BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'

WORK SESSION

March 20, 2007

9:00 a.m.

Harris Hall Main Floor

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 HEARINGS/MEASURE 37 CLAIMS

 

1. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-20-1/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 (PA06-7040, Barr)

 

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 (PA05-6198, Brown)

 

3. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-20-2/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 (PA06-7055, Cate1)

 

4. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-20-3/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 (PA06-7056 Cate2)

 

5. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-20-4/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 (PA06-7073, Childers)

 

6. 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 (PA06-7202, Davidson2)

 

7. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-20-5/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 (PA06-6999, Dersham)

 

8. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-20-6/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 (PA06-7080, Gammell)

 

9. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-20-7/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 (PA06-7011, Hammond)

 

10. 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 (PA06-6979, Harding1)

 

11. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-20-8/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 (PA06-6980, Harding2)

 

12. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-20-9/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 (PA06-7012, Hibler)

 

13. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-20-10/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 (PA06-7029, Hyland)

 

14. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-20-11/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 (PA06-7000, Johnson3)

 

15. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-20-12/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 (PA06-7004, Johnson4)

 

16. 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 (PA06-7325, Lamb2)

 

17. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-20-13/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 (PA06-7013 Lopes)

 

18. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-20-14/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 (PA06-7074, Mchugill)

 

19. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-20-15/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 (PA06-7082, McKee)

 

20. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-20-16/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 (PA06-7326, McVey)

 

21. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-20-17/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 (PA06-7041, Murray1)

 

22. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-20-18/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 (PA06-7049, Myers1)

 

23. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-20-19/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 (PA06-7014, Nielsen)

 

24. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-20-20/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 (PA06-7079, Peters)

 

25. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-20-21/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA06-7324, Piper)

 

26. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-20-22/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 (PA06-7064, Weeldreyer)

 

27. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-3-20-23/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 (PA06-7078, Wickwire)

 

C. PUBLIC WORKS

 

1) DELIBERATION 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).

 

Stewart asked if there were any ex parte contacts. 

 

There were none.

 

Green noted on Attachment A , there were four orders that staff recommended denial, but Attachment B showed five.

 

Kent Howe, Land Management, noted that number 20  is wrong on Attachment B where it says deny.  He said it should be to adopt the order.

 

Howe reported they are providing opportunity for citizens to comment on 28 claims.  He indicated staff mailed notice to the property owners within 1500 feet, by the end of February.  He had conducted the analysis of the pertinent Measure 37 requirements on these claims and summarized the information in the staff reports.  He said the analysis addresses the requirements of ownership, date of acquisition, the current zoning, the zoning regulations at the time of acquisition and some form of competent analysis of fair market value reduction that results 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 they have provided some competent analysis of value reduction.  He noted there are four claims that are recommended for denial:  two did not appear to be valid because there hasn’t been any reduction in the fair market value from the enforcement of restrictive land use regulations for Brown and Lamb2.  He said if they receive information today that is valid, they might be able to approve them.  He recalled from last week, that they brought the Renaghan claim forward.  He said staff distributed information on it. He noted the value reduction had come in but the interior was designated upzoning and the surrounding area was zoned natural resource and the claimant was doing the value reduction on only the surrounding property that was in the NR designation without taking into consideration the value increase that occurred with the destination resort designation.  He indicated the applicant has now addressed it and staff thinks it is a valid claim for the Renaghan application.

 

Commissioner Stewart opened the Public Hearing.

 

Barr

 

Gary Sutley, said he and his family have property in the area and he was in favor of the proposal.

 

Lauri Segel, Goal 1 Coalition.  She said there was a conveyance in 1987 by deed.  She said it wasn’t conclusive evidence but it raises questions about conveyance.  She commented that whenever she is in attendance, she is opposed to all of the Measure 37 claims.

 

Brown.

 

Jim Reed,, stated he looks onto the Brown property.  He said Brown acquired the property in 1985 from a bankruptcy sale, after Lane County’s lane use laws were in effect.  He said Brown’s 25 acres were zoned impacted forest land.  He thought the claim was without merit and should be denied because it has always been forest land and it is today.

 

Catel

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Howe stated he received handwritten comments from Carl Berg on the Leona Cate Measure 37 claim and he wasn’t sure which one it applied to.  Howe said Berg is an organic farmer adjacent to the property in question and he has concerns about the issues of groundwater, quality and quantity.

 

Cate2

 

James Hooker, Junction City, stated he owns property adjacent to Leona Cate’s property.  He agreed with what she was asking for and wanted to see it approved.

 

Childers

 

Monica Shepard, Eugene, said she is within 1500 feet of the property and she is in agreement with what they Childers is asking for.

 

Norm Waterbury, stated he had two pages of additional information to add to the staff report.  He said they might be missing some of the regulatory statutes and he covered the information.

 

Davidson2

 

Norm Waterbury, said there was an issue in the Davidson report that indicated there was a problem with when the purchase date took place and the transfer of property.  He just received the staff report and he wasn’t able to respond to the information.  He said the 180 day period wouldn’t run until May 23.  He asked for more time to address the issue of ownership.

 

MOTION: to leave the record open to April 13 and bringing back the claim on May 1.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Dersham

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Gammell

 

Dan Stotter, was in support of the recommendation.  He said Gammell purchased the property in 1975 with her late husband Roy.  He said the property is 22.92 acres and was unzoned at the time it was purchased.  He said the request is for 11 two-acre parcels.  He noted the property has remained in continuous ownership by Gammell since she and her husband purchased the property in 1975. 

 

Hammond

 

Mike Farthing, represented the applicant.  He said the claim was straightforward.  He said Ms. Hammond acquired land in 1948 and 1957.

 

Harding1

 

Norm Waterbury, Eugene, said there is some confusion with this case.  He indicated they have two adjacent lots identical in acreage.  He said one is recommended for approval and one is recommended for denial.  He noted claim 6980 is recommended for both denial and approval.  He requested an extension.

 

Steve Hopkins, Land Management, said the same claim was submitted on the same tax lot.  He indicated they have two identical claims submitted.

 

Waterbury said he submitted another claim yesterday.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to April 13 with deliberation on May 1.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Harding2

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to April 13 and deliberation on May 1.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

Hopkins said there was an ownership issue on one claim, but not the other.  He indicated there was an extra deed that was submitted on one claim that wasn’t submitted on the other. 

 

Vorhes indicated there are two different tax lots with different legal ownership tracks and they were clear in Harding2, but not clear in the Harding1 claim.  He said staff couldn’t get to the recommendation of clear ownership to approve the Harding1 claim and that was why the recommendation was denial.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Hibler

 

Norm Waterbury, Eugene, said he had one page that addressed the imposed regulations.

 

Mike Shippey, said he is a neighbor.  He said staff recommended relief of land use regulations dated upon transfer of the property within the family to December 93.  He added the Board recommendation was to 1950.  He asked about the appropriate date.

 

Stewart said the property has been in family ownership since 1953 but they are only waiving the land use restrictions to James, Philip and Gerald Hibler and Charlotte Bruno to December 10, 1993 and Karen Hibler, January 3, 1994.

 

Hyland

 

Larry Reed, stated he represents the  Hylands and they concurred with the staff report.

 

Margo Kutsport, stated she wasn’t necessarily opposed, she was concerned that there is a creek that runs through her property and drains into another creek. She said the Hylands wants to do something with the property and their concern is they can’t disturb the flow of the creek or their property could flood.

 

Johnson3

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Johnson4

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Lamb2

 

Donald Lamb, Eugene, said the staff report says there has been no change in the use of the property with the zoning designation and he disagrees.  He said the property in 1980 was zoned for a preliminary subdivision.  He said the subdivision was foreclosed by the lender and he bought the land.  He said the information staff used didn’t show anything.  He wanted additional time to present the matter.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to April 13, with deliberation on May 1.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Jack Quails, asked for information.  His concern was how many lots Lamb was planning on putting in.

 

Travis Arnett, asked how long it had been zoned before or after they became owners of the land.

 

Stewart said it shows the ownership goes to 2004.  Lamb owned it into the 80’s but because of transfer of interest, it shows the waiver would only be good to 2004.  He said at that time it was zoned F2 natural resource. and that is as far back as it can be waived.  He said if Lamb can prove he has had continual ownership and control of the property to a further date to April 14, 1986, they would look at the regulations that were in place at that time to determine whether there was a regulation imposed and a reduction in value that would warrant the waiver.

 

Arnett said he bought the property that is three-quarters wetland, specifically to preserve the wetland and to protect the water drainage in the area.

 

Kevin Jones, Eugene, asked why the claim was being left open.

 

Stewart said the claimant asked for the record to be kept open because the information shows ownership just to 2004.  He wanted more time to provide more information to get the ownership back to 1986.

 

Lopes

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Mchugill

 

No one signed up to speak

 

McKee

 

Scott McKee, Pleasant Hill, represented his parents who are the applicants.  He said they were unable to make the meeting.

 

Ernie White, wanted to be on record to remove more information.

 

Dale Peterson, Pleasant Hill, stated he was unclear why they are proposing to split the property.

 

McVey

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Murray1

 

Keith Walton, Eugene, lived west of the applicant.  He said he purchased the lot from his mother in 1973 and at that time the applicants resided on the adjoining parcel, tax lot 8000.  He said tax lot 8100 had a mature cherry orchard of five acres.  He said tax lot 8000 had also been owned by his grandparents.  He indicated the applicants purchased  tax lot 8000 in 1953 and built dwellings and outbuildings.  He said they sold the property in 1998 and at the time the applicant purchased tax lot 8100, his parents owned  parcels to the north, west and south of their lot 8100.  He indicated that farm operations have continued on the adjacent parcels and new farming operations have begun within 1500 feet of the applicant’s land.  He said the area at the time of purchase was a farm zone and it still is.  He indicated ORS 215.213 adopted in 1971 and in effect at the time the applicants acquired tax lot 8100, addressed non farm uses permitted within farm use zones.  He said the dwellings and other buildings provided in conjunction with farm use were allowed.  He said the applicants residing in a dwelling on tax lot 8000 managed both tax lots with farm equipment and out buildings near their dwellings.  He said tax lots 8000 and 8100 were managed singly when his grandparents owned the property.  He said it cannot be argued that tax lot 8100 was dividable at the time of acquisition due to his location in a farm zone and lack of demonstratable need for division to establish a dwelling or other buildings.  He said the applicants continued to farm both parcels as one for over a decade. He thought the appraisal and the valuation of the property was inaccurate.

 

Kathy Lessig, Eugene, said they have property 250 feet from the Murray’s claim.  He said when the Murrays purchased the property in 1973, the 1963 zoning of AGT applied and allowed the construction and use of dwellings and other buildings provided with farm use. She said it did not make provision for subdivision of farmland into one acre lots as suggested in the Murray’s application.  She said the interpretation of Lane Code 10.100/42, (the minimum area for the division of land) shall be one acre meaning the entire lot could be divided into one acre parcels is erroneous.  She said the Murrays used the interpretation to build their own farm house.  She said farm use zoning was still in place in 1971 and the Murray’s acceptance of the agricultural tax deferral status of the land implies they purchased it from the neighboring farmers, the Waltons. She said they were aware of the AGT zoning and the restrictions of construction provided with conjunction of farm use.  She said when they purchased the land, it would have only allowed one buildable lot as a farm dwelling. She said it is a different interpretation than what the applicants are using in claiming that six one-acre parcels should be allowed.  She said the fair market value for 8100 for the 1973 zoning would have been based on agricultural land values for six acres and one buildable lot for a farm dwelling. She thought there was a misinterpretation in claiming the lot could be divided into one acre lots.

 

Howe explained Lane Code that was in effect in 1973 regarding the AGT zone had provisions down to five acres unless the property had been zoned AGT before 1965 and then it could go down to one acre in size.

 

Kevin Jones, Eugene,  said the question needs to be clarified as to whether it needs to be divided into one or five acres.  He said it is for the Board to review the Murray’s case under the laws that were in effect when they bought the land.  He said the Murrays don’t farm but they take a farm deferral and now they want to develop the land.  He said they are outside the urban growth boundary and it is necessary to consider the claim with the rural neighbors.  He said the appraiser’s report is not clear.

 

Lauri Segel, was present on behalf of Kate Purley who farms property close to the Measure 37 claim.  She said Purley’s comments have already been expressed by her neighbors.  She noted an adjoining property was zoned AGT 5.  She said it raises a question on whether there was any loss of value.  She indicated there was no shown loss of value, it is a stated loss of value and appears there is no loss of value.  She indicated the area has not transitioned to urban use and it is not characterized by land divisions.  She said the subject property is in a center of large prime agricultural land that is actively being farmed.  She added the surrounding area is exclusive farm use.

 

Michael Sullen, Eugene, said he leases ground 50 feet adjacent to the Murray property.  He said it is surrounded by farmland.  He agreed with the previous speakers that the initial purchase time would not have allowed any subdivision.  He thought the value they submitted was being inflated.

 

Eric Walton, said he is a farmer.  He has a 17 acre parcel that is organically farmed and he farms a 19 acre parcel on the other side of the street.  He said the Murray’s’ property was his family’s property previously.  He noted at that time E 30 or AGT was the property zoning for farmland.  He thinks the Murrays have wanted to put one house on the farmland they have the proposal on.  He thought the maximum rezoning should be for an R5 parcel.

 

Steve Cornacchia, Eugene, stated he represented the Murrays.  He said their acquisition date and the provisions of the AGT zone would have allowed one acre parcels on the property at that time.  He wanted to roll this matter and give him the opportunity to discuss it with Mr. Hopkins.  He said they could still get a house on the property by providing $80,000 income and under those rules if they were allowed to site a dwelling, the property’s value would be higher. He said they have a question about the subsequent development.

 

MOTION: to leave the record open to April 13 and deliberate on May 1.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

Cornacchia asked to wait to later in the meeting.

 

Dwyer withdrew his motion and Fleenor withdrew the second.

 

Myers1

 

Larry Reed, Eugene, represented Lou Myers.  He concurred with staff’s recommendation.

 

Nielsen1

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Peters

 

Gene Sutley, said the family has property in the area and they were in favor of the proposal.

 

Piper

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Howe indicated he received a fax from her representative requesting the hearing be postponed to April 10 or 17.

 

MOTION: to continue to April 10.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Weeldreyer

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Wickwire

 

Norm Waterbury, submitted information into the record.

 

Van Vactor stated someone submitted written information on the Cate claim.

 

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

 

MOTION: to approve Cate1,Cate2, Childers, Dershaam, Gammell, Hammond, Hibler, Hyland, Johnson3, Johnson4, Lopes, Mchugill, McKee, McVey, Myers1, Nielsen, Peters, Weeldreyer and Wickwire.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Barr

 

Sorenson asked about the limited liability ownership.

 

Howe responded that the current owner is Sylvia Barr, revocable trust.  She and her husband acquired the property in 1968 and it was zoned AGT.  He said in 2005 they placed the property into a trust and the trust is not considered a new owner because it is a revocable trust and Sylvia Barr and Stewart Barr are the trustees.  He said they have continued their ownership in this property and it doesn’t create a new owner.  He noted for that reason they find it a valid claim going back to 1968.

 

MOTION: to approve the claim.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting)

 

Brown

 

MOTION; to approve staff’s recommendation to deny the claim.

 

Green MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Murray 1

 

Dwyer said there were restrictions with agricultural land.  He was against this one.

 

Stewart said the property was zoned AGT in 1964 and at that time it allowed one acre parcels and it wasn’t until the new zone AGT that the five acre restriction  took place in 1973.

 

Howe said it was AGT until 1984 at which time it became exclusive farm use E-30.  He said the minimum land use size in 1964 was one acre.

 

Green recommended rolling this for clarity.  He didn’t think the decision they were making was on the record.

 

MOTION: to leave the record open until April 13 and deliberation on May 1.

 

Green MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

C 1

 

Renaghan

 

Stewart indicated it is a valid claim with new information that has been presented on the valuation of a natural resource zone.  He said the recommendation is that it is a valid claim with the information that was presented with the natural resource zone.

 

MOTION: to adopt staff’s recommendation to approve the claim.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

D. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

 

None.

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Stewart adjourned the meeting at 10:55 a.m.

 

 

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary