January 25, 2006

1:30 p.m.

Commissioners’ Conference Room



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




a. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1228/In the Matter of Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Land From "Forest Land" to "Nonresource", Rezone that Land From "F-2/Impacted Forest Lands" to "RR-10/Rural Residential”; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (File PA 03-6037; Dettmer) (NBA & PM 1/11/06).


Jerry Kendall, Land Management, reported the subject property is 11.31 acres located south of Van Duyn Road on the east side of  Interstate 5.  He said the applicant wanted to re-locate his home from his 10-acre original parcel to a better knoll site.  He did a lot line adjustment that took in 1.31 acres and because it was zoned F2, the applicant had to go for a plan amendment rezone to match the 1.31 acres with the rest of the ten acre parent parcel to non-resource.  He said in doing the analysis they looked at the entire parcel and originally there was some controversy over soil productivity.  He added under objection, the applicant had to have a soil scientist come up with ratings for those soils listed for not having a rating.  He said the average standard came out to 42.7 cubic feet per acre of forest productivity that is below the County accepted standard of 50 cubic feet.  He added that 50.9% of the 11.31 acre parcel is agricultural class 5-8 soils.   He indicated that the applicant along with his findings estimates a good argument that the 1.31 acre piece should be rezoned to non-resource. 


Kendall recalled at the Planning Commission level they had objections from the Goal 1 Coalition on the soils but they were dropped and they wrote a letter stating they had no objection to this specific proposal. He added that the Planning Commission subsequently recommended approval to the Board.  He distributed a correction to page 8 of the findings. (Copy in file.)  He noted the correction reflected a request by the Coburg Rural Fire Protection District to have a 30-foot primary fuel break surrounding the subject dwelling for fire safety purposes.


Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing.


Rick Satre, Eugene, indicated they had received the Planning Commission’s support for the plan amendment and zone change request last September.  He noted there were concerns expressed by the Goal 1 Coalition, but Satre’s follow-up detailed soil survey satisfied their concern and they dropped their objection.  Satre believed the application complies with Lane County Code with regard to plan amendments and zone changes.  He entered a letter into the record from the homeowner’s association for the rural subdivision.


MOTION:  to adopt Ordinance No. PA 1228.


Morrison MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.




b. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1230/In the Matter of Responding to the LUBA Remand of Ordinance No. PA 1209 and Amending that Ordinance by Adoption of a New Exhibit “B” Showing Modifications to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan; Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses; and Declaring an Emergency (NBA & PM 1/11/06).


Vorhes indicated this is a revision to what was a revision to Exhibit “B” of  Ordinance PA 1209 that the Board adopted in 2004.  He said this would provide additional specificity to the projects that were listed in the exhibit and respond to the remand from LUBA that stated one project needed more specific detail as to the significant public facilities that were included in the project.  He noted the revised Exhibit “B” that would be adopted by the ordinance would replace that Exhibit “B” and respond to the LUBA remand.


Kent Howe, Land Management, recalled in 2004 the three jurisdictions adopted the amendment to the Metro Public Facilities Plan.  He said they were appealed.  He noted the remand deals with certain projects of the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Facility.  He added that this ordinance provides further definition to what the public facility project components are.  He said this should address the remand requirements and take care of the issue.  He noted that Eugene and Springfield had already adopted this unanimously.


Vorhes noted as supplemental material a chart comparing the old list and MWMC counsel had prepared the revised list.


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


Stewart was in support and thought the issues remanded back had been fulfilled.


MOTION:  to adopt Ordinance No. PA 1230.


Stewart MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


VOTE: 3-0 (Morrison out of room).


c. CONTINUED ORDER 05-11-30-4 AND DELIBERATION/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 (PA05-5680, George Hinnenkamp Trust) (NBA & PM 11/8/05 & 11/30/05).


Dwyer announced that Green asked that they don’t take any action on this matter, as he wanted to be involved in the decision.


Dwyer asked if there were any ex parte contacts.


Sorenson indicated he received two items in his mailbox.


Dwyer said he received the same items that were unsigned.


Stewart stated he received some e-mails and telephone calls.


Kent Howe, Land Management, reported that they received the letter and title report from Norm Waterbury that had been added to the record.  He indicated that from staff’s standpoint, it appeared the title is clear.  He said that Hinnenkamp is the owner of the property and they don’t have any indication that there is any other legal interest from anyone else on the property.


Howe recalled the property is at Hamm Road and Territorial near Lorane.  He said it is 159 acres in size that is split zoned between farm and forest.  He said they acquired it in 1967 and the desire is to divide the property into ten parcels.  He said there is an appraisal and it appears to be a valid claim.


Van Vactor noted the title report showed it is in the ownership of the Hinnenkamp Trust.


Stewart stated the waivers are not transferable, they are for Hinnenkamp and not for the prospective buyer.


Commissioner Dwyer opened up the Public Hearing.


Andy Stahl Wellborn, Eugene, reported he and his wife operate a commercial sheep farm and they would be adversely affected by the increased residential development that might occur as a result of a waiver of land use restrictions being granted.  He said there would be an increase of domestic dogs that are the major predator of their livestock.  He commented that the application for waiver seemed incomplete.  He said the application requires that all renters, lessees, or anyone with an interest in the property at the time the application is made needed to be put on the application.  He noted that on March 31, 2005, the application was made and at that time a family was living on the property.  He said a well had been dug, a mobile home had been installed, roads had been constructed and livestock fences had been built, all done by someone other than George Hinnenkamp.  He noted at the present time the same family is grazing livestock on the property.  He commented that family is either a renter (in which case they need to be identified on the application and they weren’t), a lease holder (who would have to be identified in the application and they weren’t) or they were a buyer of the property. He said they would have to be identified and they weren’t.  He said the only person identified under property owner was the George Hinnenkamp Trust.  He said if there is a land sales contract, it would create a property interest and is irrevocable and if it existed before the application was made, then the buyer has a property interest that would not qualify for a waiver.


Ted Stevens, Eugene, said he had a copy of Waterbury’s letter that stated that Mr. Palmer had expressed an interest in purchasing some of the proposed lots from Hinnenkamp.  He said in addition to the information presented at the November 8 public hearing, the neighbors and he have collected additional information that showed that Palmer had more than a verbal interest in the property.  He noted there was a November 2005 contract for the removal of timber on Lot 300 that is on one-half of the parcel.  He said that based on the information from the owner of the logging company, the proceeds of the sale of the timber were divided:  30% to George Hinnenkamp; 35% to Jerry Palmer and 35% to the logging contractor.  He said the Palmers who came on the property in 2004 are using Measure 37 as a means to divide the parcel that is contrary to the intent of Lane County Code and to state land use rules.  He said based on the documents in the record and/or supplied by those who are opposed to the claim with the improvements on the property, that a lease purchase agreement or similar verbal or written arrangement exists between Hinnenkamp and the Palmers.  He said if that is true, it should be part of the record.  He commented that the claim is incomplete and the information regarding the ownership of the property is questionable.  He asked the Board to deny the claim and instruct the County Administrator to issue a final written decision of denial.


Kathy Boucher, Eugene, circulated a petition that the people with the interest on the property are the Palmers.  She said they live by them and they have watched the property for a year and a half.


Joe Spivack, Eugene, said he has lived in the neighborhood for 17 years and goes by the property every day.  He was under the impression that the land had been sold to the Palmers.  He said they watched the fences go up and the mobile home go in.  He spoke with a Ray Leroy Paul and Paul said his nephew owned the land.  He indicated the nephew of Ray Leroy Paul is not George Hinnenkamp, but one of the Palmers.  He added that he has a report from the Lane County’s Sheriff’s Office citing Ray Leroy Paul for offensive littering.  The report stated that Ray had been living in the motor home on his nephew’s property for several months where the piece of land of Hinnenkamp is in question.  He said according to the neighbors, Hinnenkamp sold the land to the Palmers.


Marilyn Stevens, Eugene, noted that the appraisal done on May 17, 2005, addressed to Jerry Palmer, c/o Norm Waterbury was clear that it was Palmer who directed the appraisal and had drawn up the parcels in question.  She thought it was unusual for someone who was thinking of purchasing a property or has no contract to purchase the property would have gone to the expense and effort.  She said the information about the appraisal could be assumed to be helping out Hinnenkamp to complete the application since it was submitted three days after the appraisal.


Norm Waterbury, Eugene, reported there are no legal documents. He said if there is no documentation and no bill of sale or land sales contract involved in this situation, he didn’t see the relevance.  He noted that Palmer had done work on the property.  He said there was no mobile home placed on the property, but a travel trailer and they were grazing goats.  He said there were verbal agreements Hinnenkamp had with Jerry Palmer.


Dwyer asked about the well log and the logging company getting a share of the money.  He asked if that was a reasonable expectation for the Board to make.


Waterbury said there is no legal documentation other than a handshake.


Sorenson commented that the application wasn’t complete because it didn’t identify all of the people on the property. 


Waterbury indicated he couldn’t find anything in the public record.


Sorenson recalled there was a statement at the hearing stating the application was incomplete.  He said the application didn’t disclose that there was anyone on the property.


Waterbury said the Palmers had an agreement to graze goats.  He said they had discussed purchasing the property and then Measure 37 came along.    He indicated the Palmers told Hinnenkamp they could help him with the claim.  He said they are good friends and do business with handshakes.


With regard to the logging piece, Morrison was concerned about the percentages and how it was split.  She thought Hinnenkamp should have received more than 30% and Palmer should have received less than 35%.  She was also concerned about the well log.


Waterbury said that the Palmers had a crawler on the property and they built roads to haul the logs out.  He thought the percentages from the logging had to do with the verbal agreement.


Roger Weise, Eugene, believed there had been a land sales contract.  He wondered why the Palmers and Hinnenkamp didn’t show up at the meeting to answer questions.  He noticed activity on the property  2 ½ years ago.  He said people had moved a travel trailer and camper units onto the property, roads were put in and a fence was put up.  He said talk was that Hinnenkamp had sold the property.  He never talked with Hinnenkamp or the Palmers.  He had a conversation with the people putting up the fence.  He stated the fence was about four football fields long and it took a summer to put the fence in.  According to Weise (who spoke with the fencer), Hinnenkamp sold the property and they were working for the new owners to build the fence.  He asked why a renter would build a big fence around the property.  He submitted a preliminary report for an owner’s policy from Western Pioneer Title that says the company was ready to extend a policy to Donald Palmer, buyer, and George Hinnenkamp, seller.


Leslie Burpo, Eugene, noted that Palmer told him that in the summer of 2005 he was going to have a motocross track put in on the property.  He applied to the County and they did not want him to put in the motocross.  He said in January 2005, Jerry Palmer and his grandson game to his gate to say some cattle had wondered off the property.  Palmer at that time told Burpo that Hinnenkamp cried when he sold the property to him.  Burpo indicated that Palmer had bought the property from Hinnenkamp.


MOTION:  to move for further deliberation for February 15, 2005.


Sorenson MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.


VOTE: 3-0.  (Stewart was out of  the room).












Eugene Sand and Gravel


Vorhes reported he had been working on getting an order and materials to Thom Lanfear to get the matter with Eugene Sand and Gravel on the agenda for the Board to consider. He thought it would be brought to the Board some time next month.


ORDER 06-1-25-6/In the Matter of Amending the Intergovernmental Agreement to Change the Name of the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority to Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA).


MOTION:  to approve ORDER 06-1-25-6.


Morrison MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


VOTE: 3-0 (Stewart out of room).


There being no further business, Commissioner Dwyer adjourned the meeting at 3:00 p.m..



Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary