BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'

WORK SESSION

April 10, 2007

9:00 a.m.

Harris Hall Main Floor

APPROVED 6/18/2008

 

Commissioner Faye Stewart presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bill Fleenor, Bobby Green, Sr., and Peter Sorenson present.  Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.

A. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA

 

None.

 

B. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEASURE 37 CLAIMS

 

1. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-10-1/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 (Christensen, 06-7162).

 

2. PUBLIC HEARING/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 (06-7331, Cordon).

 

3. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-10-2/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  (06-7133, Davis).

 

4. PUBLIC HEARING/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  (06-7127, Defoe3).

 

5. PUBLIC HEARING/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  (06-7128, Defoe4).

 

6. PUBLIC HEARING/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  (Demers, Robert,05-6554).

 

7. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-10-3/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  (06-7134, Kenyon).

 

8. PUBLIC HEARING/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 (06-7333, Montgomery).

 

9. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-10-4/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 (06-7132, Mooney).

 

10. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-10-5/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 (06-7160, Myers2).

 

11. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-10-6/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 (06-7149, Nixon49).

 

12. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-10-7/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 (06-7150, Nixon50).

 

13. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-10-8/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 (06-7151, Nixon51).

 

14. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-10-9/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 (06-7152, Nixon52).

 

15. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-20-21/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 (06-7324, Piper).

 

16. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-10-10/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 (06-7161, Pitcher).

 

17. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-10-11/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 (06-7163, Poggemeyer).

 

18. PUBLIC HEARING/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 (06-7129, Powell2).

 

19. PUBLIC HEARING/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 (06-7135, Riley).

 

20. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-10-12/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 (06-7159, Scheidt).

 

21. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-10-13/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 (06-7155, Sertic).

 

22. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-10-14/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 (06-7130, Shaw).

 

23. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-10-15/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 (06-7164, Shoop).

 

24. PUBLIC HEARING/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 (06-7146, Starns).

 

25. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-10-16/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 (06-7141, Walsh).

 

26. PUBLIC HEARING/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 (06-7332, Warner).

 

27. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-10-17/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 (06-7154, Wilbur154).

 

Commissioner Stewart asked if there were any ex parte contacts.

 

There were none.

 

Kent Howe, Land Management, reported that they are providing opportunity for citizens to comment on 27 claims.  He indicated that staff mailed notice to the property owners within 1500 feet between March 17 and March 21, meeting the code requirements.  He noted that staff had conducted the analysis of the pertinent Measure 37 requirements on these 27 claims and summarized the information in the staff report.  He added this analysis addresses the requirements of ownership, date of acquisition, the current zoning, the zoning regulations at the time of acquisition and some form of competent analysis of fair market value reduction resulting from the land use regulations that have been applied to the property since the current ownerís acquisition.  He said for those claims that did not provide an appraisal, the County Administrator has waived the appraisal requirement because they have provided a competent analysis of value reduction.  He indicated there are nine claims recommended for denial and of those, three do not appear valid because there doesnít appear to be any reduction in the fair market value from the enforcement of the restrictive land use regulation:  Powell2, Starns and Warner.  He added the other claims recommended for denial havenít submitted adequate evidence regarding the alleged reduction in value or there is an issue regarding the ownership of the property.  He said because of that, the County Administrator is compelled to recommend a denial of those claims.  He noted if there is information that comes in todayís hearings that addresses those deficiencies, then the Board could act accordingly.

 

Commissioner Stewart opened the Public Hearing.

 

Christensen

 

Randall Carlson, Pleasant Hill, stated his property adjoins the Christensen property under Measure 37 claim.  He said he bought his property after the Christensens and he saw no decrease in value.  He didnít see how their name could be on the paperwork after the property was sold twice.

 

Robert Hollander, stated that he lives adjacent to the property owner.  He submitted a letter by Ann Davies.  He said there was a question about one ownership between Barry Taub and the Christensens.  He asked questioned if they could both owners be at the same time since one is a contractor purchaser and the other is holding the contract.  He commented that since the land sales contract and subsequent amendments are not part of the record,  it was difficult to determine what they claim the property values to be in relationship to the purchases.  He asked how valuation was being determined when some of the property owners moved out because of the restrictions on the property.

 

Steve Cornacchia, Eugene, agreed with and supported staff findings.  He said this is a land sale contract in Oregon. He said the property owner sells but does the financing themselves.  He said they retain the title and they have a contract with the purchaser.  He said the purchaser has an equitable interest in the property.  He said the Christensens hold the title.  He said the property was sold under contract to the original contract purchasers and that contract was assigned to Mr. Taub.  He indicated Taub continues to make payments to the Christensens.   He noted the contract owner purchased the property in 1983 and it was zoned FF20.  He said in 1984 when the County rezoned land, it was rezoned Rural Residential 10.  He said it got a new designation but still had the limitation of 10 acres and that applies to Taub.  He said the Christensens got their property and purchased it in 1971 when it was zoned AGT.  He indicated the AGT provision at that time would have allowed a one-acre minimum parcel size.  He said that was the value difference from today as a 10 acre parcel versus 10 one acre parcels maximum.

 

Lauri Segel, Goal 1 Coalition, said with the multiple conveyances, the Christensens have earned money on the property and when it comes back to them via the land sales contract, it comes back with a new zoning after 1974.  She said the issue of whether there has been loss of value isnít substantiated. She thought staff needed to spend more time on claims before recommending approval.

 

Howe indicated at the time of analysis, they erred in noting that the Taubís acquisition through the land sales contract did create a new owner.  He said to be consistent with the way the Board has treated land sale contracts, they hadnít gone back to the person who owns the property and contracted through a land sales contract to someone new as maintaining ownership. He said Taub is the current owner, not the Christensens and that because Taub is the current owner, it was zoned FF20 at the time Taub acquired the property through the land sale contract, currently zoned RR10. He said there has not been a reduction in value as a result of the land use regulation.  He said staffís recommendation on this claim would be reversed from what is in the staff report and they would not recommend it being a valid claim.

 

Cordon

 

Ron Funke, stated he represents the Cordons.  He said they are pursuing getting a valuation.  He said they didnít think it was essential to get a valuation.  He wanted a continuation.  He said the Cordons purchased the property in 1969 and the documentation shows a warranty deed in 1978.  He said they are trying to establish their claim back to 1969 that would allow them to create nine ten- acres parcels in keeping with the land use pattern that currently exists.

 

Gwen Cordon, said she is an owner of the property.  She said they purchased the property at the end of 1968 on a land sales contract.  She added she moved onto the property in 1970 and has lived there since.  She didnít understand the necessity of getting an appraisal since they werenít considering dividing the property to make more money.  She said she has eight children and some want to come back to live on the property.  She wanted to divide the property for an opportunity for her children.  She asked for a continuance to get the appraisal that is needed and provide the required information.

 

MOTION: to held the record open to April 24 and an additional public hearing on May 15.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Davis

 

Diane Missar, Cottage Grove, said she is a north neighbor to the Davis property.  She said the F2 zone has existed for a long time and was the zone when the property was deeded.  She said the zone specifies the minimum parcel size of 80 acres with one dwelling or an allowance for a hardship dwelling.  She said the land use regulations cannot be regarded as restrictive because they were in place at the time Mrs. Davis became owner of the property.  She said there was no reason to delay it because it cannot be considered as valid.  She asked to deny the fast track housing developments in rural areas like this claim.

 

Diana Brown, Cottage Grove, said she is next to the property zoned 20 acres of forest. She indicated that Davis has had many offers for the property to be purchased as a whole piece and has made money on logging.  She added there were offers to do a lot line adjustment and she has not had to pay taxes on it.  Brown said there are two hardship cases on the land where the County only has a permit for one.  She added that up until last year Davis was earning rent on both of the hardships.  Brown said Davis doesnít live in the house.  She didnít think Davis was losing money.  She thought the claim should be denied.

 

Fleenor didnít think there had been a reduction in value.

 

Howe noted at this time the family ownership goes to 1941 when it was unzoned.  He said under the measure, the family could file a claim for compensation.  He added in lieu of compensation, the County could waive the current restrictive land use regulations that are reducing the value of the property.  He said they currently have the restrictive land use regulations of the F2 zone. He said they could waive the regulations to the current owner and the current owner acquired the property when it was zoned.  He said they donít gain anything through this waiver.  He indicated that it protects the County from the issue of compensation.

 

Norm Waterbury, Eugene, stated he represents Ms. Davis.  He believed the claim is valid.  He added they recognize that the family acquired the property in early 1940ís, but Davis received her interest in 1988.  He thought the legislature would be addressing some issues.

 

Marston Morgan, Cottage Grove, said he has a small cattle operation south of the Davis property.  His concern was with the lacking compensation factor in the staff report.  He asked where his compensation was for his reduced property values as a result of the action the Board is taking today.

 

Defoe3

Defoe4

 

Ron Major Defoe, Junction City, wanted to continue the hearing to prepare an evaluation on the property and for Defoe4.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to April 24 and continuing the public hearing to May 15 for Defoe3 and Defoe4

 

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Demers

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Kenyon

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Montgomery

 

Alan Montgomery, Florence,  distributed information into the record.  (Copy in file).  He said his great grandparents and their parents homesteaded the property in 1901 so the ownership is not a problem.  He indicated there was an offer in 1983 from Ball Realty to purchase the property.  He said it gives the purchase price of $1.25 million at that time.  He thought with inflation the land would be worth about $2.5 million.  He said they want permission to go back and build campsites.  He said they would need to build a lodge and administration buildings. He stated that they want to share the property with the public.  He indicated that they acquired interest in the property in 1991.

 

Ron Funke, said he represents Alan Montgomery.  He said the ability to establish a destination campground is allowed under the current F2 zoning.  He added what is not allowed is the ability to have an administrative concession bath house situated on the property.

 

Dwyer asked if it was in an overlay zone.

 

Steve Hopkins, Land Management, said it is likely in an overlay zone regarding coastal lakes and habitant.  He added it is also in the F2 zone.  He said they hadnít identified specifically which current regulations are restricting their value.  He said there have been no identified regulations.

 

Funke said they have a request in for a copy of Ordinance 8-84.  He thought it would be the basis for allowing a building to be put on the site under those ordinances versus what is allowed currently.  He asked for a continuation to bring that evidence forward.

 

MOTION: to leave the record open to April 24 for the application to provide information regarding the specific regulation that diminishes the value that is based on this measure and the subsequent hearing to be held on May 15.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

Stewart said in the staff report it showed the date the property was acquired as December 23, 1999, he asked if they had evidence that it went back to1991.

 

Hopkins indicated that the owners acquired some interest in the property in 1999 and 2000.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Lauri Segel, Eugene, didnít understand why the Board was allowing people to have an extension when it is clear that compensation payouts are established as the date of pioneer ownership but waivers are only good to the current owner back to their date of ownership.

 

Mooney

 

Jeannie Littleton, said she is a neighbor of Mooney.  She asked where the resource was to determine when Mooney took ownership that makes him eligible for the waiver.

 

Myers2

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Nixon49

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Nixon50

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Nixon51

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Nixon52

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Piper

 

Jaclyn Semple said she represented the applicant.  She indicated their position was the same with staffís recommendation and they are asking the Board to adopt the recommendation and approve the claim.

 

Pitcher

 

Lauri Segel, Eugene, commented that this was a sloppy claim.  She indicated one of the tax lots was conveyed to the City of Cottage Grove.  She noted there was a statement in the application that stated there was no street address, but there is one.  She noted there is  a stick built home and mobile home on tax lot 206.  She said there is not enough information that Pitcher isnít the owner in 1974, but the goals applied to directly as to October 5, 1973.  She didnít know if Pitcher could have done what he said he could have done in 1974.

 

Steve Cornacchia, Eugene, stated that they have more than adequately demonstrated the ownership of the property in Pitcherís name.  He noted there were two trusts involved and the conveyances are in the file and have been reviewed by staff and have been found to be within the tract that leads to the conclusion that Pitcher is the current owner of the property.

 

Sue Brown, Culp Creek, said she shares the property frontage with the claimant. She brought her property 10 years ago and she thought the Pitcher property would stay F2.  She was concerned if the claim goes forward he will ask to have his land divided and the rural feeling and nature of the area would be diminished.

 

Poggemeyer

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Powell2

 

Edward Powell, Pleasant Hill, said in 1980 he was transferred from Everett, WA and they purchased a ten acre parcel in Pleasant Hill.  He said the main reason for purchasing the land was to raise his family in a rural type setting.  He said they wanted to have their kids have their own property.  He indicated he bought a big parcel of land so he could divide the property for his children.  He said they paid fees to start to divide the property, but due to circumstances, he was unable to complete the process at that time.  He noted before the zoning laws changed, they were in an area of one to five acre parcels.

 

Howe noted there was no reduction in value.  He said in 1981 the property was acquired by Powell and it was zoned FF20 with a 20 acre minimum size.  He added since that time it has been rezoned RR10 with a ten acre minimum lot and has been upzoned.

 

Riley

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Scheidt

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Sertic

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Shaw

 

William Carpenter, Eugene, stated he represented Carole and Gary Shaw,  He said staff recommended approval as being sufficient and he asked the Board to adopt the recommendation and approve the claim.  He commented that it is a classic Measure 37 claim, what the public believed they were voting on when they granted Measure 37.  He said the Shaws have two children and they would like to have one more subdivided lot to allow each of their children to have property.  He said when they purchased the property it was unzoned.

 

Shoop

 

No one signed up to speak

 

Starns

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Walsh

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Warner

 

Ron Funke, said he represented Warner.  He said he has the appraisal he received on November 27 and it should have been part of the packet.  He indicated that it shows a decrease in value of $193,000.  He said the zoning in place when Warner purchased the property would have allowed one acre parcels and he now has a five acre parcel and wants to partition off two one acre parcels.

 

Stewart said the land use regulation that was in effect at the time was RR5 and it is presently the same zoning.

 

Hopkins recalled the property was acquired by the current owners in 1985 and in 1997.  He said the land was still zoned RR5 according to the warranty deed and bargain sale deed.

 

Michael Warner, said he acquired interest in the property in 1971.

 

Hopkins explained Michael Warner acquired interest in the property in 1971 and  it was unzoned on that date.  He added in 1979 the property went into foreclosure and was acquired by Blake and Neil Finance Company and that property was acquired by them by CUS, Inc. in April, 1985.  He noted that Michael Warner then reacquired the property from CUS and there had been a break in ownership.

 

Warner said he never received tax forms on the property and he thought the property taxes were being paid.  He eventually paid taxes.  He said that was why the property was acquired.

 

Stewart indicated the record shows there is a break of ownership and legally they could only go back to 1979.

 

Warner said there was no break in ownership as far his paying payments every month.  He said he paid the property off in 1984.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to April 24 to allow applicant to show continuous ownership and continued public hearing to May 15.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Wilbur

 

Lee Kirston, Eugene, said that staff recognized their application is similar to the others they presented and were approved.  He said the key issue is the two dates:  ownership and waiver.  He said they were in agreement to adopt the order.

 

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

 

MOTION: to approve Kenyon, Mooney, Myers2, Nixon49, Nixon50, Nixon51, Nixon52, Piper, Pitcher, Poogeymeyer, Scheidt, Sertic, Shaw, Shoop, Walsh and  Wilber154

 

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

MOTION: to deny Christensen.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

 

VOTE 5-0.

 

Davis

 

MOTION: to approve the waiver.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE 4- 1 (Sorenson dissenting).

 

Demers

 

MOTION: to deny the Demers claim.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Powell2

 

MOTION: to deny the Powell2 claim.

 

Green MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Riley

 

MOTION: to deny the Riley claim.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Starns

 

MOTION: to deny the Starns claim.

 

Sorenson MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Stewart said he received questions on how Land Management will move forward with the processing of a Measure 37 application when people move forward.  He said there has been confusion as to the normal process.  He said it was recommended by the Board at an earlier date that all Measure 37 applications for development would have a public hearing.

 

Howe explained the process of a land use application to implement a waiver they received from the Board on a Measure 37 claim.

 

Sorenson was concerned about the opportunity for revisiting decisions and they donít become final.  He said it is the reconsideration rule that adds an additional element of delay and it complicates the process.

 

Howe said it is the same process the Board has that upon an appeal the Board could reconsider and any appeal has the provision in it.

 

Sorenson wanted to know what the change Howe was recommending as opposed to the current system.

 

Howe did not recommend any change.  He indicated the current Lane County provision authorizes any land use application.  He said these types of applications are going to have more controversy than what they had experienced with land use applications in the past.  He said there will be more hearings at the planning director level.

 

Stewart thought they should monitor the direction and see if anything changes in the future.

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Stewart adjourned the meeting at 11:10 a.m.

 

 

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary