standing to challenge the validity of the rules. In addition to statutory standing, a petitioner must also have constitutional standing — that is, a petitioner must demonstrate that a decision in the case will have a practical effect on his or her rights. Kellas v. Dept. of Corrections, 190 Or App 331, 334, 78 P3d 1250 (2003), rev allowed, 337 Or 282 (2004) (for purposes of constitutional standing, “a petitioner seeking to challenge a rule under ORS 183.400 must demonstrate that he or she has a legally recognized interest at stake and that the relief sought — validation or invalidation of an administrative rule — would have a practical effect on that interest”); see also Doty v. Coos County, 185 Or App 233, 59 P3d 50 (2002), clarified on recons, 186 Or App 580, 64 P3d 1150 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Under certain circumstances, a petitioner may
holding land for speculation is a legitimate commercial use grazing on land so classified subject to a special use permit holding that a cause of action for damages to property resulting from a permanent nuisance accrues to the owner of the land at the time the injury begins to affect the land and mere transfer of the land by deed does not transfer the claim for damages holding that a petitioner in a judicial review from the land use board of appeals had constitutional standing because the land use decision would affect her use and enjoyment of a nearby estuary that she used for passive recreation holding that animal husbandry operations were included in the definition of farm even if the animals do not touch the ground graze on the land or feed from crops grown on the land and holding that land used to support buildings used in the production of agricultural products is a productive use of the land holding where exempt organization was in possession of real property under land contract obligating organization to pay the purchase price and use land for exempt purpose the association was the owner of the land within the meaning of the statute