Hoekstre v. DLCD

Remedies afforded by section 6 of Ballot Measure 49 (2007) allow a claimant to receive relief under sections 6(2) or 6(3), but these subsections cannot be combined to afford a cumulative remedy.

Petitioner appealed a judgment by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) that dismissed his petition for review of a final order and a home site authorization that authorized for him three existing parcels on his property. Petitioner argued that the order should have allowed him to receive “one additional lot, parcel or dwelling” beyond the three specified because the language of section (2) of Ballot Measure 49 and section (3) are cumulative remedies, and that 6(3) was meant to allow certain claimants an additional lot, for a total of four. The Court of Appeals rejected this result and reasoning, and instead found that section 6(2) and section 6(3) offer alternative options, but are mutually exclusive and thus do not afford the cumulative remedy that Petitioner asserted. Vacated and remanded with instructions to enter a judgment affirming DLDC's order.