BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'

WORK SESSION

May 15, 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 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 (Babb, 06-7257).

 

2. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-15-1 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 (Barrar, 06-7312).

 

3. PUBLIC HEARING Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (Bowers311, 06-7311).

 

4. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-15-2 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 (Bowers313, 06-7313).

 

5. 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 (Brandt, 06-7297).

 

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 (Brooks, 06-7245).

 

7. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-15-3 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 (Bunzel, 06-7266).

 

8. 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 (Collis, 06-5001).

 

9. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-15-4 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 (Cordon, Cont. 4/10, 06-7331)

 

10. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-15-5 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 (Corey, 06-7303).

 

11. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-15-6 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 (Dare1, 06-7255).

 

12. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-15-7 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 (Dare2, 06-7256).

 

13. 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 (Day2, 06-7244).

 

14. 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 (Defoe3, Cont. 4/10, 06-7127)

 

15. 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 (Defoe4, Cont. 4/10, 06-7128).

 

16. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-15-8 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 (Gass, Cont. 1/23, 06-5082).

 

17. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-15-9 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 (Giustina Bros. 1, 06-7260).

 

18. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-15-10 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 (Giustina Bros. 2, 06-7262).

 

19. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-15-11 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 (Giustina Bros. 3, 06-7263).

 

20. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-15-12 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 (Hansen2, 06-7261).

 

21. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-15-13 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 (Harper1, 06-7309).

 

22. 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 (Harper2, 06-7310).

 

23. 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 (Hartzell, 06-7293)

 

24. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-15-14 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 (Hingley, Cont. 1/23, 06-6816).

 

25. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-15-15 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 (Keep, 06-7248).

 

26. 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 (Kronke, 06-7295).

 

27. 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 (Larsen, 06-7251).

 

28. 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 (Makinson1, 06-7264).

 

29. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-15-16 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 (Michelson, 06-7300).

 

30. 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 (Montgomery, Cont. 4/10, 06-7333).

 

31. 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 (Moulton, 06-7250).

 

32. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-15-18 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 (Murphy314, 06-7314).

 

33. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-15-19 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 (Myhre, 06-7299).

 

34. 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 (Pavelec, 06-7168).

 

35. 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 (Petersdorf, 06-7246).

 

36. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-15-20 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 (S. Lane TV, 06-7349).

 

37. 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 (Salmony, 06-7252).

 

38. 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 (Shelley, 06-7253).

 

39. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-15-21 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 (Smith, 06-7247).

 

40. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-15-22 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 (Tokatee, 06-7265).

 

41. 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 (Van Duyn, 06-7259).

 

42. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-15-23 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 (Walken, 06-7249).

 

43. 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 (Warner, Cont. 4/10, 06-7332).

 

44. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-15-24 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 (Watson2, 06-7254).

 

45. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-15-25 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 (Wobbe, 06-7258).

 

46. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-15-26 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 (Woolcott, 06-7348).

 

Commissioner Stewart asked if there were any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest.

 

Dwyer said he spoke with Ray Babb and Mr. Van Duyn, but they are not related to any Measure 37 claim.

 

Stewart indicated he had also spoken with the Babb Family and Mr. Van Duyn and it is not related to a Measure 37 claim.

 

The other commissioners had no conflicts.

 

Kent Howe, Land Management, reported they are providing for citizens to comment on 46 Measure 37 claims.He said for those claims that are having their first hearing today, they mailed notice to the property owners within 1500 feet between April 19 and April 23 that meets the code requirements.He added for the claims that have been continued from the prior hearings, it was announced at those hearings that they would be heard today.He said staff had conducted analysis of the pertinent Measure 37 requirements on the claims and summarized the information in the staff report.†† He indicated the analysis addresses the requirement of ownership, date of acquisition, the current zoning, and the zoning regulations at the time of acquisition and some form of competent analysis of fair market value reduction resulting from the land use regulations that have been applied to the property since the current ownersí 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 reduction.He reported that three of the claims have been withdrawn:Bowers311, Makinson1 and Hartzell.He noted that four of the claimants have requested their claim be placed on hold:Babb, Pavelec, Salmony and Van Duyn. He said three claims were not valid from staffís analysis because there has been no demonstration in reduction of value:Kronke, Petersdorf and Warner.He added there are 13 claims that are incomplete because they havenít provided enough information necessary to make a finding that the claims are valid.

 

Howe said if claimants want additional time to submit additional information in the record, they will have to offer a waiver of the timelines.He said May 25 would be the day the record would close and they could roll them to a continued hearing on June 5.He said they currently have five claims rolled to June 5.

 

Green asked about the recent legislation.

 

Howe explained that last week the senate and house adopted HB3546, a time extension.He said it doesnít affect how they process claims.He said they have already sent notice.He thought the intent of the legislation was for the state.He said for Lane Countyís purposes, they gained additional 360 days.He said if the Board wanted to utilize the time, they could. He added HB3540 is being labeled as the fix for Measure 37 but it has not been voted on yet by the senate.He indicated they have just been given additional time for the processing of the claims.

 

Commissioner Stewart opened the Public Hearing.

 

Babb

 

Jim Spickerman, Eugene, stated he represented Ray Babb and Charles Van Duyn.He indicated last week he submitted a request to have the matter set over.He asked for the continuance to June 18.He indicated he would waive the claim.

 

MOTION: to hold the claim over until June 20 and accept his waiver.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE; 5-0.

 

MOTION: to hold the claim over on Van Duyn for June 20.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

Dwyer added they were keeping the record open for both claims to June 5.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Barrar

 

Rob Lilley, Springfield, stated he was speaking on behalf of three other property owners who all live on the private road that provides access to the subject property.They believe it is an invalid Measure 37 claim.He agreed with the staff recommendation that if the value reduction analysis was prepared for this application isnít acceptable, to direct the county administrator to deny.They believe the analysis is unacceptable as it didnít take into account the subject property cannot be provided with electrical power or other utilities.He noted the subject property is located about two miles in a straight line from Jasper and four miles southeast of Springfield at the intersection of Highway 126 and Main Street.He added it was about a half mile from the edge of the subject property to a public road.He noted there was an easement that said it is for road purposes only.He said there was no utility easement to the subject property.He indicated Emerald Public Utility is the nearest utility provider. He believed it was impractical to build residents without electrical services.He thought the analysis had to account for the lack of utility service to the property.He added that there could be smaller parcel sizes if a successful land division application was received.

 

Sorenson asked if they had ever granted a Measure 37 claim where the utility easement was not part of the comparative.

 

Howe responded that it hadnít been an issue they had dealt with before.He commented that the Board had not considered that level of detail in the past.

 

Stewart said access to the property is not part of the hearing.He said it is only the time when they acquired the property, what regulations have been opposed that could potentially have reduced the value.

 

Fleenor stated he wanted to move forward if they had comparative valuations based upon land that did not have utility access versus land that has utility access.He thought it would be a fairer approach.

 

Vorhes said they have had claims where there had been limitations alleged in the ability to develop so they asked the applicants to address those limitations or explain why it is feasible to do what they say they could do in the assumption that is the basis for the reduction in value.He said they could address the other limitations that are alleged and present the Board with the limits to see if they eliminate a value reduction by the regulations.

 

Doug Jordan, Springfield, stated his property adjoins the southern boundary of their easement.He said Lane Code 15.137(5) addresses the health and safety issue.††† He was concerned about the traffic on Homestead Road.He said it is only 15 feet wide and thought it would cause problems.He added there is also a problem with sight distance.

 

Mike Farthing, Eugene, stated he represents the applicants Richard and Elaine Barrar.He requested a postponement so he could respond to the materials he received today.He commented that all the Board has is a legal opinion from a land use consultant about whether or not utility service could be provided to this property.He didnít agree with it or accept it.He said that is an issue that is taken up at the subdivision process.He thought the discussion of access was irrelevant.He indicated the property is 160 acres currently valued as F1 at $612,000.†† He said if five acre lots are created there would be 30 plus lots created.He said he did the valuation analysis and used the comparables down the road for the Danker application that the Board approved.He said there is arange of $125,000 to $150,000 per lot for five acres and he came up with the value reduction.He said if they created five acre lots in the location that could be built upon, people would pay that amount, regardless if electricity were there.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to June 5 and continued Public Hearing to June 20.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

Farthing said he would waive the 180 days.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Bowers311

 

This claim was withdrawn.

 

Bowers 313

 

Mike Farthing, Eugene, stated he represented the applicants. He indicated staff recommended approval and he was in agreement.

 

Ed Troxclair, Creswell, said he wanted to do the same thing but was told since he owned the land, he could only sell to relatives.

 

Brandt

 

Thomas Brandt, Marcola, asked to be notified about todayís meeting and he wasnít.He found out the information was sent to San Diego and he didnít receive anything and didnít have time to prepare.He asked to have this continued. He said when they changed his property to F2 from unzoned, the planning department changed it to F2 but the tax department kept it as buildable land.He went to the Board of Equalization for ten years to get it changed.He said he was owed back taxes but all he got was forest deferral.

 

Howe indicated they sent the information to both addresses: 6644 Radio Drive, San Diego and 37056 Boiler Creek Road, Springfield

 

Brandt thought the record was wrong because he didnít receive anything at his address.

 

Dwyer asked if he would waive the 180 days.

 

Brandt agreed to waive the 180 days.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to May 25 and continued Public Hearing on June 5.

 

Dwyer MOVED.

 

Brandt said he didnít change his property to F2 and he didnít think he should pay to change it back.He put down on his application that the County overcharged him for taxes and never paid him back.He told Land Management to take the fees out of that.

 

Sorenson asked why they were requesting denial.

 

Howe said they brought this to the Board because of the timeliness to avoid missing the deadline for Measure 37. He noted the information they received so far has been the tax assessment.He added there had not been any competent form of value reduction analysis provided.He indicated what was provided today was the same.

 

Brandt said he doesnít have the money to pay the fee.

 

Bobby SECONDED.

 

Dwyer amended the motion to keep the record open to July 5 with the public heating on June 20.

 

Vorhes said the Board had not accepted a claim and approved a waiver to the claimant in a situation where the fee had not been paid.He said in the past the Board had recommended denial when the fee has not been paid or the other information has not been provided.

 

Fleenor thought the Board could develop a hardship policy with regard to Measure 37 claims based on federal or state guidelines.

 

Dwyer thought all citizens are entitled to redress under the law.He agreed there should be a process for hardship cases.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Brooks

 

Frank Walker stated he originated the Brooks claim.He said in the application, they plan on dropping a part of the claim on tax lot 700.He stated they will only be considering tax lot 600 instead.He said it is the smaller of the two parcels.He has a deed showing Brooks in possession of the property on February 20, 1978 that is already part of the record.He addressed the ownership issue.He said for the valuation issue, they had a party contact them from Lane County and did a valuation.He said the Board rejected it.He said he would postpone this so they could get a competent valuation on tax lot 600.He said he would waive the 180 days.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to May 20 and continued public hearing to June 20.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Bunzel

 

Bill Kloos, Eugene, stated he filed the application and there is a positive staff report.He concurred with the claim

 

Collis

 

Julie Collis said her claim is for 20 acres she and her husband bought in 1973 at RR 5. She said the acreage was reduced by two acres by the widening of Willamette and Fox Hollow.She received notice that it was RR10.She said she only has one parcel to sell at a loss. She thought her claim was denied because she didnít have all the required information for the Board.She added she will pay the filing fee.

 

MOTION: to help the record open to May 25 and continue the public hearing to June 5.

 

Dwyer MOVED, FleenorSECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Cordon

 

Gwen Cordon, Dexter, stated she was impressed by the way the Board processed the claim and she thanked the Board.

 

Corey

 

Scott Corey, Camp Creek, thanked the Board.He stated he paid his fee under protest.

 

Dare1

 

Carl Muller, Springfield, stated the Dares purchased the property in 1972 prior to SB 100.He indicated it is 48 acres and they proposed up to three lots.He said they had a positive staff report.

 

Dare 2

 

Carl Muller stated the claim was straightforward; Dare purchased the property in 1978 and at that time it was unzoned.He said it has since been zoned F1, four acres.He wanted to make use of the rules in 1978.

 

Day 2

 

Mike Farthing, Eugene, said he represents the Days.He indicated this is east of the Saginaw exit.He said the acquisition date was 1972.He stated it was a straightforward case and staff recommended approval of a waiver.

 

Defoe3

 

Major Defoe stated he has the missing valuation.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to May 25 and continued public hearing to June 5.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Defoe4

 

Major Defoe stated he is waiting for the valuation.He asked for a continuance.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to May 25 and continued public hearing to June 5.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Gass

 

No one signed up to speak on the claim.

 

Giustina Bros1

 

Jim Spickerman, Eugene, indicated staff recommended approval and he concurred.

 

Giustina Bros2

 

No one signed up to speak on the claim.

 

Giustina Bros3

 

No one signed up to speak on the claim.

 

Hansen2

 

Bill Kloss, Eugene, indicated the staff report recommended partial approval.He said staff has a grasp on their approach to this.He said they agreed with their view. He indicated the family members acquired ranch property starting in the late thirties through the forties.He said in 1960, four family members created a partnership that continues today.He added when they formed the partnership in 1960, all the property they owned came into the partnership by a partnership agreement. He noted staff said they were able to confirm the applicantís position about which property came into the partnership in 1960 with the exception of five tax lots.He said for those, they canít track the deeds.He said they recommend partial approval.He indicated they received the staff report last week and they got the deeds for four tax lots.He added the fifth tax lot does not belong in this claim.He said yesterday he gave staff a letter an attached table that lists the five tax lots in question that staff couldnít agree with in the staff report.He said they listed the original deed to the Hansen family member and they identified when it came into ownership of the family member.He said it then went into the partnership in 1960 when the partnership was formed.He added attached to the letter is each of the four deeds.He added tax lot 500 came out of partnership and then came back in.He said it has a 1994 date and doesnít belong in the claim.He agrees it deserves a partial approval.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to May 25 and continued hearing to June 5 and. They will waive the 180 days.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Harper1

 

Frederick Batson stated he is the attorney for Janet Harper.He explained thatfive of the parcels were acquired in 1965 when the property was unzoned with multiple uses permitted that are currently not allowed.He noted that two of the parcels involved were acquired in 1966 and 1967 when the property was zoned AGT and certain parcel sizes were permitted that are not currently permitted.He said his client cannot currently use the property for the uses she could have.He said the staff report recommends approval of the claim but only to 1996 as opposed to 1965 and 1966.He said they have a dispute with that issue.He said Janet Harper put six of the seven parcels into a family limited partnership in 1996 and she remained as the general partner, with full liability.He indicated under the specific terms of the partnership agreement, it expired at a certain date.He said she has the right under the limited partnership agreement to control whether or not it sells.He believes the waiver should go back to 1965 when she first acquired the parcels. He commented for the waiver not to go back to 1966, they would have to conclude that Harper retained no interest in the property.†† He didnít think the Board could reach that conclusion.He said they dispute whether the time waiver is at the appropriate time frame.He said that Janet Harper retained some interest in the property and the language in Measure 37 should allow for a waiver back to 1966.He said they had submitted valuations on the residential loss in value.He said they also submitted a restricted value appraisal and on the aggregatevaluation regarding the decreased value.He requested the Board grant the waiver, but back to 1965 on the five parcels, 1966 on one parcel and 1967 to the other parcel.

 

Vorhes said his advice to the Board is that the statute says there might be future ability to get back to control and ownership of the property for the Measure 37 purposes, but now the owner looks to be a partnership.He said suggested the Board look at the date of the current owner partnership acquired as the date of acquisition for purposes of waiver.

 

Lee Kirsten stated he represents Lone Pine Farms.He said they differ from staff.He thinks there needs to be a separate analysis on tax lot 1401.He said it was conveyed to tenants in common ownership on April 8, 1993 and Mrs. Harper didnít obtain complete title to the property until March 9, 2001.He believed the waiver, if granted, should be effective as of that date.He said they have a different position than Batson on the retained rights.He said there is a requirement for a 75 percent concurrent vote of the limited partners to affect a dissolution.He said there was not a unilateral authority by any partner because they didnít have a majority interest to affect any type of sale or material action with the property in regard to land use.He said they have strong objections to the purported valuation submitted on the sand and gravel value.He thought the present valuation calculation was troublesome.He said the number equated to about $51,000 per acre.

 

Batson didnít think the partnership statute goes to the issue they addressed.He said the issue is did Mrs. Harper have absolute fee title owner.He said she did.†† He said tax lot 1401 should be considered separately based on a deed by Mrs. and Mr. Harper to themselves in 1993 as tenants in common.He thought that argument should be rejected.With regard to the aggregate valuations, he didnít hear the valuation was a loss.He said unless they are looking at pay off, there is a decrease in valuation. He thought there was clear evidence that there was a substantial decrease in value.He thought there should be a waiver issued today going back to 1965.

 

Harper2

 

Frederick Batson indicated in this case he is representing Warren Harper, individually.He explained this case was different than Janet Harperís case, as there is no transfer to a limited partnership.He said the dates of acquisition by Harper appear to be agreed upon by staff:1974 for tax lot 1400 at 55 acres and 1977 for tax lot 900.He didnít think there was a dispute.He indicated the staff report states what the zoning was and the minimum lot size, limitation on new dwellings and limitations on aggregate extraction in the E-30 zone prevent the current owners from developing and using the property as they could have been allowed when they acquired it..He said staff agreed that the use allowed today is different than in the past.With regard to valuation, they provided the same type of information on Harper1.He noted staff in this situation said the valuation they submitted on the Harper1 application was adequate and said they did not submit competent evidence and the county administrator had not waived the appraisal requirements.He said as a result, they submitted the restricted value appraisal.He said they thought the valuation evidence they submitted in support of the application has comparable sales, not just assessed valuable.He submitted the aggregate valuation.He added they submitted a restrictive value appraisal to support the valuation decease.He thought they met the burden and the only issue raised by staff does not relate to date of acquisition, it relates to valuation that was considered adequate on Harper1.He said they met the requirements in this situation and asked the Board to waive back to 1974 on tax lot 1400 and to 1977 on lot 900.

 

Lee Kirsten stated he represents Lone Pine Farms, Eugene.He indicated this property was conveyed by Mr. Harper to his ex-wife on February 23, 1978.He said that deed created a one-half interest in an estate by its entirety.He added that Mr. Harperís ex-wife reconveyed the property to him on April 25, 1981 and they believe if there is a waiver that should be the effective date.He added the submitted title report doesnít show the chain of title for the properties.He noted the title report for the 309 application shows that and when a number of the properties had been transferred to a limited partnership, they believe they should show that these properties did not transfer to the limited partnership and they donít have that problem.He objected to the valuation material.He didnít think there was any evidence presented to the aggregate valuation on either claim.

 

Batson said with the conveyance to a partial interest to Mr. Harperís wife, the statutory language states that is any interest in the property.He said Harper deeded the property to his wife and himself and he retained an interest.He indicated the information on the aggregate valuation does tie the aggregate valuation to the property.He thought the valuations were supportable.

 

Stewart asked why this was claim was denied.

 

Howe responded it was the form of valuation they first received.He said it was a statement referencing the other valuation and it wasnít applicable to this claim.He noted with the supplemental information that has come in, staff wanted to review the information.He recommended continuing the claim.

 

MOTION: to leave the record open to May 25 and a continued public hearing to June 5 for Harper2.

 

Green MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Hartzell

 

No one signed up to speak on the claim.

 

Hingley

 

No one signed up to speak on the claim.

 

Keep

 

No one signed up to speak on the claim.

 

Kroneke

 

Toots Kronke, Eugene, asked why his claim was being denied.

 

Stewart indicated it was the valuation.

 

Howe explained the property is an LLC and the current owner is Kronke Properties, which was acquired in 1999.He added it also enters into a valid reduction.He said if it was a valid claim it would be back to 1999.

 

Kronke wanted additional time for his attorney to respond.

 

MOTION: to leave the record open to May 25, and to continue the public hearing on June 5 to allow the applicant an opportunity to determine what is going on with his claim.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

Green noted there was no reduction in value.He asked if information was going to be provided that there was a reduction in value.

 

Kronke said he had an appraisal done.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Larsen

 

Barbara Larsen, Eugene, asked for a waiver ofan extensionof time to June 20.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to June 5 and a continued public hearing on June 20, pursuant to the applicantís request.He added she has agreed to a waiver.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE; 5-0.

 

Makinson1

 

This claim has been withdrawn.

 

Michelson

 

No one signed up to speak on the claim.

 

Montgomery

 

Alan Montgomery, Florence, noted on the analysis for the claim, it was stated they acquired the property in 1990 and 2000.He said they did a title search and it showed his brother, mom and himself acquired the property in October of 1993 through a trust.He added the second restriction is the valuation for the property.He said they had a real estate agent do a comparative cost appraisal.He said it wasnít accepted.He said if the comparative cost appraisal cannot be accepted, they have to continue this to the beginning of next year for appraisal.He stated with the restricted land use regulation, he said Ron Funke wrote a letter after the last meeting that stated it was under Ordinance 884 that would allow an RV park.He added in 1991, it allowed for services.He said after 1999 it was changed and there were no services allowed to each site.He said there was a significant loss in value if services couldnít be provided to each site at an RV park.

 

Howe said he didnít see a 1993 deed in the file.He added there was a question of the trust that would need to be unraveled.He said he had a warranty deed from 1994.He said there was a trust that was developed but there was no information.

 

Stewart asked if they could establish the 1993 date in ownership if regulations were taken away to build an RV park.

 

Howe said in 1993 it would have been zoned F2, impacted forest land.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to June 5 and continue the public hearing to June 20 to allow the applicant time to bring information that might support his claim, including a copy of the trust.He said they would also waive the 180 days.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

Ron Funke, Eugene, said they were happy to provide additional documentation as to the trust and the date of its origination.†† He commented that the full valued appraisal is a prohibitive hurdle in this matter.He said they provided comparable values of similar land of the nature they want to be moving to.

 

Dwyer recommended taking this up with the county administrator.

 

Howe said the applicant provided information that explained that certain properties were sold for a certain value and that this property was worth a certain value, but there was nothing that connected a reduction in value to a land use regulation and that was what was needed.

 

Vorhes said it was important for the applicant to address the regulations in place in 1993 for the realistic assumptions that are utilized to develop a loss of value.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Moulton

 

Martha Moutlon, Pleasant Hill, indicated she had never submitted a formal appraisal.She said she has a comparative market analysis.She wanted a waiver of the 180 days.She believed she had given this information before.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to May 25 and continue the public hearing to June 5.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

Howe indicated she has 14 acres and based upon the date of acquisition in 1979, it was zoned FF20.He said unless there is something about the date of acquisition that is incorrect, he didnít know how she could address the value reduction since she is in a zoning that has a 20 acre minimum and she is only at 14 acres in size.

 

Moutlon said she wanted one home site and the land is vacant.

 

Howe thought she could have a valid claim.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Carolyn Garcia stated she lives adjacent to the property in question.She said lot 300 doesnít have a dwelling.She agreed it was FF20 and the size of the lot is below the minimum for a dwelling.She said the house site is restricted by flood zones.She added there is no public easement.

 

Murphy314

 

Mike Farthing said this was straightforward.He said staff recommended approval and he had nothing more to add.

 

Myhre

 

No one signed up to speak on the claim.

 

Petersdorf

 

Mike Farthing said the staff report stated it was not a valid claim.He explained that Darryl and Gladys Petersdorf bought the property in 1959. He noted in 1991 they conveyed it to themselves as trustees of a loving trust.He said there had been no other deeds since then.He indicated Gladys died after that and Darryl, Sr. is still living.He noted there has been an affidavit of successor trustee executed in favor of Vicki Bradfield, a daughter and Daryl, Jr.He added there has been no deed to them as trustees.He said it is their position that Daryl, Sr., as trustee of the trust is still in fee title ownership and there has been no conveyance. He said that Darryl Petersdorf, Sr., maintains an interest in the property and is the listed fee title owner as a surviving tenant.He said the comparative value analysis goes to his interest and his date of acquisition in 1959.He didnít get to talk to staff on this and requested additional time to provide the legal analysis as to why Darryl, Sr. is in fee title.

 

MOTION: to leave the record open until June 5 and a continued public hearing on June 20 to allow the applicant to provide his legal analysis for staff to review.He waived the 180 days.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Pavelec

 

The claim has been put on hold.

 

South Lane T.V.

 

No one signed up to speak on the claim.

 

Salomony

 

This claim has been put on hold.

 

Shelley

 

Josh Stump, Portland, said the staff report takes issue with the ownership issue and the dates of acquisition.He thinks the dates go back further than what the staff report is saying.He indicated there are some issues regarding family trusts.He wanted additional information to provide their own legal analysis.He brought some information with some legal analysis, but with getting the staff report at the close of business on Friday, he wanted another opportunity to provide legal analysis.He also wanted the opportunity to talk to staff about what things might be missing.He requested an extension.

 

Green indicated the processing fee was missing.He asked how he was going to rectify that.

 

Stump said it is his position that the processing fee is not required by Measure 37.

 

Green said it is required by Lane County to pay a processing fee to process the application.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to June 5, with a continued public hearing on June 20.

He also waived the 180 days.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Smith

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Tokatee

 

Jim Spickerman, stated that staff recommended approval and he concurred.

 

Van Duyn

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Walken

 

Don Walken, Creswell, asked if the issue of transferability would be resolved and how he can look at his claim.He said he owns 16 five-acre tracts that was part of an original 1909 subdivision.He indicated that 32 parcels have been sold and built on.He also wants to build on the property.

 

Howe indicated that HB 3540 is what the senate is considering and it addresses transferability and the ability of an heir within a family that own the property.

 

Warner

 

Ron Funke, Eugene, represented Warner.He said in this situation, there is a misreading of the warranty deeds.He indicated this was the original warranty deed that was sold to Michael Lee Warner and Sally Warner.He said it is dated May 18, 1971.He said the original deed from Rollins to Warner was not recorded until 1985.He said Mike Warner has lived there since there.He said the other deeds were transferring the mortgage paper from one buyer to the other.

 

Green asked why it wasnít recorded in 1971.

 

Funke said it was sold after that to a holding company and they never recorded it.He stated it was recorded on August 14, 1975.He said the papers were being sold.He said Warnerís original purchase dates to 1971 and he has lived there continuously since then.

 

Howe indicated that staff was not in disagreement of the original date of ownership.He said the problem is that it went into foreclosure proceedings and they have deeds that in 1985 that real property was sold back to Warner.†† He said there was not continuous ownership.

 

Funke indicated the property never left Warnerís ownership. He said someone else assumed the mortgage and they re-recorded the original deed from 1971.He stated that Mike Warner has never been out of possession of the property since 1971.He urged the Board to adopt the claim.

 

Vorhes stated it sounds straightforward.He asked if the original purchase was done pursuant to a contract with the grantor of the deed in 1971.He asked why all the deeds went around.He wanted to know the relationship between the seller and applicant.

 

Funke said the Warners bought the property on a warranty deed in 1971 and there was a succession of sales of the paper to various corporations over time.

 

Fleenor suggested rolling this for more time to analyze it.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to June 5 with a continued public hearing to June 20.He also waived the 180 days.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Watson2

 

Carl Muller stated he is the agent for the applicant and it was straightforward. He said Mr. Watson acquired the property in 1972, 166 acres.He said the proposal is to divide into lots between 10 and 16 acres in size.He indicated in 1972 SB 100 had not passed and it was unzoned.He said this type of use was permitted.He said there is no future development plans.He said the reason for this is for a development right and they could donate the property to conserve the property into perpetuity.

 

Wobbe

 

Carl Muller indicated the staff report recommended approval of a waiver to 2002 for E-40.†† He said the docket recommended denial.He said when the Wobbes put forth this claim, they were advised of the issues regarding living trusts and were advised that they didnít have a valid claim.He indicated that James Wobbe acquired the property in 1954 to be able to leave to his family.He said it was zoned E-40.He hasnít reviewed SB 3540.He thought the family trust issue is likely to be litigated in the future.He said the Wobbes knew what they were getting into when the application was filed.He wanted to see their rights preserved to the maximum extent possible.He wanted to keep this open for a resolution in their benefit to June 5.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to June 5, with a continued public hearing to June 20.He also said the client will waive the 180 days.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Wolcott

 

No one signed up to speak on the claim.

 

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

 

MOTION:to approve Bowers313, Bunzel, Cordon, Corey, Dare1, Dare2, Day2, Gass, Giustina Bros1, Giustina Bros2, Giustina Bros3, Hingley, Keep, Mickelson, Murphy314, Myhre, South Lane T.V., Smith, Tokatee, Walkin, Watson2, Wolcott.

 

Sorenson MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Harper1

 

Vorhes indicated there were questions raised about ownership of one of the tax lots and he didnít get to review it.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to May 25 and continued public hearing to June 5.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Stewart recessed the meeting at 12:15 p.m.

 

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary