BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'

WORK SESSION

Tuesday, June 5, 2007

9:00 a.m.

Harris Hall Main Floor

APPROVED 10/3/2007

 

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/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 (PA05-6425, Bixler).

 

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 (PA06-7245, Brooks).

 

3. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-6-5-1/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 (PA06-5001, Collis).

 

4. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-6-5-2/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 (PA06-7126, Defoe2).

 

5. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-6-5-3/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 (PA06-7127, Defoe3).

 

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 (PA06-7128, Defoe4).

 

7. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-6-5-4/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 (PA05-6785, Eymann).

 

8. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-6-5-5/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 (PA06-7261, Hansen2).

 

9. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-6-5-6/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 (PA06-7309, Harper1).

 

10. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-6-5-7/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 (PA06-7310, Harper2).

 

11. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-6-5-8/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 (PA06-7346, Inman).

 

12. 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 (PA06-7224, Kester).

 

13. 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 (PA06-7295, Kronke).

 

14. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-6-5-9/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 (PA06-7106, Lamb1).

 

15. 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 (PA06-7202, Miller).

 

16. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-6-5-10/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 (PA06-7250, Moulton).

 

17. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-6-5-11/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 (PA06-7340, Patterson).

 

18. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-6-5-12/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 (PA06-7226, Schrenk)

 

19. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-6-5-13/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 (PA06-7242, Troutman2).

 

20. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-6-5-14/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 (PA06-7216, Wilson).

 

21. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-6-5-15/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 (PA06-7345, Woodrich).

 

22. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-6-5-16/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 (PA06-7191, Zip-O-Logs).

 

Commissioner Stewart asked if there were any ex parte contacts.

 

There were none.

 

Kent Howe, Land Management, indicated the Board would be commenting on 22 claims.

He noted as of May 22, all of the Measure 37 claims Lane County received had a hearing.He noted today they have had claims that have been heard up to three times and it had been announced that they would be heard today. Howe indicated they conducted an analysis and summary information as to the analysis of ownership, date of acquisition and current zoning at the time of the acquisition.He added 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 noted there are five claims recommended for denial: Bixler, Brooks, Defoe4, Kronke and Miller.He added with Kester, staff came to the conclusion that it is a valid claim.He indicated the Boardís final hearing date will be June 20 for the remaining 30 Measure 37 claims.He added the claimants had an opportunity to make their case and if additional time is needed and if the Board is in agreement, staff has come up with June 8 for submitting additional information and continued deliberations would take place on June 20.He indicated to date 288 of 393 cases have been approved.He indicated 52 have been continued, 22 will be heard today and 30 claims will be heard on June 20.He noted that 26 claims were denied.He added that 14 claims requested to be put on an indefinite hold by the applicant and 13 claims were withdrawn.He noted that HB 3546 gave additional days for the claims and he recommended the 14 claims be heard on March 12, 2008.

 

Commissioner Stewart opened the Public Hearing.

 

Bixler

 

Selene Price, Eugene, stated she read the supplemental memo and they are slated to be denied. She was confused because it appeared to be a life estate. She said her grandparents and mother owned it.She indicated it was purchased in 1974 and her mother put money in. She said the property was put into a life estate in 1997 and ownership was never changed.She didnít understand the analysis of the documents.

 

Howe responded that it was unclear to staff.He noted there was a separate bargain and sale agreement in 1997 and that was the date the acquisition occurred.He stated based upon the information that was just given, it would make a case that the family has had continuous ownership and make it a valid claim for compensation to 1974, but for a waiver to 1997, the date of acquisition.

 

Price said in 1974 it showed her motherís $35,000 initial purchase price in the document.

 

Dwyer asked about the bargain sale deed in 1997.

 

Vorhes said it established ownership in Joyce and the conveyance in 1974 was to Leon and Lily, it gave an interest in the future to Joyce, but it didnít occur.He said under the analysis and for the future interest holders, it didnít occur until 1997 when there was a bargain and sale deed.He noted that was the family connection for compensation to 1974 and assuming compensation analysis, then the waiver goes to 1997 because that is when ownership and future interests came under the measure.He said it was not a life estate; it is a bargain and sale deed to Joyce.

 

Fleenor commented that it appeared the family had continuous ownership.He said he would support the waiver.

 

Kent noted the waiver would go to the current owners and that date of acquisition is 1997.

 

Dwyer stated they made a decision about transferability and the waiver and they treated everyone this way so far so it wouldnít be fair to make an exception. He said he had to stick with the decision.

 

Stewart asked if they grant the waiver to 1997 and for the family to 1974, if at a later date someone brought in proof, if it would be possible to change the date from 1997 to 1974.

 

Vorhes recommended continuing this one for approval.He recalled there had been cases where the Board approved an order and they were contacted by the claimant that the wrong information had been given to them.He suggested more time before they adopted this order.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to June 8 and continue the hearing to June 20 for information to establish ownership.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Lois Bixler, Eugene, said she is the daughter of Leon and Lily and her mother had the ownership of land since 1974.She said her mother had been a silent partner and co-owner.She noted in 1997 her husband was put down on the deed.She indicated her parents became ill and her husband came on because she was still part owner. She stated the land had never changedhands, and they were the sole owners of the land.She indicated upon death of her parents in 2004, the land was deeded to her.She added that she has full ownership of the land.

 

Brooks

 

No one signed up to speak on the claim.

 

Collis

 

Ed. St. Clair, Eugene, stated he received a call that Mrs. Collis was injured.He represented her.

 

Jim Babson, Eugene, stated when he received the staff report on May 15, he stated the date of ownership was '74 and now it mentions 1973.He looked through the file and the document history of conveyance is the date of acquisition of March 24, 1974.He asked if it was a mistake to 1973.

 

Howe indicated that originally the deed was March 22, 1974, but in additional information the deed was referenced as Ed Koch and Diane signed granting to Denis and Julie Collis as to May 1, 1973.He said they had a contract and that is why they moved it to 1973.

 

Fleenor asked what the significance was of the 1974 transaction and recording that actually conveyed the deal.

 

Howe responded that was when they first acquired interest in the property.

 

Vorhes explained the assignment date is the first date the claimants acquired an interest in the property.He said going to the original memo, they were not a party. He noted the corrected date is March 22, 1974, the date recorded was March 15 and March 22, 1974 was the first time the claimant got buyersí interest in the property.He recommended using March 22, 1974.

 

Defoe2

 

Jim Babson recalled on May 8 it was recommended to waive to '98 and Defoe submitted information to 1970 and that wasnít available on the website.He asked where the 1970 date came from.

 

Defoe3

 

No one signed up to speak on the claim.

 

Defoe4

 

No one signed up to speak on the claim.

 

Eymann

 

No one signed up to speak on the claim.

 

Hansen2

 

No one signed up to speak on the claim.

 

Harper1

 

Fred Batson, Eugene, stated he represents Janet Harper.He said staff recommended approval.He said his client acquired property in 1965 and 1966, the waivers are for 6 out of 7 and they are recommending waivers only to 1997 because Harper put six parcelsinto limited partnership in 1996.He said it had a specific termination date.He thoughtthey should waive it to 1965 and 1966 because he doesnít think she has to have 100 percent ownership, just an interest in the property.He added she retained control of the property.†† He said one parcel has a title report and it is still her property and always has been.He said they want the waiver to when she acquired the property, not to the date she put it in limited family ownership.

 

Vorhes said the conveyance is a new owner for the partnership and statutory provisions that talks to the partners' issue in the property is that there isnít interest by the partners at that point and that is why the date of the wavier.He added for purposes of compensation, because of the family and being controlled by a previous family member who was an individual, it looked as a continuous family ownership.For the waiver they looked at the acquisition date of the partnership as date of ownership of the current owner.

 

Fleenor stated that all tax lots specified in the waiver appear that they are all owned by the Harper limited partnership.

 

Batson indicated that six properties are in the Harper limited partnership.He added this is different because it has a specific determination date.He noted that Parcel 902 was never put into a limited partnership and waiver should go to the original date.He indicated that Janet had interest the whole time and he thinks it should be back to the date they acquired the property.

 

Vorhes indicated the legal conclusions reached and the analysis is the waiver goes to the current owner and the current owner is the partnership.

 

Harper2

 

Fred Batson, Eugene, stated he represents Warren Harper.With regard to valuation, he said staff accepted and the waiver is to the original date of acquisition.He noted there is a difference in the wording of the order in Harper1 and the request for Harper2 is that it be the same as to the sand and gravel operations.He wanted it to be consistent with the same language as what staff put in the order.

 

Vorhes explained in the Harper1 order, the language discussed is in the ordered paragraph, the restriction of Lane Code 121, limited development or dwelling, and sand and gravel text is not in Harper2, but could be inserted.He said there is a reduction analysis in value and they addressed it.

 

Inman

 

John Zemek, Elmira, wanted to know if the Inmans were putting up a 30 home development.He indicated the valuation is based on a 30 home subdivision.

 

Dwyer commented that they donít have to do anything, just show a loss of valuation as a result of regulations on what they could have done that diminishes that value.

 

Zemek said originally it was a $2 million loss.He said it was based on a 30 acre subdivision. He thought that increased valuation. He submitted information that protested the claim but he said it wasnít on record.

 

David Inman, Portland, stated he was doing this to get options for his children and grandchildren.

 

Howe said since staff did the supplemental memo, they determined tax lot 100 was a valid claim for compensation. He said they tracked the deed that went to ownership of 1941 for the family. He said he would need another order for the current owner to February 25, 1997, the order reflects for lots 300 and 400.He said they have to add lot 100 to 1997.

 

Kester

 

Jim Belknap, Cottage Grove, stated he represents Linde and Sharon Kester.He noted the continuance from the hearing on May 8.He said it has been heavily discussed since the hearing that there has been criticism about state.He said they went to the expenditure of time and money to submit a claim and had good advice that they had valid applications.He said they have tried to make the case originally, the application was recommended for denial for ownership because part is in the trust.He said they dealt with ownership and other things came up.He noted the property is E-40 and Kesterís property was in forest management.He said they wanted E-40 and in 1984 applied to this property.He said Vorhes said that was contrary to what the policy had been.He recommended Kester review with legal counsel and they decided to bring into conformance and take it to the original forest management zoning at the date of their acquisition.He thought they addressed the issues.He noted last Friday the recommendation was still for denial and they donít know why it wasnít recommended for approval.He explained the property was acquired in three acquisitions.He noted the first five acre parcel was in 1981, from Bellamy on January 2.He added they acquired more land and at the time of the acquisition, it was zoned forest management.He noted under forest management zoning the dwellings were an outright permitted use.He added on June 13, 1983 they acquired more property, in March '82, three months after the first purchase and before the second, the forest management zone was changed and the dwellings were subject to a special use permitting process.He indicated it met the three criteria and the property would have been approved under a special permit for a dwelling in 1983. He said it wonít be approved today because he doesnít meet the $80,000 income rule.He wants to make sure what is being recommended is to be approved.

 

Howe indicated that staff found out the date of acquisitions of '81, '82 and '83.He said the ordinance regarding the farm management zone was 1982 an ordinance for one year was April 16, 1982 and it required a special use permit before April 16, 1982, t hey were outright permitted.He added after 1983, they were outright permitted and those properties all acquired were outside of the time frame it was a discretionary process.He determined it was a valid claim.

 

Vorhes explained the assumptions used for value reduction are that certain things could have happened at the time they acquired the property.He said the facts for value reduction provide some evidence and it makes the value reduction more reliable.

 

Mike Farthing stated he agreed completely.He said there were some forest management properties around.Hesaid he had nothing more to add.

 

Jim Batson stated there originally were three lots and the date of acquisition from 1996 had no reduction.He noted lot 2250 was removed.

 

Belknap said a portion of the staff report discussed the 1996 deed.They interpreted conveyance in 1996 as the date the title was passed.The date they paid for the land sale contract was in 1983.He added the date they acquired the property was June 13, 1983.

 

Kronek

 

No one signed up to speak on the claim.

 

Lamb1

 

Doris Lamb stated she was glad she received what she was looking for.She asked what the 180 days meant that she waived.She asked if what was being granted could be covered under the new legislation.

 

Miller

 

Mike Farthing stated this is an out-of-the-ordinary application.He noted the date of acquisition is 1995.He said it is located on Hayden Bridge Road in Springfield.He indicated it is a 20 acre parcel with 1.5 acres in the urban growth boundary.He noted the remaining parcels are located north of the urban growth boundary. He said the application is only for the area outside of the urban growth boundary.He said they did not file an application with the City of Springfield.He said the request is for the waiver of the $80,000 income requirement that applies to EFU land.He wanted to roll it back to the $20,000 income requirement in effect in 1995 when the Millers acquired the property.He said they believe they could qualify at least one parcel in the EFU zone outside the UGB area for farm dwellings.He indicated the dwelling that currently exists on the property is located inside the UGB.He said they would partition off along the UGB and that was what the valuation analysis is based on.He indicated the current valuation of the lot is $660,000 with one dwelling.He added if one more dwelling could be located, there has been a loss value by reason of the imposition of the EFU $80,000 requirement.He noted staff stated it wasnít a valid claim. He thought it was high valued farmland and it is impossible to get a dwelling on high value farmland.He indicated all they wanted was the $80,000 income figure to be rolled to $20,000, which was in effect in 1995 when they acquired the property.He noted the valuation analysis stated a bare lot outside the UGB, along the McKenzie River is worth $475,000 and it is not capable of being developed and that is what they want the right to do.

 

Stewart thought the requirement of $80,000 wasnít on that portion of property outside of the UGB with regulations imposed on it at the date of acquisition, it was $20,000 and it has limited what they could do on the piece of property.He commented that it was hard to meet the $80,000 but possible to the $20,000. He added there is no guarantee.

 

Howe said the question is about it being in farm use and the record has no information.He said if it is being farmed, he didnít know at what level.He said with a large portion of the property in the UGB the land use regulations have increased the value.

 

Vorhes explained with the value reduction, its assumptions underlie the analysis. He added whether those assumptions are reasonable and to rely on them in the conduct of business affairs is the test they use in addressing the adequacy of the evidence that addresses the reduction in value.He said this one is a farm dwelling, but the use is no different.He said the $20,000 is still a farm dwelling; it is not a residential non-farm use.He said the discussion is around farm dwelling and if the evidence is addressing both.He noted under the current zoning they canít have farm dwellings or farm related dwellings.

 

Farthing stated there have been other cases where similar uses were addressed. He said it had to do with the farm dwelling versus out righted permitted use.He requested leaving the record open to June 8for review and the public hearing on June 20.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to June 8 and continue the public hearing to June 20.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0 (Dwyer out of room).

 

Moulton

 

Martha Moulton, Pleasant Hill, thanked the Board for accepting the valuation.She wanted the purchase date to be consistent, as it might affect the state.She said the land sales contract was dated March 1979.She indicated the date she submitted was the date the sale was recorded, November 1979.She wanted to submit the information and would waive her final until then.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to June 8 and continue the public hearing to June 20.

 

Green MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

 

VOTE; 4-0 (Dwyer out of room).

 

Patterson

 

Ron Funke thanked the Board for the reconsideration of her claim.

 

Schrenk

 

Jim Bellknap, Cottage Grove, stated he represents the Schrenks. He indicated this was recommended for approval but there is still an error from the staff report from last month and it has not been resolved.He said on May 8 they discussed the ownership of the property.He noted there was a land sales contract dated 1966 when Corinn and Betty Schrenk bought the property from Ernest and Belva Schrenk, Corinnís parents. He said the land sale contract was dated May 1, 1966.He added in 1978 there was a deed from Belva Schrenk and the representative from the estate of Ernest Schrenk to Corey and Betty that satisfied the land sales contract.He said it was the conveyance that satisfied the contract and it included 100 acres on the south part of the property that was added to the 1978 deed.He added at that time the property was zoned farm forestry 20.He noted in 1979 there was land conveyed to Corey and Betty Schrenk and merged the property back together.He said the staff report has an error.He asked the Board to review page 2 of the staff report.He said they acquired title in 1978 but acquired an ownership interest in 1966.He said the staff report stated the date of acquisition of 1978 and 1979 but it isnít right.He wanted staff to review this.

 

Fleenor asked if there was any proof of a land sales between Velva Schrenk and Ernest Schrenk as of 1966.

 

Vorhes said the linkage and conveyance that occurred in 1978 and what happened under the contract and whether that conveyance in 1978 was the completion of the land sales contract, were another conveyance that was unrelated to the land sales contract.He said the ownership interest started with the land sales contract.He said earliest family ownership for purpose of compensation analysis and who the current owner is and when they acquired it sometimes get blended.He thought in this case there could be additional evidence that could come in to draw the current ownership back to the earlier date.

 

Bellknap didnít believe the County ever required a purchaser under a land sales contract to provide evidence of not being in default on the contract.He said the contract stated the purchase price, the down payment and payments made.He said it was an unrecorded contract and there was no escrow account.He said staff has the actual land sales contract.He said when Ernest Schrenk died, his estate provisions called for satisfaction of the contract, that the deed would be conveyed to his son and his daughter-in-law in settlement of that contract.He said they still established that they acquired ownership interest on May 1, 1966.He added they didnít acquire fee title until 1978.He didnít think anyone else in the County had to provide that payments were actually made.

 

Betty Schrenk, Creswell, stated her husbandís brother was the executor of her father-in-lawís estate and he could submit the evidence.

 

Green stated in the analysis it stated on May 1, 1966, there was a land sales contract but it was not recorded.He asked if she had a document.

 

Schrenk stated she had that copy.She added at the time the contracts were sold, they discussed recording it and her father-in-law said it is not the law and didnít record it.

 

Green said there was no mention of the contract with Velva.

 

Vorhes indicated that was the problem staff was having.He said they heard testimony from the applicant and the applicantís agent about the connection in the estate to the land sales contract.He said they didnít have the documents.He indicated there is nothing that tells them how it was finalized specifically.He indicated there is a deed that shows up as part of the estate and the sellerís interest has not been accounted for.He didnít think they needed the evidence of payments.He said if there are things in the administration of the estate or the finalization of the estate that this conveyance is in fulfillment of the sale and the sellerís interest in the land sales contract is being conveyed as part of the estate, it would be helpful and makes the linkage back to the land sales contract.He said the deed that shows up in 1978 makes no mention that it is related to the contract and the testimony said it was done and part of the estate was designed to fulfill the contract and that was the evidence they were looking for.

 

Bellknap said prior to 1966, Ernest and Velva had executed deeds between them to divide their property.He added in the contract it makes a specific reference that it is understood the real property described as Parcel A is the real property of Velva Schrenk.He said the real property as Parcel B is a separate and distinct property of Ernest Schrenk.He said they had previously divided the farm between them by deed.He said when they sold, it was under a single land sale contract, each as vendors.He said Corinne and Betty were the buyers and they purchased the two properties under a contract from their parents.He indicated the satisfaction of the contract was the execution of the deed by the personal representative of the estate of Ernest Schrenk.Bellknap said he executed a deed on behalf of his father.He noted the other was the execution of the same deed by Velva and she conveyed her ownership interest in the property and the estate conveyed the ownership interest of the father Ernest in the 1978 deed.He indicated there were no other deeds.He said it completed the chain of title on this property.He believed they had a land sales contract and the contract was satisfied and title was conveyed that had an ownership interest in two distinct parcels of property.

 

Dwyer was in agreement with this.

 

Stewart also thought it was spelled out.

 

Vorhes noted the deeds never mentioned the contract.He said the Board heard testimony around the facts that were related to and connected with deeds to the land sales contract so it would not be unreasonable for the Board to conclude that there is a connection and ownership interest as a contract buyer was completed by the conveyance of the deeds.

 

Green wanted it recorded in the paperwork so in case they get challenged, they would have the information.He asked when they adopt the final order if all of this would be recorded.

 

Vorhes indicated they corrected the dates to reflect the testimony.He said it is up to the Board to decide what enough evidence is.

 

Green recommended the minutes reflect this discussion so it is consistent with the intent of the Board.

 

Bellknap said he would do a one page memo that would follow what he said.He thought they have a conveyance in the title.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to June 9 and have a further public hearing on June 20 to allow to provide for additional supporting information to the original date of actions.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

Stewart thought there was enough information in the file.

 

Dwyer indicated he did not support the motion.

 

Fleenor stated he wanted to provide an extension to allow staff to redraft the board order based upon receiving the evidence that was brought forth today.

 

Bellknap said this was not recommended for denial, it was recommended for approval, based on the farm forestry 20 zoning with the erroneous interpretation that all of the property was conveyed in 1978.He prepared a draft of what he thought the appropriate order was.He said if a continuance is in order, it needs to be to adopt this portion of the order that would be presented to the Board for approval. He said they need staff to review the land sales contract and review the deed that conveyed the ownership interest. He said it needs to be the property acquired in 1966 is subject to the AGT zoning and the property that was acquired in 1978 and 1979 is subject to farm forestry 20 zone.

 

VOTE: 3-2 (Dwyer, Stewart dissenting).

 

Troutman2

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Wilson

 

Norm Waterbury, Eugene stated he represented the Wilsons.He indicated they have a continuance from a prior hearing.He requested the record be left open in order to show the acquisition date of the subject property was earlier than the date shown on the waiver.He said actual acquisition date was 1967 when the Wilsons purchased the property under a land sales contract.He said the Wilsons were unable to locate the actual contract.He sent a letter to staff about this and what they have uncovered was the actual payment book the Wilsons made to U.S. National Bank for the property.He said it shows the property from the original date of purpose of January 1967 to 1973. He didnít think it was conclusive evidence but they are trying to negotiate with U.S. National Bank in Cottage Grove to get more information on payments on the property.He contacted the taxation department and was told he would receive the tax bill and who paid for it.He indicated he had earlier documents showing the Wilsons made payments on the property.He turned that in to staff but didnít hear anything back. He offered to provide every payment from 1967 to 1972.He asked the County if that was necessary but got no response from that offer.

 

Dwyer stated the tax record for 1966 or 1967 was enough for him.

 

Howe said what they have in the record is a payment statement from the bank that goes back to 1967; they donít have tax information that goes back to that date.

 

Waterbury said it goes back prior to 1973. He said he could get the statement back to the 1967 date.

 

Dwyer asked what was different between 1966 and 1973.

 

Howe indicated they have no evidence of a land sales contract.He said they have payment cards from a bank that go back to 1967 but as far as Lane County tax information, it goes to 1971.He said there is a significant difference in 1973.

 

Waterbury said they wanted to overcome the hurdle of Goal 3.He said this is not a subdivision, but a minor partition.

 

Woodrich

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Zip O Logs

 

Marilyn Cohen, Eugene, stated she is a neighbor of the Zip O Log property.She said she previously sent comments to the Board to deny the Zip O Log claim.She said there were two issues.She wanted the Board to delay entry of a final order in this case until the claimant provides evidence of final state action, provided the stay does not exceed 540 days from the date the claimant filed the initial claim.She said there will be an appeal on this case and that will be costly for all parties involved. She said depending upon the state decision, a delay of entry of a final order until the state claim is final could obviate the need for an appeal and save the costs.She stated that there would be no harm to the County if there is a delay because of the extra 360 days to issue an order and there would be no harm to the claim.She indicated under the order that was proposed by the County, the claimant is precluded from seeking County land use approval until the claimant provides evidence of final state action.She said it would be delaying the case until that time when there is final state action.She urged the Board to adopt the state legislatureís method of determining the reduction in the fair market value as set forth in HB 3540.She noted the legislation defines the reduction in fair market value from the date that is one year before the enactment of the land use regulation to the date that is one year after the enactment plus enactment.She said this was similar to what she urged in her initial submission to the Board.She commented that whether or not the legislation is enacted, the methodology should be adopted by the Board.She said it is an established way of doing appraisals and prevents the windfall created by the single exemption method.She stated it would have a significant impact.She said the subject land was in forest use the year before and after the land use regulation went into effect and there is likely to be no reduction in value caused by enactment of the regulation.She asked for a delay for the entry of the order, not the delay of the final order.

 

Green said Zip O Logs has the vested interest under the law.He said it has to do with fairness for the applicant.He asked in the interest of fairness for the applicant who is spending resources to have their application heard by the Board and costing them money from a resource issue, if it was fair to delay their claim.

 

Cohen said they cannot act on a land use permit under the proposed matter until the state action is final.She said the delay wonít cause them any problems; they have to wait.She thought it would cost them more to intervene on an appeal.She commented that the state decision may obviate the need for an appeal and could save expenses.

 

Peter Moulton, Eugene, stated he lives 1,000 feet from Zip O Log.He commented that this claim has to wait for a state level decision.He asked the Board to delay issuing the final order until the state has made its decision.He said it would avoid premature and unnecessary appeals that would be costly to all parties including the Board of Commissioners, Zip O Logs and area neighbors.He believed primary stated purpose of Lane Code Chapter 16 is the protection of public health and safety and it must be an ongoing issue to the current time.He stated this claim is in a water restricted area and the state forester issued statements about the increase of fire danger in the urban wildlife zones and said it was the number one issue.He requested in any consideration of reduction of value, for compensation or if there is no reduction in value that in considering any reduction in value that the Board use the methods included in HB3540.He indicated it would determine the fair market value one year prior to the enactment of the restrictions and one year following the restrictions and if there is a reduction in value, considering fair compensation according to established rates of interest.

 

Andrea Taylor, Eugene, wanted a continuance.She said her house will have no value if her well runs dry.She said it affects neighbors.

 

Neil Miller, Eugene, stated he and his wife own 130 acres of F2 land adjacent to the Zip O Log property.He urged the Board to delay this matter.He commented that the uncertainty of the decision of the state would create a situation where they would all expend money on legal costs that could be moot if the state decided not to approve this.He said the intent of Measure 37 is to compensate people for loss of value and he stated counsel had advised the Board not to consider the method used in determining loss of value. He said valuation wasnít being submitted by a certified appraiser.He said they have a comparative market analysis by a real estate broker who is not an objective third party.He said there are 295 acres ofF1 land north of the property.He said that property is under a federally mandated grant being administered by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.He noted in the program they identified three species of concern.He said he spoke with the administrator for fish and wildlife about this and he stated any development on the property would destroy the restoration program,violating the Endangered Species Act.He thought that should be give consideration.He said the Oregon Department of Forestry has stated that over 66 percent of wildfires in Lane County over the last five years have been human caused.He asked the Board to delay their decision.

 

Mike Reeder stated he represents Zip O Logs.He said there was an analysis provided by some of the opponents about the valuation.He concurred with staff that any loss of value caused by the land use regulations is sufficient for a Measure 37 claim.He said there has been a reduction of fair market value.He said the Endangered Species Act is relevant to all Measure 37 claims and all development regardless of Measure 37.He reviewed the materials submitted by the opponents and didnít have anything else.He said they cannot interpret an ordinance to gut another ordinance.He said the concern about zoning for health and safety would gut Measure 37.He said constitutionally they cannot make that type of stretch.

 

David Simone, Peaceful Valley, stated he and his wife lived on Laughlin Road for 23years and the area has changed with timber cut and people moved in.He was concerned about the fire danger.He doesnít think this a fair situation.He urged the Board for a delay or a denial of the Zip O Log claim.

 

Laurie Segel stated she represented the Goal 1 Coalition.She asked that the Board take into consideration that these claimants could instead of asking for a subdivision,triggering health and safety considerations, could ask for partitions.She didnít believe staff had the same position.

 

Reeder addressed the issues about continuing this. He said their position is the Board has 180 days to act on this claim pursuant to Lane Code Chapter 2, regardless of the new house bill.His client did not want a delay.He stated that no action can take place until the state has made their final decision.He added this claim was submitted November 30, 2006, before the crush of the December 1 claims submitted to the state.He thought this claim would be acted upon by the state prior to the additional 360 days that was provided for in the house bill.

 

DeFoe2

 

Howe explained the situation is like Schrenk and Wilson.He stated it is a land sale contract where the applicants have provided the information showing, when they made their initial payment and interest in the property on April 2, 1970, they made a payment toward the land sales contact.He said they have included in their submittal the tax assessment information and payments to the bank on the contract.He said it doesnít have the deed that takes the original land sales contract and shows that has been completed and puts it in Major DeFoeís name.He stated this was a policy call for the Board.

 

Vorhes said there is a list of title reports and none go to Major DeFoe at that date.

 

Fleenor asked which is the earliest date they could waive back to.

 

Howe said for Major DeFoe, the date is April 2, 1970 that shows when they entered into the land sales agreement.With regard to the deed, the title report doesnít point to Major DeFoe until 2005.

 

Defoe said he and his wife bought the farm in 1970 from an aunt.He added it was originally purchased in 1913.He said they bought it on a sales agreement.He said they paid money to a bank in Harrisburg, who was bought by four other banks and in 1984 they paid for the farm.He noted all the bills for taxes had Carla and Major Defoe on it.He said everything stated Carla and Major Defoe and nothing had changed.He said due to business in 1998, he needed to borrow money and they did that.He said when the mortgage company did the financing, they put the title in her name.His attorney discovered that his name wasnít on it.He said his attorney did a quit claim deed and he was put on the title. He stated he has been the owner since 1970 and he continues to live there.He added he has the original documents when it was unzoned farmland when he bought it.He wanted to give land to his kids.

 

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

 

MOTION:to adoption of staffís recommendations on Defoe3, Inman, Hanson, Harper1, Lamb1, Patterson, Troutman2 and Woodrich.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

MOTION: to deny based on staffís recommendations on Brooks, Defoe4, and Kronke.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

MOTION: to approve staffís recommendation on Collis with the modification of 1974 as the acquisition date and have it put on the Consent Calendar.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

Stewart asked if he could amend the order and he could sign it.

 

Vorhes stated they could make that change.

 

Fleenor amended his motion and Dwyer amended his second.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

MOTION:to approve staffís recommendation to adopt the order for Defoe2.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

MOTION: to approve staffís recommendation on Harper2, but adding the language from Harper1.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).

 

MOTION: to approve staffís recommendation on Inman but changing the board order to include lot number 100 with the date of 1997.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

MOTION: to approve staffís recommendation on Wilson, changing the board order to reflect a 1967 acquisition date.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).

 

MOTION: to approve staffís recommendation on Zip O Logs with the caveat the order is effective the day after the state approves the waiver or no later than legally allowed.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

Sorenson asked about the effect of this motion.

 

Vorhes said the order would be approved today.He said a challenge would need to be filed within 60 days of this action.He indicated the order already says it doesnít affect or waive any of the stand land use regulations and they will need to get that before seeking any County land use approval.He said making this effective on the date the state takes action doesnít change the fact the board adopts an order today.He said if they donít take action prior to HB3546 passage, after 180 days passed, there was an opportunity for the claimant to go to circuit court to seek compensation because it speaks to how long regulations stay in effect after demand is made.He wasnít sure their code was as clear on that.He added the remedy for failure to comply with the code was different in the context of Measure 37 because any litigation compelling the Board to act pursuant to its code could be colored to the analysis of any litigation about the time the Board has to reach a decision on the claim.He thought the Board had as much time they needed to make a decision because under the measure they hold the waiver authority to grant a waiver in lieu of compensation under the measure.

 

Sorenson wanted this claim to come back to the Board 30 days after the state makes its decision or 510 days after the application was filed, whichever comes first.

 

Fleenor modified his motion to reflect Sorensonís stated position.

 

Dwyer agreed to the second.

 

Green stated the applicant didnít request the action they are proposing.

 

Stewart did not support the motion because he wanted to be consistent with their actions.He believed they had met the ownership regulations.

 

Fleenor thought since this required state approval, the Countyís position is no harm, no foul. He wanted to slow the system down, making sure they represent the interests of the citizens over any type of specific interpretation of the law.

 

VOTE: 3-2 (Stewart, Green dissenting).

 

Kester

 

MOTION: to approve staffís recommendation to adopt the waiver.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Stewart adjourned the meeting at 12:35 p.m.

 

 

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary