BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'

WORK SESSION

February 13, 2007

9:00 a.m.

Commissioners' Conference Room

APPROVED 1/2/2008

 

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 COMMENTS

 

Jim Gillette, Eugene, spoke about the Sheriff’s sale on his property.  He said the Board wasn’t given accurate information.  He asked the Board to hold off on the sale.  He stated that he had done everything he could to get into compliance. He said that he would give the Board his property and his word if any of the fines that are imposed were justified.  He said he was never given a warning before Lane County started fining him.  He wanted more time to get into compliance.

 

Ann McLucas, Eugene, said she was a Professor at the University of Oregon.  She has known Jim Gillette for the past two years.  She said he has a passion and vision for what he wants to do for the community.  She indicated he wants to make his property into a park to share with the public.  She has seen the County fine Gillette $1,000 per day and she said they had failed to check up on whether he has complied with the stipulation.  She said he wasn’t given a chance for an unbiased hearing.  She said based on the testimony of a transient woman (to whom he gave temporary and legal shelter to help her out) when she turned against him, the County took her word about what was going on on his property instead of checking for themselves.  She thought the County was foreclosing on Gillette’s property without any real reason for doing so other than 12 years ago he didn’t have $12,000 to pay to have a hearing.  She said he is in compliance with everything they had laid out.  She said the amount owed is harassment.  She asked the Board to end the harassment and let Gillette proceed without his $32,000 in fines that had accrued that was based on a false charge.

 

Rick Geoffroy, Eugene, said he has known Gillette for two years and in the last year he moved onto Gillette’s property in a rental on a legal lot.  He said he had been doing work for Gillette to clear his property.

 

Fleenor wanted to postpone the auction of Gillette’s land and wanted a work session.

 

Vorhes indicated that timelines were running.  He said they could have a report back but he didn’t know how quick that could be.

 

Dwyer also wanted a work session.

 

Vorhes stated that Dave Williams had been working on the case and he is out of the country and he would be back next week.

 

Green was not supportive of the request. He said they knew that this moment would come.  He indicated staff briefed them on the situation and a majority  of the Board gave staff direction to take this action because it has been ongoing for a long time.

 

Stewart asked if they could stop the Sheriff’s sale.  He wanted a briefing tomorrow.

 

Vorhes said they could have a briefing tomorrow with Land Management staff.

 

Dwyer wanted to discuss this in open session.  He wanted people to be responsible for what they say.

 

Wilson said they could take steps to postpone the Sheriff’s sale.

 

MOTION: to have this issue brought before the Board in open session where they could have a briefing by staff and have the landowner present to refute any testimony that he might consider to be contrary.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

Fleenor amended his motion to postpone the Sheriff’s sale until after they hear from staff.

 

Dwyer amended his second.

 

Stewart was hopeful Gillette would get into compliance.  He supported postponing the sale to hear the options to get Gillette into compliance.

 

VOTE: 4-1 (Green dissenting).

 

C. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE  

 

None.

 

D. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

 

None.

 

E. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEASURE 37 CLAIMS

 

All claims listed will be heard together. Comments should clearly identify the claims to be addressed and speak to the requirements of Measure 37.  For a separate discussion and action following the hearings, claims may be removed by the Board to be considered separately.  The rest of the listed claims may be acted upon by one motion.

 

Further information about each claim is available in the Law Library and Land Management.  Comment forms are available on the County website (www.lanecounty.org) and at the Board meeting to help direct your comments to issues relevant to Measure 37 claims.

 

1. PUBLIC HEARING/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 (PA06-6698, Karlsen)

 

2. PUBLIC HEARING/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 (PA06-6442, Dunn)

 

3. PUBLIC HEARING/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 (PA06-6612, Henton)

 

4. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-2-13-1/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 (PA06-6410, Grife)

 

5. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-2-13-2/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 (PA06-6526, Wheeler)

 

6. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-2-13-3/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 (PA06-6531, Crha)

 

7. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-2-13-4/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 (PA06-6580, Bowers 3)

 

8. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-2-13-5/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 (PA06-6615, Marshall)

 

9. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-2-13-6/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 (PA06-6635, Renaghan)

 

10. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-2-13-7/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 (PA06-6661, Duke)

 

11. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-2-13-8/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 (PA06-6679, Wymer)

 

12. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-2-13-9/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 (PA06-6722, Baxter)

 

13. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-2-13-10/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 (PA06-6729, Olsen)

 

14. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-2-13-11/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 (PA06-6735, McArthur)

 

15. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-2-13-12/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 (PA06-6736, Studer)

 

16. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-2-13-13/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 (PA06-6737, Anderson)

 

17. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-2-13-14/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 (PA06-6743, Dunlap)

 

18. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-2-13-15/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 (PA06-6744, Iverson2)

 

19. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-2-13-16/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 (PA06-6761, Lombard)

 

20. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-2-13-17/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 (PA06-6762, Tapp)

 

21. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-2-13-18/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 (PA06-6772, Cantrell)  

 

Kent Howe, Land Management, explained that they were providing opportunity for citizens to comment on 21 claims.  He said staff mailed notice to the property owners within 1500 feet of the subject properties by January 23.  He said staff had conducted the analysis of the pertinent Measure 37 requirements on the 21 claims and summarized the info in the staff report.  He said it addresses the analysis of ownership, date of acquisition, the current zoning, and 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 owner’s acquisition.  He said for those claims that did not provide an appraisal, the county administrator has waived the appraisal requirement because the applicants have provided a competent analysis of value reduction.  He noted last Friday they received a request from the agent of the Hinton claim requesting their claim be placed on hold.

 

Commissioner Stewart asked if there were any ex parte contacts.

 

There were none.

 

Karlsen

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Dunn

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Henton

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Grife

 

Lynn Bowers thought the Board should deny Measure 37 claims on the increased value of property.

 

Hal Hermanson stated he lives one and a half miles from the Grife’s home.  He read a statement about the market analysis.  He said Lane County doesn’t have the money to pay this Measure 37 claim if it was upheld.  He thought it was about development.  He commented that allowing this to happen was not in line with the voter’s intent.  He said it was a way around current zoning restrictions for personal profit.  He didn’t want to see this happen.

 

Lauri Segel, Eugene, indicated that one of the tax lots recommended for approval by Board order is tax lot 600, a 20 foot wide road that provides access to 11 properties.  She added it is a new road . She thought the road had public need.  She said this tax lot was not configured back to the date of ownership.  She noted on other claims today some tax lots were roads.  She said some of the roads have been created to provide access to some other road.  She asked about the access for tax lot 600.

 

Fleenor asked if Segel’s argument was grounds for denial of the application.

 

Vorhes said they have to look at the property and the value reduction evidence.  He said it might be something as to how they act on the claim for the tax lot.  He said for the rest of them he didn’t think it affected the value reduction evidence on the whole of the property.          

 

Fleenor asked if they could remove tax lot 600 as part of the claim.

 

Vorhes indicated there was already a recommendation to take the tax lot out because of the ownership of that tax lot.  He wanted to see the value reduction evidence to see how it addresses that issue.

 

Joshua Clark, Eugene, stated he represented the applicant.  He noted the road was part of a larger ownership and as parcels were peeled off, easements were granted for access.  He said it is not the applicant’s intent to develop the road.  He said it will remain a road.  He included it as it was part of the total parcel ownership in case there were any layers of regulations that might have affected traffic volumes or additional users.

 

Robin Winfrey, Eugene, said she is within 1500 feet of the Grefe property.  She said the land didn’t decrease in value.

 

Wheeler

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Crha

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Bowers3

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Marshall

 

William Marshall stated he is the owner in question.  He said the property was purchased by his parents in October 1973 and at that time it was zoned AGT, five acre parcels.  He said they had septic approval to divide and they were asked to donate two acres of road easement property to allow them to go through with their division.  He said they didn’t complete the process because of the lack of funds to do so.  He indicated in between that period of time, the zoning changed to different lot sizes.  He said their intent was to divide their property for their retirement.  He said the intent is to provide for his parents and he wanted to go forward with the parcel.

 

Norm Waterbury, Eugene, reported he was familiar with the Marshall case.  He said they got a staff report on Friday and had the date of acquisition as 1989 instead of 1973, when the father purchased the property.  He said if the date of acquisition was 1989, then that would preclude William and Christine from dividing the property because of the rules.   

 

Vorhes said the measure uses the family member issue to drive the compensation.  He said it is to include land use regulations that go back to the date of the earliest family member acquisition for purposes of compensation under the measure.  He said when it gets to the waiver authority of the Board, the measure is clear that it is the current owner as present owner.  He said the waiver is to allow the present owner to use the property in the manner that the present owner could use it based on the regulation in place at the date of that owner’s acquisition.   He said the Board acted on 11 claims last time and has throughout the course of addressing Measure 37 where the current owner is a family member who has a more recent acquisition date.  He indicated that the Board had used that date as the waiver date.

 

Renaghan

 

Mike Farthing, Eugene, stated he is a land use attorney representing Victor and Linda Renaghan.  He said they have owned the property since 1980.  He stated there has been some confusion with the application.  He thought the recommendation for denial was wrong.  He said it was a valid claim. He said there is an issue on valuation and configuration of the property.  He said there has been a long past.  He noted it is a destination resort zone and natural resource.  He said it was the only privately owned property zoned natural resource.  He stated his application was not for the DR portion.  He said part of the confusion is because everyone commonly uses tax lots and the tax lots got confusing.  He said originally there was tax lot 300 for the entire property.  He added in 2002 they began a legal lot process.  He said there are 14 legal lots, some going back to 1936.  He indicated that it was called Roosevelt Beach.  He said there was a post office and a small community.  He said they got the legal lots verified and turned it over to their surveyor to reconfigure them.  He noted there were some mistakes made, but declarations of property line adjustments were recorded and that what resulted in some erroneous tax lots.  He thought the legal lots were correct.  He indicated that he needs to work with Vorhes to work out the details.  He noted that one legal lot is the DR zone and is not part of their analysis.  He indicated with their broker’s analysis, they identified a $4.5 million reduction in value.  He said their claim is asking for the waiver of the NR zone to roll  back to what it was zoned when the Renaghan’s acquired it:  forest management, 40 acre minimums.  He wanted it rolled back to 1980 when they acquired the property.  He said the application was just for the NR zone.  He thought they had a valid claim.   

 

Green asked if there had been evidence with an NR zone before.

 

Howe said they had received the information Farthing provided.  He indicated the concern staff has is in 1981 the County Commissioners zoned the ownership, tax lot 300, split zoned it tourist commercial and conservation open space.  He noted in 1984, the zoning changed to destination resort for the area they identified and the balance of the property into a natural resource designation.  He explained that the destination resort designation increases the property value as a whole.  He said since 1984, they were talking about one ownership and tax lot.  He noted subsequent to that, there had been separate legal lots identified.  He indicated the destination resort property represents one legal lot and there are 13 other legal lots they moved to have them located in the natural resource designation.  He said the destination resort was authorized as a permitted use for lodges, hotels, motels, condos, single and multi family dwellings.  

 

Farthing wanted to work things out as he disagreed with Kent Howe.  He was willing to waive the 180 days.

 

Victor Renaghan, Larkspur, CA, said all he wanted was the rights under the law. He noted when he bought the property in 1980 he put in for a destination resort, limiting it to 26 acres.  He said they were trying to do an ecotourism resort.  He said they got it zoned tourist commercial and they could do anything they wanted.  He added that they were changed to destination resort and it was limited to 25 percent residential.  With regard to valuation, he said if he had tourist commercial, the value would be greater.  He said being designated destination resort, confines 75 percent of the property to tourist related activities.  He said they provided the appropriate valuation documentation and it was a $4 million tentative loss.  He thought they qualified.   

 

Fleenor asked if they could see a dollar loss in valuation.

 

Vorhes said he needed to see something that addresses valuation for the Board to move forward.  He said the value reduction analysis is not precise and there is a possibility they could end up with evidence in the record that shows the DR designation and the next reduction could be some reduction in value.

 

Lauri Segel, Eugene, said when the applicant purchased the property it was in 1980 and the goals applied directly then.  She commented that even though the County’s comprehensive plan wasn’t adopted until 1984, it didn’t mean the goals didn’t apply.   She said much of the County was being considered for rural residential zoning or other forms of non resource zoning and that was challenged.  She added during the interim period the goals applied directly.  She didn’t think they could approve this kind of action pursuant to the date of ownership.

 

Farthing agreed the goals applied in 1980.  He said this is Goal 4  forest land and they are asking for a roll back to FM forest management

 

Duke

 

William Duke  said he wasn’t aware of the staff recommendation on where he stands.

 

Dwyer noted staff’s recommendation is to adopt his claim.

 

Wymer

 

Barry Smith, Springfield, stated he is the attorney for Bev Whymer.  He reviewed the staff report and didn’t see any comments in support or opposition.  He said if the Board decided to adopt the proposed order, there were some Scriveners errors.

 

Douglas Wagner, Pleasant Hill, stated his property is adjacent to the Whymer property.  He wasn’t opposed to the owners doing this under Measure 37.  He was concerned the property might be exempt under ORS.197.352( 3)(b), enacting exemptions based on health and sanitation.  He said the property is close to the watershed and rivers and the proposal by the applicant is to divide the property into one acre or larger parcels.  He said the 140 acres could be come 140 parcels for dwellings.  He thought that exceeded the density of dwellings in the immediate area.  He believed the property was exempt under ORS 197.352(3)(b)

 

Lauri Segel asked how 556 acres zoned RR2 is more restrictive than the zoning that was in place in 1970, AGT.  She didn’t see a loss in value.  She thought there should be a review by the Board.

 

Smith indicated the 56 acres is not entirely zoned RR2.  He said there is only a small portion and the balance of the 56 acres is zoned AGT with one acre minimums.

 

Baxter

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Olsen

 

Brenda Olsen, said she is the owner of the property.  She said they purchased the property in 1965 and have owned it ever since.  She noted the property is 75 acres.  Her claim is to divide it into three parcels.  She said her son built a home on it in 1990 through a second dwelling permit but they have not been able to divide the property because of the zoning.  She recalled when they bought it, it was FF20 and now it is EFU 40.  She commented that the measure was made for people like her.  She asked if the waiver is approved if there were any time restraints if they don’t divide the land immediately.  

 

Stewart responded that the waiver is only good for Olsen. He said the land division would have to happen before she passes away.

 

McArthur

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Studer

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Anderson

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Dunlap

 

Boyd Iverson, Eugene,  spoke on behalf of the Dunlaps.  He asked if tax lot 704  comes into her name through the process if she would be subject to the F2 guidelines.

 

Howe stated that was correct.

 

Loretta Downs, Eugene, said her parents and brother have passed away and she is trying to get her parents’ estate settled and into her name and into a trust so she can protect its value.  She indicated she is the fourth generation to have the property.  She said it was purchased by her great-grandparents in 1900.

 

Iverson2

 

Boyd Iverson, Eugene, said the property in question was purchased by his parents in 1965 and at that time it was unzoned.  He said he took title to one parcel in 1980 and his son took another title.  He indicated there are five tax lots adding up to 1.04 acres.  He said the property is not farm forestry property.  He noted from 1980 there have been changes in the requirements of the zoning and it is more restrictive.  He requested to be allowed to whatever he could back in 1980 instead of the conditions that exist today.

 

Lombard

 

Jim Belknap, Cottage Grove, reported that Mr. Lombard purchased the property in partnership with Gorman Wright on May 30, 1976.  He said they were developers.  He noted the subject property was part of a larger tract of about 67.7 acres and 9.8 acres inside the urban growth boundary in the City of Cottage Grove.  He said the rest of the acreage abutted the urban growth boundary on three sides.  He noted at that time it was zoned AGT with a five acre minimum parcel size.  He said Lombard and Wright were actively engaged in developing various parcels of land in the Cottage Grove area.  He said six acres of the area inside the urban growth boundary was annexed and developed as a single family residential home site.  He said they met the issues for history of ownership and acquisition.  He wanted the AGT 5 applied to the property.

 

Herb Lombard was present to answer questions.

 

Tapp

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Cantrell

 

Connie Cantrell Shirtcliff, Eugene, spoke on behalf of her parents.  She noted in the map lot distinction that there was an inaccuracy.  She said the property is only 26 plus acres instead of 127 that were stated in the letter.  She indicated that her parents have lived on the portion of the property for over four generations.  She said they have had a difficult time in the past 15 years because the farming industry was lean.  She said it was their desire that before they pass away that they leave each of their children individually,  a portion of this property.  She said they want the two acre lots divided.  She stated they had no intention of developing it.

 

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

 

MOTION: to tentatively approve Karlsen,, Dunn, Wheeler, Crha, Bowers3, Marshall, Duke, Baxter, Olsen, McArthur,  Studer, Anderson, Dunlap, Iverson2, Lombard, Tapp and Cantrell claims.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

Stewart heard in the testimony that there was an error in Cantrell.

 

Sorenson recalled there was a Scrivener’s error on Wymer.

 

Vorhes stated the Cantrell order does indicate it is 26.4 acres.  He said the notice letter had the incorrect acreage.  

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Henton

 

MOTION: to allow them to work out the Henton and Renaghan claim and to put it on hold.  He said they have agreed to waive the 180 days.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).

 

Grife

 

Sorenson didn’t think the evidence established a denial of value involving property lot 600 because it was a road.  He said they didn’t identify the devaluation.

 

Vorhes said the request for including the road was to look at the restrictive changes in road regulations recognizing that there could be some connection in the reduction of value.  He said the waiver doesn’t necessary address the traffic safety issues that will need to be addressed.  

 

MOTION: to approve the Grife claim.

 

Green MOVED,  Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).

 

Wymer

 

Stewart indicated there was a scrivener’s error.

 

MOTION: to approve the Wymer claim with the tax lot correction.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).  

 

Green commented that the process to hear the claims ran efficient and they should do it the same way in the future.  

 

F. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

Dwyer announced the income tax meeting taking place tonight.  

 

Green announced 5:30 p.m. tonight is Art from the Heart at Café Today.  

 

G. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

 

None.

 

H. EMERGENCY BUSINESS

 

None.

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Stewart recessed the meeting at 11:05 a.m.

 

 

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary