BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'

WORK SESSION

March 13, 2007

9:00 a.m.

Commissioners' Conference Room

APPROVED 3/12/2008

 

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

 

A. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA

 

None.

 

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

Jim Hale, Eugene, thanked the Board for their enactment of the tax.  He indicated the enactment of the tax has helped focus the congressional delegation on the task of renewing federal funds and the needs of the County.  He thought these were positive outputs of the Board enacting the tax.  He asked the Board to refer to the May ballot an identical 1.1 percent income tax ordinance with an incremental increase to 1.6 percent and to refer the ballot a charter amendment limiting a rate to be levied at two percent and to vote to rescind the February 21 ordinance.  He said they need to let people understand that this is not the same income tax they voted on in November.  He also believed the Board needed a charter amendment.

 

Randy Henderson, stated he owns Thistledown Farms.  He said if people want to eat in the future, they need to be kept off of the farms.  He said it is not a compatible use.  He said the claims should be denied that are taking agricultural lands out of production.

 

David Monk, Eugene,  said the Board is going to vote tomorrow on the resolution in support of HB 3000 to end field burning in Oregon.  He said they know fine particulate from the smoke is harmful to peopleís health.

 

Sorenson wanted this sent to the Legislative Committee Meeting on Thursday.  He wanted them to have a discussion there first.  He wanted to then take it up the following week for approval.

 

Larry Dunlap, Eugene, encouraged the Board to support HB3000.  He said it is a problem and they could do something about it.

 

Zachary Vishinoff, Eugene,  said they should expand on future requirements so each town gets a hearing with regard to field burning.  He wanted to make sure the Fair Board responds to important things and doesnít mislead the neighborhood.  He announced the deadline for comments on Hyundai is Thursday at 5:00 p.m.

 

Carole Grappo, Santa Clara, stated she was disappointed in the commissioners not putting the measure of the income tax on the ballot. She stated it wasnít just an income tax,  but a sales tax.  She was concerned that it was a deceptive measure.  She said the tax was unfair.  She said if they are going to put it on the ballot, it needs to be on the May ballot. She suggested using a different tax and to repeal this one.  She recommended a carbon tax.

 

C. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE

 

Dwyer read a card from Bob and Loraine Stills.

 

Sorenson said he, Green and Stewart went to Washington, D.C.  He said their main focus was on the reauthorization of the legislation that brings Secure Rural Schools into Oregon.  He said there is a tentative commitment to include the federal forest funds in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act that Bush had requested from Congress. He stated there is a deadline of April 15, 2007.

 

Fleenor said he had a town hall meeting in Florence last night and had 50 people attend including the Sheriff and Chief of Police.  He said he was having another meeting in Junction City.

 

 

D. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

 

None.

 

E. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEASURE 37 CLAIMS

 

1. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-13-1/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 (PA06-6821, Bailey).

 

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 (PA06-7323, Barnes).

 

3. 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 (PA06-6975, Barrowcliff).

 

4. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-13-2/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 (PA06-6876, Boss).

 

5. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-13-3/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 (PA06-6903, Chambers).

 

6. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-13-4/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 (PA06-6859, Danker).

 

7. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-13-5/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 (PA06-6937, Day).

 

8. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-13-6/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 (PA06-6978, Dixon).

 

9. 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 (PA06-6951, Dowdy).

 

10. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-13-7/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 (PA06-6856, Dowling).

 

11. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-13-8/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 (PA06-6905, Dresser).

 

12. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-13-9/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 (PA06-6928, Gorham).

 

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 (PA06-6896, Green).

 

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 (PA05-5829, Huddleston1).

 

16. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-13-10/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 (PA06-6900, Huddleston2).

 

17. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-13-11/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 (PA06-6810, Hudson).

 

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 (PA06-6830, Johnson2).

 

19. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-13-12/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 (PA06-6936, Kirkpatrick).

 

20. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-13-13/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 (PA06-6909, McNutt2).

 

21. 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 (PA06-7315, Murphy315).

 

22. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-13-14/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 (PA06-7316, Murphy316).

 

23. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-13-15/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 (PA06-6955, Neely2).

 

24. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-13-16/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 (PA06-6827, Oneil).

 

25. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-13-17/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 (PA06-5563, Prucha).

 

26 PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-13-18/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 (PA06-6870, Quick).

 

27. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-13-19/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 (PA06-6805, Schott).

 

28. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-13-20/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 (PA06-6879, Swenson).

 

29. 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 (PA06-6846, Titus).

 

Stewart asked if there were any ex parte conflicts.

 

There were none.

 

Kent Howe, Land Management, said they are providing an opportunity for citizens to comment on 28 claims.  He said staff mailed notice to the property owners within 1500 feet, by mid-February that meets the code requirements.  He said staff had conducted the analysis of the pertinent Measure 37 claims and summarized the information in the staff report.  He said it addresses the requirement of ownership, data of acquisition, the current zoning, the zoning regulations at the time of acquisition and some form of competent analysis of fair market value reduction that results from the land use regulations that have been applied to the property since the current ownerís acquisition.  He noted 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 eight claims where staff is recommending denial and of those, three are not valid because they havenít provided a reduction in fair market value as a result of enforcement of restrictive land use regulations:  Barrowcliff, Johnson2, and Murphy315.  He said the other five are incomplete because they hadnít submitted enough information for staff to make the determination unless additional information is submitted at the hearing today, staff recommend the Board direct the county administrator to deny those.

 

Howe recalled on February 13, for the Renaghan claim, the hearing was closed and the applicant provided information last Thursday addressing the value reduction information.  He said the Board could allow comments to be made on the information they received to be taken in until the end of this week and have the deliberation scheduled for March 20.

 

MOTION: to move the process, to leave the record open and take the matter up next week.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Commissioner Stewart opened the Public Hearing.

 

Bailey

 

Becky Hansen, said she was opposed to the claim and she will challenge the claim.  She said they have concerns about aquifer viability, health, safety and environmental impact.

 

Dana Mound Berrett, stated she was opposed to the Bailey claim.  She said her property shares the claimantís boundary.  She was disturbed by the impact of 10 homes in a small rural area.  She hoped there could be a compromise on the number of homes permitted.  She said there could be a strain of the aquifer and wells.  She believed the developers misused the spirit of Measure 37.

 

Robert Bailey, said he is the petitioner.  He indicated he bought the land in 1973 with the idea that it would be for his retirement.  He said he put all of his money into the land to use  when he retires.

 

Dwyer asked if his land was ever in farm deferral.

 

Bailey indicated it was taken out of farm deferral a couple of years ago.

 

Jim Belknap, Cottage Grove, represented the claimant and was present for questions.

 

Barnes

 

Gerald Barnes, Junction City,  said his property is south of the boundary of Cheshire.  He said his father is the owner and they have no intention of developing property in the near future but they think they should have the option.  He said Barnesí grandfather has put a home on the property. He distributed information. (Copy in file). He said the property consists of 300 plus acres and it has been in continuous ownership since the 1950ís.  He indicated property near him sold for $1,092,000.  He stated he doesnít have a subdivision plan.

 

Fleenor asked if the current handout was acceptable for valuation.

 

Vorhes said it is evidence being provided by the owner with testimony as to the value.  He said the Board would have to decide whether it is sufficient evidence .  He said it is better evidence than they had.  He added that it is unclear on whether the properties are developed.  He said it provides some evidence to calculate an average per acre value of properties in the area based on recent transactions or deeds reflecting sales.

 

Dwyer asked if the property was in farm deferral.

 

Barnes said it is in farm deferral.

 

Van Vactor thought this was as close to not having sufficient information, but it is some evidence.  He said they went through this with the prior Board and they indicated that the actual sales are what they want.  He noted in this case the sales are of developed property and not comparable sales of acreage in a rural area.  He indicated it was the minimum the Board had accepted in the past.  He said he would waive the appraisal requirement.

 

Barrowcliff

 

Thomas Brandt, thought Barrowcliff should have this claim, but years ago they had a survey done and it moved his fence. He said the Barrowcliffs and he have been talking about moving the fence.  He didnít think they should get this claim approved until they solve it with him or get a surveyor and survey it again.  He wanted something in the language that the fence problem has to be settled by a certain date or it is denied.  He wants the property line straightened out.

 

Jack Barrowcliff, Springfield, stated his father purchased the property in 1952 and he lived on the property until he died last November.  He said his fatherís intention was clear, his father deeded  2.5 acres to his brother Ron in 1975 and 5 acres to him and his brother Jim in 1979 for their personal residences.  He said Barrowcliff wanted his grandsons to live on the property as well.  He said due to land use regulations they could not get a special use permit for one grandson on 338 acres.  He noted in 1997 he began the process of getting the property partitioned into 80 acre minimums and he still does not have a special use permit.  He said there is a 650 foot unnamed road owned by the County by Parsons Creek Road and the border of his property.  He said the access to his property is over a one  lane bridge.  He said over the last ten years the County has agreed that the existing one lane bridge in place would accommodate a new residence in the area.  He said they are continuing to process this with the County.  He said in 1983 they decided to form a partnership for estate tax reasons only.  His father was the general partner and his four sons were limited partners.  He said it continues to be family owned to this date.  He didnít want to get a formal appraisal until they got a ruling on the property transfer in 1983.  He said they want a few legal parcels for family members.  He said the claim was denied because of improper valuation.  He said he didnít find out until yesterday.

 

Fleenor asked about page 2 of the information under restrictive land use.  He said it appears that they transferred ownership in 1983 and it was originally zoned F1.  He asked if there was a disruption in the chain of ownership and if that was grounds for denial.

 

Vorhes said this is a family situation where the ownership of the company that took ownership in 1983 included the previous family member owner at that time.  He said for compensation purposes they could show reduction in value based on the earliest family ownership date of 1952.   He said for purposes of waiver, the  limitation would be to the current ownerís date of acquisition and use at that time in 1983.

 

Dwyer thought going back to 83 would have allowed the transfer to happen, as they didnít adopt the land use laws until 1984.

 

Vorhes recalled this property was actually zoned F1 in 1983 with the provisions in place at that time.

 

Van Vactor noted the other problem with the application was that there were no comparable sales, only assessed valuation.

 

Dwyer requested leaving the record open to allow valuation that would be adequate.

 

Stewart requested Barrowcliff get a market analysis.

 

Howe said they would need the information by the first week in April and then they could bring it back to the Board on April 17.

 

Van Vactor suggested the applicant contact Howe to see what the regulations were in 1983 so he would know what his rights would be.

 

Lauri Segel, Eugene, said the limited liability partnership established a new date of ownership of 1983.  She said the measure was poorly written.  She said the new date of ownership was already zoned F1 when it was bought.  She didnít see where there was a loss of value.

 

Boss

 

Dennis Kelly, Creswell, objected to the proposed claim not in line with the initial purpose of Measure 37.  He said it is a small 10 acre parcel and they want to divide it into four separate lots.  He was against it.

 

Wayne Kerns, Creswell, doesnít believe the Bossí met requirements of Measure 37 in that the property has had recent transactions from a hardship property going to the son.  He said there is a remaining piece of property to be divided for further development.  He commented that it was not in keeping with the area.  He added there are water and septic issues.

 

Lauri Segel, Eugene, said this property has been upzoned from FF20 to RR 10.  She questioned the loss of value.  She indicated that was the zoning they wanted.

 

Whitney Boss, said they want to divide the property to provide for Mrs. Bossí care in the remainder of her life.  She noted the deed of the property was included with the packet and it was signed in 1971.  She added there has not been a change in ownership.

 

Dwyer asked if there was a caretakerís residence.

 

Boss indicated there was a piece taken off and sold to the son and he lived on it for 15 years and it was in a divorce settlement.  She indicated it was not part of this claim

 

Chambers

 

Wayne Chambers, Cottage Grove, said he has a 14 acre pasture that is currently zoned farm use.  He noted the land was purchased in 1963 in partnership with SC Pitman and his wife. He indicated he and his wife bought out the Pitmanís ownership in 1988.  He said they had raised hay on the property and the last few years it had been used to pasture horses.  He said an appraisal in December suggested the current value of 14 acres is $57,000.  He said the appraisal as subdivided would be $543,000.  He said they live on Social Security and a reverse mortgage on their home.  He wanted to sell a parcel to one of their children.  He said they had one complaint from a neighbor about how the building on the property might interfere with her vision.

 

Danker

 

Mike Farthing, stated he represents the Dankers.  He indicated they bought the property in 1962 and he agreed with staffís recommendation.

 

David Placko, said he lives on tax lot 104 of the package.  He said Dankerís land circles his property.  He indicated he purchased the property on August 4, 2006.  He submitted testimony in writing. He said there are water well problems. He thought if the development goes through there could be a health issue.

 

Day

 

Mike Farthing, stated he represents  the Days.  He indicated they purchased the property in 1972 and agreed with staffís recommendation.

 

Dixon

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Dowdy

 

Dennis Kelly, Creswell, didnít believe Dowdy was qualified to file the application since the ownership was changed in 1994 from Donald and Jackie Dowdy to a living trust.  He owns 60 acres to the east of the parcel.  He said in September 2006, he purchased 72 acres from Dowdy.  He said he paid a high price for the property at fair market farm values.  He didnít understand  why Dowdy retained 22 additional acres at E 30.  He said he was going to purchase this part, but when Dowdy made a 1031 Exchange, he decided to take it off the market and said it was worth more money to subdivide it.

 

Dwyer asked if it was a revocable trust.

 

Kelly said he wasnít sure.

 

Wayne Kerns, Creswell, said the property was sold as farmland in September 2006 and the property surrounding it is in agricultural use.  He said he is farming on part of the property.  He asked if it was sold as part of farm property in 2006 how a certain portion could be held out.  He added the property transferred in January 1994 to a trust to his sons and grandsons.   He asked why it is in residential and not agricultural.

 

Green asked if there was any appraisal on the property.

 

Howe indicated there was no appraisal.

 

Tony Chapman, Creswell, said he provided the value reduction analysis based on comparable sales in the area.  He said the County Administrator did not accept his analysis because he is not a licensed realtor or appraiser.  He indicated the 180 day period does not run on the claim until May 12, 2007.  He wanted the claim continued to next month so he can have a real estate broker could confirm his analysis.  He said the claimant is willing to waive the 180 day period to accommodate the Countyís rescheduling of the claim.  He didnít want the Board to reject the claim.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to April 6 and  move the Dowdy claim to April 17 for deliberation.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Dowling

 

Howe stated he received a comment from Julie and Kenneth Long this morning.  He said that the Dowlingís revocable trust was created in 1998 and that establishes a new date of ownership.

 

Dresser

 

Karl Mueller, Springfield, indicated at the date of acquisition the property was unzoned.  He said subsequently it was zoned in 1976 to the onzoning permit ordinance and the land division ordinance of Chapter 13 that was enacted in 1975.  He said the applicant identified proposed uses that were allowed at the date of acquisition that are currently not allowed and presented  evidence of a diminution of value as a result of the land use regulations.  He agreed with the staff report.

 

Michael Dresser, said he is the husband of Nancy Dresser.  She couldnít make it to the meeting personally and he wanted to thank the Board.

 

Gorham

 

Lauri Segel, Eugene, stated the staff report was silent to the life estate.  She indicated it was different than a revocable trust.  She said a life estate changes the rights afforded to owners.

 

Mona Lindstromberg, Veneta, said she is a member of the Fern Ridge community.  She said the Gorham property would front on Highway 126 and the site will present health and safety concerns if developed.  She said waiving land use regulations is not right when there is no determination of actual loss.  She said all the taxpayers are subsidizing the costs and it is unfair.

 

Fleenor asked about how a living trust relates to the Measure 37 claim.

 

Vorhes said living trusts are revocable trusts.  He said the grantor continues to hold an interest in the property and waives to that grantor.  He noted in this case there was a conveyance in 2000 from the original owner to two members of the family, undivided half-interests in the property, but the grantor reserved a life estate in the property.  He said the others who received interest have a springing estate and will not come to fruition until the life of the life estate holder ends.  He said the order in this claim proposes to waive to the current life estate  owner who acquired the property and was one of the first family members acquiring the property.  He said the compensation analysis goes back to the first date because ownership has not changed.

 

Fleenor asked if the Measure 37 claim ends on the termination of the existing life of the owner.

 

Vorhes said the waivers are to the individuals and upon the death of the individuals the waiver is done.

 

Jim Babson, Eugene, asked (because of the 180 day timeline) when the claimants come through with development proposals, if they have a right to have their application dealt with within a certain time frame.  He asked if there was a flood of development proposals how they could deal with them.

 

Dwyer said they donít waive health and safety and there is no time frame for addressing health and safety issues.  He added the application is not completed until they satisfy the health and safety requirements.

 

Green2

 

Steve Green, said he is representing Nicole Green.  He said her mother moved from the Ukraine in the early 60ís and bought some land out West 11th.  He said they found out there were things they didnít get to the County that were needed.  He said he has the information on the valuation and the deed.  He indicated that his appraisal was four years old.

 

MOTION: to provide the information by April 16 with the deliberation continued to April 17.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

Van Vactor expressed concerned about the valuation information.  He said the applicant indicated he had a four year old appraisal and that would pre-date Measure 37.

 

Dwyer said they need to supply something that is sufficient.

 

Steve Green indicated the property is zoned E-40 but it is not farmland.  He wanted to subdivide one parcel for a family member.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Huddleston1

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Huddleston2

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Hudson

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Johnson

 

Mike Reeder, stated he is the agent for the applicant.  He said as part of the application material they spoke to the issue of the property.  He noted it is currently zoned sand and gravel and it is a 10 acre parcel.   He had a comparative market analysis done on what they thought was the highest and best use of the property: agricultural and it is being farmed.  He said the valuation was based on that and showed a fair market value reduction of over $1 million.  He distributed comments from the realtor who appraised the agricultural comparative market analysis.  He added when she did a search to look for comparables for sand and gravel, she could not find any.  He indicated that they have an analysis done by John Brown where he gives his opinion as to the effect of the sand and gravel zoning to show that the designation does reduce the fair market value of the property.  He asked if the valuation was satisfactory to the County Administrator and if he would waive the requirement for an appraisal since there are not comparables.

 

Sandy Johnson, said she is the spouse of Walt Johnson.  She said they chose to go with a Measure 37 claim because it was the only way they could remove the sand and gravel zone which they did not want and was passed on February 29, 1984.  She added at that time there was no written notice or letters, it was only in the newspaper.  She indicated that at that time they were going through foreclosure.  She didnít know what was happening.  She said there were many mistakes on that particular zoning  and the County had to pass an ordinance to address requests from property owners for zoning changes as part of the errors and omissions program.  She said it gave citizens from March 2, 1984 to June 30, 1985.  She didnít know about that because they didnít mail out the announcements.  She said in the future they might have the opportunity to develop the back of the property.  She indicated it is next to five plus acres in the urban growth boundary with a possible small lot residential development design.   She said there is a 150 foot setback line out of the whole piece and they would be able to excavate about 2 acres.  She said Wildish is their only buyer.  She noted the last offer from Wildish was $8,000 per acre.

 

Dwyer asked if the problems should have been rectified through errors and omissions.

 

Johnson asked for it to be rectified.

 

Van Vactor stated based on Brownís comment of zoning on a parcel this small is a detriment and they have established a diminution in value because of the zoning.  He said this is a Ballot Measure 37 claim on the whole parcel and a portion of the parcel is inside the UGB.  He said they hadnít had a chance to coordinate with the City of Eugene.  He recommended moving this to April 17.

 

MOTION:  to move this to April 17.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Kirkpatrick

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

McNutt

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Murphy315

 

Mike Farthing, stated he represented the Murphy Company.  He said it involved a piece of property in Cushman.  He indicated that it is now an abandoned lumber mill going into Florence.  He said the Murphy family acquired it in 1968 and it was unzoned at that time.  He indicated there was a deed from Murphy Logging to YMC, Inc. in 1974 and  he thought that was the acquisition date, but in going through the legal description, he couldnít find where this  piece was conveyed.  He indicated the first zoning was applied in 1979.  He said it is a unique issue.  He said it is presently zoned rural commercial and it was rezoned two years ago.  He added it has coastal combining zones.  He said they received an appraisal for the property and they believe there is a reduction in value based on the appraisal from $892,000 to $454,000 for a reduction in value of $438,000.  He indicated that staff is recommending denial.  He indicated as of the date of this memo, the Board had required all valid claims to demonstrate that use was allowed when the owner acquired the property, but the current zoning prohibits that use.  He said their appraisal demonstrates that because they believe that the current RC zoning and the overlay zones create a significant question as to whether they can do what they want to with the property.  He said they proposed a 60 unit RV park because of the land use process.  He said the overlay zones create additional layers of land use process.  He said they are asking that this be rolled back to 1968 with no zoning. He thought the highest and best use currently is an RV park.

 

Sorenson asked why they were denying the claim.

 

Howe responded that the current zoning of the property allows through a special use permit process a provision for RV parks.  He said this is a unique situation under Measure 37.  He said there are coastal overlays and mixed development and the coastal overlay zones allow the uses permitted within the zone.  He said the zone overlays would allow as the base zone an RV park.  He said the issues that the overlay zones look at are habitat.  He said the property is paved with asphalt and has industrial buildings on it.  He said from staffís standpoint, an application for RV parks in the location in the zone is likely approvable.  He didnít see there was a reduction in value to the property.

 

Fleenor stated he was not comfortable moving this forward, in case the land was contaminated.

 

Susan Tharpe, Florence, wanted to keep apprised on what is going on.

 

Murphy316

 

Mike Farthing, stated he agreed with the staff report as they believe a reduction in value has been established based on the date of acquisition.

 

Lauri Segel, Eugene, questioned the reduction in value.  She researched that 100 percent of the property has slopes between 50 and 75 percent.  She said there was a lot of conveyance history on the parcels.  She indicated the staff report is silent.  She said when there is a conveyance from YMC to Murphy, she wondered what it was for.

 

Susan Tharpe, Florence, said her concern is the F1 zoning being changed to rural residential.  She didnít know if they could build in a residential area.  She didnít know what they wanted to do with the land.

 

Neely

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

OíNeill

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Prucha

 

Isabel Prucha, Westlake, had a question about acreage. She said when she purchased the land in 1980 it showed 41.2 acres, but it was different in the report.

 

Vorhes said the staff report indicates the acreage in 065563 contains 41.23 acres and the order expressly says approximately 41 acres.

 

Quick

 

Ida Quick, said they purchased their property in 1968 to live on when they retire.  She thought they met the requirements and thought the application speaks for itself.

 

Schott

 

No one  signed up to speak.

 

Swenson

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Titus

 

Mr. Titus, said his application was received and his $800 was paid.  He assumed it was complete.

 

Howe stated the applicant provided an appraisal but it was a current appraisal of the value of the property, no reduction analysis as a result of the current land use regulations was provided. 

 

Stewart said he needed an appraisal by an appraiser to show the regulations imposed had reduced his value.  He said they accept a market analysis by a qualified real estate agent that meets the County Administratorís recommendation.  He asked for additional information for proof that there had been loss to his property and they could consider it.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to April 6 with deliberation on April 17.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

MOTION:  to adopt orders Bailey, Chambers, Danker, Day3, Dixon, Dowling, Dresser, Huddleston2,  Hudson,  Kirkpatrick1, McNutt2, Neely2, OíNeill, Prucha, Quick, Shott, Swenson.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Barnes

 

Stewart indicated they presented a value statement that was acceptable to Van Vactor and he has waived the appraisal.

 

MOTION: to adopt the Barnes matter and to bring an order back on the Consent Calendar.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

Howe recalled on Barnes there was ownership information that was lacking.  He said there was information with the valuation but the deed was inadequate for continuous ownership.

 

Dwyer withdrew his motion.  Fleenor withdrew the second.

 

MOTION: to bring back information for Barnes on April 6 and deliberation on April 17.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Barrowcliff

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to April 6 and deliberate on April 17.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Boss

 

Dwyer asked how there was a diminution of value when they upzoned property from RR20 to RR10, they divide it and sell off ten acres and make a Measure 37 claim on the remainder under the same hardship provisions they sold off the last 10 acres.

 

Howe said the comparison is not what it was zoned before, but what it was zoned at their date of acquisition and it was unzoned at that date.

 

MOTION: to adopt the Boss claim.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

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

 

Gorham

 

Sorenson asked about the view of life estate.

 

Vorhes said a life estate continues ownership of the property in the person who holds the life estate.  He said in most cases they have right of control.  He said a life estate in the property is property that could be transferred to someone else.  He said it is different than a trust.

 

MOTION: to adopt the Gorham Claim.

 

Green MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).

 

Huddleston1

 

MOTION: to move staff recommendation to deny.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Murphy315

 

MOTION: to approve staff recommendation to deny.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

 

Van Vactor said there is an ambiguity in Measure 37 on whether it waives use or process.

 

Stewart asked if there was a different process this person would need for an application.

Howe said if he obtains the waiver, he would proceed with developing the property as it was zoned at the time he acquired it, which was unzoned.  He said there wouldnít be any provisions he would have to address unless he wanted to subdivide the property.  He said they would apply a subdivision ordinance to it.  He said if he wants to put in an RV park, he would need to meet health and safety requirements.  He said under the current land use provisions, he makes an application where there is a use that allows RV parks subject to addressing some criteria.  He said it is a land use application and if he meets the criteria and the requirements, it is approved and he could develop the RV park.  Howe said the reason Murphy has made this claim was because there is an ďifĒ on whether or not he gets an approval or not.  He said they are not sure under Measure 37 whether it allows them to use the process if there is a question of an ďifĒ to justify a claim as opposed to whether there is a value reduction restricting a use.  He said if under the waiver process he comes in with his RV park and runs into problems with water, sanitation or traffic, those are land use issues that could be under appeal similar to land use issues under a land use application process without the waiver.  He added both end up needing to do a land use application to develop the property.

 

Vorhes said they have not had a claim where they have waived the overlay zones.  He said they have attributes of health and safety as well as federal issues.  He said they stopped at the point of the valuation analysis.  He said it didnít give them a clear comparison between what the concerns of the applicant were in terms of what the current zoning would do and create to them in terms of value.  He said it is not clear even if the waiver were granted to achieve the value that has been attributed to it, without any regulation.  He said the difficulty is attributing the value reduction to the regulations and having a comparison with the development potential without the value regulations there.  He said it had been addressed in other applications.

 

Dwyer said they want  compensation but they could still do what they want to do.  He didnít know how that was a loss.

 

VOTE: 4-1 (Stewart dissenting).

 

Murphy316

 

MOTION: to move staff recommendation to adopt the order.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 3-2 (Fleenor, Sorenson dissenting).

 

OTHER BUSINESS

 

There was consensus to discuss tomorrow afternoonís meeting regarding repealing the ordinance.

 

Wilson discussed the process for tomorrowís meeting on the Income Tax Measure for the May ballot.

 

Dwyer wanted Wilson to draft the 1.6 measure for the May ballot so they could have that discussion tomorrow.  He said this would help restore the measure.  There was consensus to discuss it tomorrow.

 

Wilson said in preparing the measure for the ballot, she is making the assumption that it has the same mix of services as Ordinance 2-07 plus the increased services that had been under consideration in the development of the income tax.  She said that would be Option 5.  She added it will contain the other options as the Board chooses.  She said the Board needs the rationale by which the ordinance could occur.  She said it is based on the Home Rule Charter and contemplates an enactment as a process that involves two readings 13 days apart, regardless of who would do the final adoption of the ordinance.  She indicated the final adoption would be by the voters. 

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Stewart adjourned the meeting at 11: 55 a.m.

 

 

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary