, they therefore uh yes, uh >> Which two parcels? >> Um if you look at Uh your question is a good one, and I Okay. Look at uh page eight of appendix one. >> Okay. >> And you'll see this is uh the report from Wallowa Title Company where it's set out the different conveyances and colored maps of the dis- different dis- discrete parcels. And if you'll see in the northwest 40 acres where that irregular 5 acres was split off, that just a really small portion of it intrudes into the 40-acre discrete parcel that is to the east of of the western 40-acre piece. Do you see that? Just a small piece intrudes into it. >> Will you Will you use which lot number you're referring to? >> Oh, no. Sorry. Uh the the the this um tax assessor's map refers only to 8600. So, the the tax lot has been combined long ago to just one tax lot. But, what I refer to is this. If you see in that um at the uh the northwest 40, you'll see F handwritten in. F five something. Do you see that? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, that 40-acre piece is a discrete parcel. Was in 1986. Then uh if you look to the east, you'll see one marked E {slash} six. >> Right. So, you're talking about that little jog that goes across the line towards the E {slash} E. >> Correct. >> Right. >> And that's why the commissioners referred to the impact of that partition >> So, when they the 86 partition occurred, that northwest section and the northeast section, those were two separate parcels at the time? >> Yes. >> Okay, cuz I was looking at page seven, parcel one, those were combined as parcel one. But, is that Is that what was them eliminating lot lines? Is that >> Yeah, what they did was they they decided that those dis- those two discrete parcels that I've just described, uh that they were both impacted by the partition, so they made it into one. >> Okay, thank you. That was that was not clear before. >> So, we we've gone well over time, but I do have one more question. I'm trying to understand really the crux of the nature of your argument and the relief that you're requested requesting, so rather than state my assumption about that, will you please clarify? >> Yes. Um so, the relief we're requesting, if you'll look at the decision that uh well, you if you look at appendix three, that sets out the relief we're requesting, and that is to ask you to reverse the county commissioners who did not award or did not verify the existence of parcel four that you see on on appendix three. We're asking Luba to reverse that decision and to award the uh or to verify, in addition to parcels one and parcel two, that parcel three and and now the requested parcel four are themselves two distinct parcels, and reverse and uh verify that and send it back to the commissioners, the county commissioners, to then issue a decision that awards the four parcels that are shown on appendix three. >> So, you don't you So, now that I understand what they did when they were eliminating the lot lines between the northeast and northwest section, you're okay with that. You're just saying they should have included another parcel that you what you call parcel four that's in parcel three. >> Yep, we're not challenging that they found a vacation of those two discrete parcels and made them into parcel one. We're not challenging that. >> Okay, thank you. >> for your requested remedy, we would have to find as a matter of law that parcel four exists in order to reverse and remand with an order or reverse with an order to approve that verification. Your petition for review states a lot of different standards of review and arguments. What's your alternative if we don't find that parcel four is is exists as a matter of law cuz that's a pretty high standard. >> Um the alternative would be to uh remand uh for uh exponent uh for findings of fact that would justify why they didn't address our application for parcel what we call parcel four and to support that with substantial evidence in the record. And the reason I argue you should reverse it is because you won't you won't find any evidence in the record as to the evidence in the record is that parcel four exists and there's no evidence in the record to support any decision that says it does not. >> Thank you. And that will conclude our oral argument. Uh our final the statutory due date for our final decision in this appeal is May 27th. We'll ask that you uh agree to an extension so that we can issue our opinion by June 17th. Is that okay with you? >> No objection. >> Thank you. Have a good remainder of your day.