January 18, 2006

1:30 p.m.

Commissionersí Conference Room

APPROVED 5/31/06


Commissioner Bill Dwyer presided with Commissioners Bobby Green, Sr., Anna Morrison, Peter Sorenson and Faye Stewart present.County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.




a. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. 7-05/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 3 of Lane Code Regarding Regulation of and Reporting by Used Merchandise Dealers and Eliminating the Secondhand Business License Requirement (LC 3.600-3.00) (NBA & PM 1/04/06).


Russ Burger, Sheriff, explained that the purpose of the used merchandise ordinance in Lane County is to create a real time data base of used merchandise so that law enforcement could have a better opportunity to return stolen goods to people who have had their property stolen. He added it is designed to deter and suppress the trafficking of stolen goods in Lane County and to reduce the loss to businesses by doing so. He said it frees up valuable detective time that would be spent reading over pawn slips to see if the property is showing up at any of the stores.


Burger recalled that on October 25 they had a work session with the Board and there were pro and con discussions about the used merchandise ordinance as it was proposed.He noted that after the work session he met with several of the used merchandise dealers about the issues they raised.He said they were concerned they werenít able to use the point of sale system with the inventory system they currently have in place.He said they would be able to continue using their system and it wouldnít affect the inventory system.He added that the other concern was information relative to residents in Lane County and American dollars would be leaving the county and the country, going to Canada.His pledge was to develop a local or a statewide system.He went to the Oregon State Sheriffís Association and they agreed it was a good idea and they wanted to pursue that as an organization.He said on December 7 the Portland Police Bureau held a Regional Automated Pawn and Second Hand Information Database meeting. He noted there is a detective in Portland that is spearheading the proposal to put together a regional system that includes the State of Oregon and the State of Washington.He indicated there is a movement statewide to try to automate used merchandise reporting.He said on November 8 the proposed fees to pay for the used merchandise ordinance went to Finance and Audit and were approved and recommended to come to the full Board.He reported that on January 9 the City of Eugene held a work session on an ordinance for the same purpose and it was well received by the city councilors and it goes to a public hearing on January 23.He said the City of Springfield was beginning the process to do the same thing.


Green asked what type of baseline data was available and how successful it had been.


Burger noted that information would have to come from the vendors who have been involved in the pilot program.He didnít have any statistical information.


Stewart said in reading the Finance and Audit minutes, the used merchandise dealers who were in opposition have agreed they would be willing to allow the initial five-year contract.He spoke with some dealers yesterday and no one said they were in agreement to allow a five-year contract.


Burger indicated he met with three of them in Glenwood and discussed the issues.He said the understanding he left with at that meeting was they understood there would be a system in place until they were able to get a statewide local or regional system.


Sorenson asked if there was opposition to pursuing the ordinance.


Burger said the purpose of his meeting with the dealers was to try to reconcile the differences he thought they had.He said the concern was that they wouldnít be able to use their data management or inventory system and they would have to transition to some new program.He said that was not the case as they would still be able to use their same system to download the information. He said dollars and information leaving the country going to Canada was something that couldnít be fixed right away, if they were going to be developing a system on a statewide or regional basis.He noted that the vendor BWI has the best product for this purpose during the interim.


Dwyer had concerns about this.He wondered why they had to take the lead in Lane County.


Burger commented that no matter who took the lead on this, that it was the right thing to do.He said having the ability to have real time information for detectives for investigating the multiple property crimes they are faced with on a daily basis is a necessity.He said it made sense for law enforcement and the used merchandise dealers because they have a vested interest in not taking stolen property and if they had a system in place that hampers the thievesí ability to do that and they know they would get caught, it might deter some of the property crime.


Stewart asked if it was going to be a savings for the County if they could pay for it themselves and pass it on to the owners.


Burger said he would be willing to have subsidized costs with this.He thought it was important for public safety in Lane County.


Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing.


Lance Barclay, Glenwood, said the promises of BWI to increase the amount of stolen property covered is non-existent.He said that less than one-half of one percent is recovered stolen property.He said he doesnít buy stolen property. He commented the idea of putting all of this information on a computer to recover more property was not true.He thought by imposing these fees against an existing 62 shops that are in business, things would not improve.


Gil Burgess, Eugene, stated he was not opposed to an electronic system.He understood the issues they were dealing with regarding time constraints.He had issues that werenít being addressed.He said there was a dealer in Canada who said he wasnít going to use this system and he is threatened with having his license pulled and he is turning the information every day but he refuses to do it because he was concerned about liability.He said in their contract, it states that personal information would be protected.He added it said that name, addresses and phone numbers are not considered personal information.He asked if there would be a possibility of a county or a city fee and what control there would be.He commented that they couldnít pass the costs onto his customers because they donít have the money


Star Wood, Eugene, said she is a user of the BWI system and had used it for the past three years. She commented that they had been happy with it and they had good experiences with it.She was happy with the support the staff provides.She said it had saved them from making mistakes by buying merchandise they really didnít want because it might have been stolen.She said they would choose to do it again and they would continue to use it given the opportunity.She said they have been on the prototype and they had been using it free.She commented that if it saves them from taking on percent and losing it is equal to or greater than what the system would cost them in the future.She thought it would pay for itself over the course of time.She indicated when this system is in place, it would allow other sort parameters that donít require a serial number.


Stewart asked with her experience on the system, how much stolen merchandise they identified that came through the store that they didnít purchase, where they were able to help the policy.


Wood indicated they had been instrumental in the past 30 days with a jewelry situation where they helped it get back to its owner.†† She noted on a weekly basis, they have three to five people coming through the door who would try to sell them something that was stolen.She said in the past three years, they had less than six items that were stolen.


Jessie Breakfield, Eugene, reported his store had been working on the pilot program for about three years.His concerns were what the cost effectiveness would be because it is currently free.He commented that this was a tool to use.He stated that he doesnít always know if something is stolen or not.


Patrick McCoy, Springfield, stated he has a workable reporting system in Springfield where he is a participant.He noted last year he had less than 10 items confiscated out of thousands of transactions.His concern was if the Board found it necessary to pass a government mandate that they are supposed to pass the cost onto the customers.He thought it was an intrusion on their privacy.He said BWI was presented to him three years ago by a retired Eugene Police Detective.McCoy later found out that he was working for the company.He noted the two biggest proponents of the system are still working for the Eugene Police Department.He asked if there is some personal gain for them.He commented that the breakdown in the system is that the jail is not funded well enough.He noted counties to the north and south of Lane County donít have reporting systems.


There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Dwyer closed the Public Hearing.


Stewart asked how this had worked with the City of Eugene.


Officer Randy Berger, Eugene Police Report, responded that the integration it has with the AIRS system has been helpful. He noted it is a time consuming task that is entered by their data entry clerk by each slip individually.He said the system allows that integration to occur on all slips because they no longer have to hand enter the items.He said the system is compared with the stolen property list.He said they are freeing up detective time to investigate the actual crimes.He said they studied three full service stores during a two-month period. He said of those stores had 2,700 transactions. He said that over 4 out of 10 of those individuals had prior arrests for property and drug crimes.


Green asked what other information they would be interested in as far as the business owners are concerned.


Berger said the information on the slips is what is being inputted.He said they donít have social security numbers or secret data on anything regarding their customers.He added there was concern about the data being sold. He spoke with the representative of Business Watch and that data is considered the storeís property.He added that they are a storage vehicle for the item and it is not to be sold or distributed to any other stores.


Sorenson asked what the status of the program was within the City of Eugene.


Berger said they went before the Police Commission and they endorsed it to go to the city council.He said they had a work session with the city council and they were supportive.He noted they have a public meeting scheduled for January 23.


Morrison asked what the charges would be in Lane Manual.


Russ Burger, Sheriff, responded that the proposed language to be used for merchandise dealers who purchase between 100 and 199 articles would be a flat fee of $200 per year.He noted between 200 and 999, the articles would have a $400 per fee year.He said from 1,000 to 2,999 articles is $550 and 3,000 articles and above is a $700 fee per year.He commented that it would break down to about seven cents per transaction for a used merchandised dealer.


Berger explained when they were reviewing the ordinance; they werenít looking at a particular vendor to take.He said after a five-year agreement is over and if there is a product at a better price, that is what they are looking for.


Van Vactor asked if they could do this for less than five years.


Berger indicated it was preliminary for five years and it is not unreasonable.He thought they could possibly do it for two or three years.


It was recommended to continue discussion on this item and have the agenda team identify a time a time in about four weeks to continue the discussion.


MOTION: to approve a Second Reading and setting a Third Reading and Deliberation on Ordinance No. 7-05 for February 15, 2006.


Sorenson MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.


Sorenson asked if the state was working on this.


Burger responded that there was no movement by the State of Oregon to develop a system.He said as a system is developed, there might be statewide legislation that impacts what anyone does.


Sorenson asked if Lane County could get their system at a lower price than a commercial system.


Berger said at the meeting they discussed purchasing proprietary information for a site license for a regional system.He said they were looking at RFPís and he noted this was one of the vendors of interest.


Sorenson wanted to get more information back from the Sheriff about the Portland system.


Green indicated he watched the City of Eugene work session and he encouraged Officer Berger and others to go forward and work with the partners.


VOTE: 4-1 (Morrison dissenting).


b. ORDER 06-1-18-9/In the Matter of Amending Chapters 16 and 60 of the Lane Manual Regarding Used Merchandise Dealers Reporting Fees, Delete License Requirement, and Delegate Authority (LM 16.600- 16.615 and LM 60.839).




c. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. PA 1225/In the Matter of Adopting a Conformity Determination Amendment Pursuant to Rural Comprehensive Plan - General Plan Policies, Goal Two, Policy 27.a.iii., Amending the Plan Designation from Agriculture (A) to Forest (F) and the Zoning Designation from Exclusive Farm Use (E40) to Impacted Forest Land (F2) for a Portion (26 Acres) of Tax Lot 201 of Lane County Assessor Map 19-04-14, and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses.(File: PA 05-5060 Walsh) (NBA & PM 1/4/06).


Bill Sage, Land Management, reported that this conformity determination is taking a property that is 323 acres in size that in 1984 was designated along a section line (and two tax lots to make up the property) that were put in two separate zones.†† He said they were both resource zones.He noted that one property to the west is in forest operation, zoned F2.He added the other portion of the property is about 151 acres, with 26 acres that is in the mature stand.He noted the rest of the property is in pasture and is used for the grazing and breeding of cattle.He said the Walsh Ranch includes 323 acres split zoned.He said the Walshís asked that the actual use on the property be designated, adding 26 acres of forested area to the F2 designation. He said the Board had to ask how were the resources on the subject property managed in 1984 and how are the resources on the subject property today. Also, how the primary use to the resource management unit with 26 acres to be added to the F2 zone was going to be considered a fourth unit for an agricultural unit.He said the Planning Commission went through this and held a hearing on September 20 and they came back on December 6.He said they presented the findings that were addressed and opposition that came in.†† He noted on December 6, the Planning Commission adopted a recommendation to the Board 7-0 for an approval to this amendment.


Sage explained that the findings that are in the record (attached as Exhibit C to the ordinance) address two different sets of policies:Policy 2, and the policies that were brought up by the Goal 1 coalition, Goal 4, Policy 15 on how the characteristics determine if it is an F-1 or F-2 zone is appropriate.He indicated the recommendation is supported by staff.


Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing.


Dwyer asked if there were any ex parte contacts.


There were none.


Jim Mann, Eugene, stated he represented the property owners for this application Jeffrey and Kiki Walsh.He said they purchased the property in the 1950ís and have resided on the property since that time.He said they are stewards of the land and manage one portion of the land for forestry and the other portion for farming.He said they are asking the Board for refinement of the zoning that was done in 1984.He recalled when the property was split zoned in 1984, the boundary between the F2 and EFU zoning went along a section line.He said the Walshís wanted to include 26 acres that got zoned EFU because it was in another adjacent section and zone in F2.He said the information support findings of compliance with the conformity determination policy and with the Goal 4, Policy 15, to whether it is appropriate to rezone the 26 acres F1 of F2.


There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Dwyer closed the Public Hearing.


MOTION: to adopt Ordinance No. PA 1225.




d. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 06-1-18-10/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA05-5736, David F. Lentz).


Jill Gelineau, Portland, stated she is the attorney representing David Lentz.She asked the Board to approve the Measure 37 claim that she filed on behalf of Lentz.She stated he was aware the Board offered to put this matter on hold.She recalled that Lentz acquired the property in 1974 and is approximately 13 acres.She noted the land use regulations in effect at that time were the northern 500 feet zoned airport, and the remaining seven acres were zoned AGT 5, allowing five acre lots.She said subsequent to that, the property was downzoned and its current zoning is EFU 40.She said this was a request by the applicant under Measure 37 to allow the zoning that was in place in 1974, so the northern portion would allow the waiver of the EFU 40 back to the airport vicinity and the southern portion would be in the AGT 5.She indicated the staff report recommended in favor of Mr. Lentzí claim.She added from the applicantís standpoint, they accept the staff report and have no issues to address with the Board.She requested approval.


Van Vactor asked if Lentz had plans beyond just the waiver of the exclusive farm use regulation.


Gelineau requested a waiver of an extended list of regulations they think they are entitled to under the terms of Measure 37.She said the staff report and the proposed order proposes modification and not enforcing the zoning regulations with the remaining regulations being unclear.She spoke with her client and he understood that was unclear and that there might be further discussion.She was satisfied that could be worked out in the development process.She was comfortable with what the County proposed over what the city proposes.


Van Vactor appreciated their interest in this but under Ballot Measure 37, the governing body had to process this.He said they get subsequent development proposals that cause a level of concern for the City of Eugene.He said it is Lane Countyís position that it is up to the City of Eugene to resolve.He noted it was Lane Countyís position to waive this.He added if they get a subsequent development application, they will coordinate it with the City of Eugene, as they might be an active participant.


There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Dwyer closed the Public Hearing.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-1-18-10.


Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.


VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).


e. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 06-1-18-11/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA 05-6100, Bedortha).


Steve Hopkins, Land Management, reported they are having difficulty in finding the date of acquisition, when the current owner acquired the property.He indicated the applicant had submitted additional information and after that memo was written, the applicant submitted more information.He recalled the only new information that was submitted the second time was a deed, (second page of submittal, referring to number 1 c., Deed 7404186).He said that specific deed was not actually submitted.He said there was a different deed that was submitted in its place.He said they have not been able to determine an acquisition date.He indicated they need to determine when the current owner acquired the property, then they could determine the applicable land use regulations.


Stewart said there was a deed in the file notarized from January 1969 with the sale from McNair to Milton W. Bedortha and Chester Bedortha.He assumed at that time he was part owner of that piece of property.He added there was another deed from Bush in 1974.


Hopkins noted in the supplemental memo, the first instrument, number 42143, with the date January 20, 1964, the owner was Dwane and Jean Coop and they conveyed the property to Milton Bedortha.He didnít know how the McNairís got an interest from the Coops because they donít have the original contract from the Coops to McNair.


Vorhes indicated he was not aware of the link between the seller to McNair and or the Bedorthas as a buyer under the McNairís rights in the contract.He said the link with the chain of title was missing to establish the date of ownership or acquisition of interest to the date that is part of the plan.


Stewart asked what the difference was if the year was 64 or 69, because they had the same rights.He didnít think it was necessary to go further back to find out there was a glitch if there wasnít going to be an outcome on the decision.


Vorhes responded that one part is clearer than the other and that was the problem.


Van Vactor added there is an issue with regard to the trust.He said with the first parcel, the trust was conveyed on May 30, 2000.He indicated the claim might relay to 2000 instead of 1969 or 1964, to see if the owners were the same to have a continuity of ownership.


Vorhes indicated that from some of the documents that were provided as to Milton Bedortha, (who was the grantor to the trust) that trust was created in 2000 and it was conveyed to Milton and his wife, as trustees.He noted that Milton retains the thread of ownership into the trust and it appears that the trust is a revocable living trust.He said Bedortha retains all of the ownership interest and rights that he held before he transferred the trust.He said it did not create a new ownership with Milton.He added it might be the first time his wife gained interest in the property.


Van Vactor noted that because there are two parcels, the second parcel is 38 acres and if that parcel history relates back to 1976, the zoning then was allowed for 20-acre parcels.He added with a 38-acre parcel, it couldnít be divided and it might reduce the number of potential parcels.


Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing.


Randy Downing, Coburg, stated he was present on behalf of an out of state property owner that owns a piece of property adjacent to the Bedortha property.He read a letter from David M. Jay.


Norm Waterbury, Eugene, stated he represented the Bedorthas.He commented that the concerns David M Jay had would be taken care of in the subdivision process.He said this application is land that is almost surrounded by other developments.He said the access from a planning point of view was acceptable.He noted the issue regarding the trust had been settled, as it is an irrevocable trust.He indicated there was some confusion with the acquisition date, but he recalled that the property was purchased in the 60ís on a land sales contract.††† He indicated that he had deeds for the property in the supplemental information.He noted in 1967 it showed transfer of title from his Milton Bedorthaís parents to Milton Bedortha on January 31, 1967.With regard to earlier documentation with the chain of title, he didnít see the relevance with this matter.


Vorhes wanted clarification on which deeds relate to which parcels of property. He indicated he was still looking for a 1967 deed.


Waterbury indicated he separated the two parcels in his response, dated January 17, 2006.


Vorhes asked if the McNairs owned the property even though the documents that were submitted stated there were a deed and an assignment of contract of the McNairsí interest as a buyer in the contract.


Waterbury stated that according to the Bedorthas, there was a land sales contract.


Vorhes said his reading of the document is that there is a contract between Post and McNair and McNair as the buyer, signed to the Bedorthas. He added the McNairís interest in that contact is conveyed by deed by Post.He said if that didnít happen, then all of the documents didnít have the effect of conveying the interest.


Waterbury indicated that the property was purchased in the late 60ís.He said the problem is that there was a land sales contract involved.He said after they paid off the land sales contract they got title to the property and then they shifted the property back and forth between Milton Bedortha and his parents and then back to Milton Bedortha and then to the trust.†† He commented that it had still been in the family.


Vorhes explained the acquisition from McNair was at the time that McNair was the buyer under contact with Post.He didnít see a document showing that contract between Post and McNair was completed so that Post conveyed the interest that was under contract to the buyer then was assigned to the Bedorthas.


Stewart asked what would happen if Post didnít follow through with the contract and the McNairs ended up re-selling it to the Bedorthas.


Vorhes said he needs the completion of the contract between Post and McNair, as the link of the final conveyance.


Mike Hoppe, Eugene, stated he purchased his property last year and it was zoned F2.He purchased the property for that reason.He was uncertain whether Measure 37 allowed someone to merge two properties in 2006 and then use the new figure to divide the property up.He indicated that the property had been developed throughout the years after 1976.He noted that his property was a piece of that property.He recalled in 2001 a few acres were added to the 60 acres as part of a lot line adjustment.He said the property had been fluid throughout the year.He thought maybe 2001 was the final determination as to what the property is today.


There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Dwyer closed the Public Hearing.


Vorhes indicated they would roll this to February 15, 2006, leaving the record open.


MOTION: to roll this matter to February 15, 2006 and leaving the record open for two weeks, with a week to respond.


Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.


f. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 06-1-18-12/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA 05-6130, Ward).


Steve Hopkins, Land Management, reported this was a valid claim.He noted the property is zoned RR5, the minimum property size for new lots is five acres.He said the property contains 14 acres and they want to develop the property into lots that contain less than five acres, approximately one acre per piece.He recalled they acquired interest in the property in 1956 that the owner is the same currently as it was in 1956.He said it appeared it was a valid claim.He noted he received a letter from the applicant and one from an interested neighbor.


Commissioner Dwyer opened the public hearing.


Nancy Thompson, Springfield, said she is a property owner immediately adjacent to the subject parcel.She said they purchased the property in 2004 with the understanding the area was zoned RR5.She objected to any action that would allow Ward to subdivide the small rural property into multiple additional building sites.She said it was their belief that the value of their property would be diminished by Wardís proposed plan.She was advised by Mike Mattick, Watermaster, that their area is designated as a water quantity limited area.She said their well is their only source of water and is barely adequate.She was concerned that the additional burden of multiple households on underground water resources might render their property uncomfortable, unlivable or unshakeable.She commented that the proposed plan of multiple homes on lots of approximately one acre exceeds the general density that exists in the surrounding community.She was concerned about noise and pollution.She thought the County should study the traffic problems there.She commented that Ward had a right to implement Measure 37 to his benefit and they think as tax payers that they too have the right to be protected by the Board.She asked the Board to take no action and withhold any ruling on Measure 37.She wanted Ward to be in complete compliance with Lane Code 13.050 (13) ( c) 1, before any subdivision might be initiated.She also asked for a well test and impact statements to be required of Ward.


Van Vactor commented that Measure 37 conveys rights of landowners at certain times.He said it doesnít provide any rights with regard to the neighbors other than providing notice.


Delores Smith, Springfield, stated she lived across from the Ward property.She said they built their home over 27 years ago.She noted that Ward was living on his property when they built their house.††† She was in favor of allowing Ward to use the property and developing it into one-acre parcels.She didnít think it would change the integrity of their roadway.She thought it would increase the value of their homes.With regard to water quality and quantity, she lives on the flat area of the roadway and the well issue is not a problem.She was in favor of this claim.She noted on the east side of the road where lives, that all houses are on one acre parcels.


Jerry Ward, Eugene, stated he was an agent for the claimants.He said it wasnít clear in the law about getting state approval for Measure 37 since it is the Countyís responsibility to establish each countyís zoning per state HB 100 He said his parents bought the property in August 1956.He noted it was part of a larger parcel of over 36 acres.He said that two ten-acre parcels were sold off.He noted they created Perriwinkle Road, built the road and built a new house on 16 acres.He noted for the past 50 years over 12 smaller lots adjoined the property.He said the only farmland adjacent to the property is west that was sold off.He said before July 2, 1986, before LCDC accepted Lane Countyís zoning, property on three sides of his parents property were subdivided into smaller parcels.He noted the present R 5 zoning enacted in 1986, reduced the subject property for the ensuing years.He indicated an appraisal report determined the reduced value was at $675,000 at the time of appraisal.He noted this appraisal was completed June 15, 2005 and since that time there had been appreciation on the property. He understood Doug DuPriestís objection was that he was claiming that Measure 37 as a whole has diminished the value of property throughout Lane County.He didnít think that premise was true in general.†† He noted in this Measure 37 claim, their intent is to divide the property into one-acre parcels.He said his parentís property is in the McKenzie floodplain. He said because of that there is a lot of water on the property.He said there was no problem with the water.


Jerry Demarco, Springfield, indicated his property is behind the Wardís property.He had lived there since 1979.His concern with the proposal is a water issue.He said the wells behind the Wardís property have gone without water during the summer.He thought drilling 12 more wells would have an impact on his property.He was also concerned with sewage and contamination of the wells.He didnít have a problem if they subdivided the land if they overcame the hurdles.He opposed one-acre parcels.He thought a three-acre range was appropriate.He requested that the trees be left alone as a buffer between his property and any building that goes on below.


Sorenson asked about the impacts on surrounding property owners and the water problem if the Board grants the application He also asked if the testimony was relevant to the issue of modifying the proposal as opposed to denying the claim.


Vorhes said it was more relevant to the valuation issues.


There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Dwyer closed the Public Hearing.


MOTION: approve ORDER 06-1-18-12.


Stewart MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.


Sorenson asked if they were going to give them everything they were asking for by modifying and not waiving the rules.


Vorhes explained the order is drafted to recognize the claim that there has been a reduction in value and that the restrictive regulations in place currently in the F2 zoning are not applicable in order to allow the owner to develop the property in the manner that he could have developed it at the time he acquired the property.He said it was not a modification of the regulations but an election to not apply the current restrictive regulations on division and dwellings.


Dwyer noted that questions with water and sewers would be addressed at the time that a development application would be requested.He said it didnít waive any notice requirements.


Vorhes recalled the only thing he is addressing specifically is the minimum division sizes in the rural residential zone.


VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).


Howe explained that since Measure 37 claims had gone into effect, they received 71 claims.He indicated they had acted on ten prior to today, and 29 are on hold that signed the agreements to not process until after the Supreme Court decision.He said 32 are left and letters were sent to them giving them the opportunity for this agreement and they had yet to hear from them.


Stewart wanted to discuss further the process of claims and the requirements they are requiring.He noted that appraisals are between $2,000 to $5,000 and if it doesnít address what they want them to address, he asked how valuable they were for the compensation issues.


Morrison commented that some of the appraisals they were receiving were straight appraisals, not dealing with the restrictions that are put in place that cause them to lose the value.


Green thought they needed to have a work session on whether or not the applicant needs an appraisal


Van Vactor suggested going through the processing ordinance they adopted last December to see if they needed any clarifying issues.












Letter to Congressman Peter DeFazio


Morrison indicated the changes that came back were to resolve the remaining issues of financial resources.She said that Lane County will work with their partners:the cities of Springfield, Eugene and Coburg and the State of Oregon to fund $200,000 in staff or consulting resources to complete the study of the costs likely to be incurred in extending services.She said if they were successful, the cost of the study would be funded locally and completed as soon as possible in order to provide clarity for their congressional delegation about magnitude of resources required.


MOTION: to send the letter to DeFazio under the chairís signature.


Morrison MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.


There being no further business, Commissioner Dwyer recessed the meeting at 4:10 p.m.



Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary