BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'

WORK SESSION

May 8, 2007

9:00 a.m.

Harris Hall Main Floor

APPROVED 10/22/2008

 

Commissioner Faye Stewart presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bill Fleenor and Peter Sorenson present.  Bobby Green, Sr. was excused. 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 07-5-8-1/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 (Betz, 06-7229).

 

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 (Bixler, Cont. 4/3, 05-6425).).

 

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 (Bowers4, 06-7241).

 

4. 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 (Carpenter, Cont. 4/3, 06-7102).

 

5. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-8-2/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 (Day1, 06-7243).

 

6. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-8-3/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 (Defoe1, Cont. 4/3, 06-7117).

 

7. 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 (Defoe2, Cont. 4/3, 06-7126).

 

8. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-8-4/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 (Derby, 06-7234).

 

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 (Edgemon, Cont. 4/3, 06-7125).

 

10. 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 (Eymann, 05-6785).

 

11. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-8-5/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 (Furrer, 06-7222).

 

12. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-8-6/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 (Harnsberger, 06-7220).

 

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 (Inman, 06-7346).

 

14. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-8-7/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 (Keinlen, 06-7240).

 

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 (Kester, 06-7224).

 

16. 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 (Lamb1, Cont. 4/3, 06-7106).

 

17. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-8-8/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 (Langan, 06-7239).

 

18. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-8-9/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 (Lassiter, Cont. 4/3, 06-7328).

 

19. 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 (Lone Rock1, 06-5549).

 

20. 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 (Lone Rock2, Cont. 4/3, 06-7115).

 

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 (Lone Rock3, Cont. 4/3, 06-7116).

 

22. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-8-10/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 (Mitchell1, 06-7223).

 

23. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-8-11/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 (Mitchell2, 06-7227).

 

24. 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 (Nielsen2, 06-7347).

 

25. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-8-12/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 (Novick, 06-7238).

 

26. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-8-13/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 (Pitney, 06-7218).

 

27. 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 (Powell1, 06-7231).

 

28. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-8-14/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 (Pupke, 06-7230).

 

29. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-8-15/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 (Rankin, Cont. 4/3, 06-7121).

 

30. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-8-16/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 (Reich, 06-7225).

 

31. 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 (Ridgley, Cont. 4/3, 06-7124).

 

32. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-8-17/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 (Saunders, 06-7237).

 

33. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-8-18/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 (Schrenk, 06-7226).

 

34. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-8-19/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 (Sea Lion Caves, 06-7221).

 

35. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-8-20/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 (Spies, 06-7228).

 

36. 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 (Sunset , 06-7219).

 

37. 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 (Troutman2, 06-7242).

 

38. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-8-21/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 (Volesky, 06-7236).

 

39. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-8-22/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 (Willie, Cont. 4/3, 06-7101).

 

40. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-8-23/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 (Woodrich, 06-7345).

 

Commissioner Stewart asked if there were any ex parte contacts.

 

There were none.

 

Kent Howe, Land Management, said they are providing opportunity for citizens to comment on 40 Measure 37 claims.  He indicated for those claims that are having their first hearing today, they mailed notice to the property owners within 1500 feet on April 17, meeting the code requirements of at least 20 days in advance of the Public Hearing.  He added for the 12 claims that are continued from April 3, it was announced at that hearing that they would be heard today.  He noted that 17 of the claims have been recommended for denial; three have been withdrawn; four are not valid because no demonstration of reduction in value and the remaining ten claims are incomplete because they hadnít provided enough information to make a finding the claims are valid.  He said staff conducted analysis of the pertinent Measure 37 requirements and summarized the information in the staff report.  He indicated the analysis addresses the requirements 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 ownerís acquisition.  He added for those claims that did not provide an appraisal, the County Administrator has waived the appraisal requirement because they have provided a competent analysis of value reduction.  He said for the hearings the Board continued, staff recommended the Board close the record on May 25 and continue the Public Hearings to June 5.

 

Commissioner Stewart opened the Public Hearing.

 

Betz

 

Mike Evans, Springfield, stated that he represents Paul and Nadine Betz.  He indicated that staff has recommended approval of the claim and he approved staffís recommendation.

 

Bixler

 

Selene Price, Eugene, stated she is the daughter of the Bixlers.  She indicated her grandparents bought the land.  She said it looked like there was a trust deed missing and she brought a copy of the document to show the continuance of ownership.  She also had the original bargain and sale deed from her grandparents when they purchased it originally in 1974 from the corporation who owned the land at the time.  She said according to the supplemental memo, the issue was ownership.  She indicated she found out today it also mentions a valuation issue that she wasnít aware of.  He provided a current market analysis at the last hearing.  She wasnít aware of any other valuation issues that are outstanding.

 

Howe said it had to do with the date of ownership that would affect the value reduction analysis.

 

Howe recommended this claim be continued.

 

MOTION: to leave the record open to May 25 with a continued hearing on June 5.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

Lucette Wood, Springfield, said she didnít need to speak.

 

Bowers4

 

Norm Waterbury, Eugene, stated that he didnít know the status of the application.  He indicated there was a valuation issue and said it was mislabeled.  He said it was recommended for approval.

 

Howe explained that this claim was one where initially the value reduction analysis was not provided. He recall as of last weekís action, when they accepted the value reduction analysis where the attorney pulled it together to the land use regulations, it was different than what was authorized before.  He said before it required either an appraisal or a real estate broker to make the connection.  He noted with last weekís action, it opened it up to this claim for a value reduction analysis where they did a CMA and the dots were connected by the applicantís agents.  He said they recommended approval.

 

Carpenter

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Day1

 

Mike Farthing, said the claim is straightforward and staff recommended approval.

 

DeFoe1

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Defoe2

 

Major Defoe, said he turned his information in past the date required.  He said his claim is a date of ownership issue, not a valuation issue.  He said he and his wife bought the property in 1970 and he had supplied a land sales agreement he signed with a relative of his wifeís.  He said they finished paying for the property 19 years later.  He said being new in buying the property, they knew nothing about title or deeds and 28 years later they discovered they never had a title or a deed to their property.  He said they wanted to borrow money for a business and use their land as collateral.  He said since his wife was a non-working wife, she agreed to pursue getting the loan.  He said the title company put it in just her name.  He said they bought the property in 1970, both of their names were on the taxes and insurance until 2005.  He said in 2005 when his wife was sick with cancer, they took all of their property information to the attorney and the attorney discovered the error.

 

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

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

Derby

 

Tamara Peterson, said she was present on behalf of her parents.  She said it appeared this was approved.

 

Edgemon

 

Dale Veenendaal Springfield, said he is a real estate broker.  His understanding is that they have failed to do an evaluation.  He said they created a new letter today showing the numbers.  His opinion is that there is an $875,000 amount that would restrict the value of their property if it did not get approved.

 

Robert Edgemon, stated that he has owned the property since 1967.  He said they had a former hearing and there were problems.  He said they turned in the valuation information.  He added the information was the same as the Betz property they approved but they denied his.  He said his property is next to the Betz property.

 

Sheryl Bathrop, Eugene, said they submitted extensive comparative market analysis and a summary.  She said restrictive regulation reduced the value.  She added that this claim is similar to the Betz claim.  She said the Edgemons are only asking for one house to go on the property.  She noted that Edgemon has owned it since 1967, where Mr. Betz owned his property since 1972.  She said the Betz property found a decrease in value of $1.280 million.  She didnít know why there was lack of sufficient valuation information because it is the same market analysis information as the Betz.  She said they have a CMA from Mr. Venandaal.

 

Matt Laird, Land Management, indicated the County Administrator would waive the appraisal.

 

Howe stated that staff wanted to take more time to analyze what was submitted to be consistent.  He wanted to roll this to June 5.

 

Eymann

 

Penny Jordan, said her mother is the property owner.  She said they havenít submitted anything because they didnít realize they had to do anything prior to today.  She understands this has to be delayed.

 

MOTION: to hold the record open to May 15 with a continued hearing on June 5.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

Dwyer stated he has known the Eymanns for over 50 years but he had not been in contact with them regarding this case.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

Furrer

 

Jim Belknap, Cottage Grove, said he represents Dick and Rose Furrer.  He supported staffís request for a waiver.  He recalled that the Furrers acquired the property in the 1960ís and their request is to divide it into four parcels to grant each parcel to their four children.

 

Harnsberger

 

Jim Belknap, Cottage Grove, said Donna Harnsberger is the owner of the property.  She and her late husband purchased it in the early 80ís.  He added that it was an Oregon Department of Veteranís Affairs foreclosure purchased under a lands sales contract.  He said that Harnsberger passed away a few years after they purchased the property.  At the time Harnsberger acquired the property, it was zoned Farm Forestry 30 and since has been rezoned to Exclusive Farm Use.  He said her desire is to be able to partition the property into two parcels: deeded one piece to her brother and retaining the other piece for herself.  He noted that staff recommended approval of the request for the waiver.

 

Inman

 

Bruce Towle, Camas, WA, said he was present on behalf of his mother-in-law Thelma Inman.  He said originally the staff indicated they needed to submit valuation, but now it states ownership. He said they submitted additional valuation information last week.

 

Howe distributed a supplement that was unable to be in the Boardís packet.  He stated that staff has reviewed the additional information submitted last week.    He said they came to the conclusion that it is a valid claim.

 

Lauri Segel, wanted more time to get information.  She hadnít seen the new information.

 

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

 

Sorenson MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

Dwyer said staff recommended approval.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

Keinlen

 

Robert Russell, Eugene, represents Linda Keinlen.  He said she purchased the property in 1975, consisting of 20 acres.  He reviewed the staff report that recommended approval. He noted in the application they submitted, they took a broad brush on the regulations that occurred on her property zoned F2.  He said the staff report recommended approval based on one provision of Lane Code Section 16.  He said they were concerned she would not be able to partition her property the way she thought she would be able to based on the narrow aspect of the waiver.  He hoped staff would comment.

 

Vorhes asked if it was the date of ownership for compensation.

 

Russell said it recommends approval of the waiver of the zoned dwelling and land division requirements.  He said their application listed Lane Code provisions 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and the single provision of 16 was included in the order.  They were concerned they needed to either supplement the record making the connections or have it on the record that she will be able to partition her land and do as she would have done in 1975 when she purchased the property.

 

Vorhes indicated that the report addresses the other code provisions.  He said Lane Code Chapter 10 is not applicable to the property at the current time and would not restrict any use on the property now.  He said that provision is not included in the waiver because it doesnít have the effect of reducing the value and it is not applicable.  He added that the other provisions of Lane Code had issues.  He said Lane Code 13 they continue to apply and it looks to the zoning for the division lot size.  He said that was why the F2 zone is the only provision they talk about waiving because it is the only thing that affects the size of the development.

 

Russell noted in Section 13, that their analysis was incorrect.  He said it refers to the Comprehensive Plan.  He asked if they get a waiver of Section 16 if the provision still applies and if they have to meet other requirements.

 

Vorhes said it depends where the analysis is and how it gets to the restriction and reduces the value.  He said the analysis and all of the evidence point to the need to divide and place dwellings.  He added going beyond that into the Comprehensive Plan provisions or other provisions in the code, it is not clear that they have the restrictive reduction in value effect that the lot size and the dwelling restrictions in the F2 zone have. He said the rest of the code governs what was in is place at the time the property was purchased in 1975.  He said those would have an affect on development approval but that would be sorted out in the development process.

 

Russell believed some of the provisions werenít strictly health, safety and welfare.  He wanted to work it out to make sure Keinlen can do what she thinks she can do.

 

Vorhes asked if there was evidence in the record that addresses and specifies the value reduction that is attributable to the other code provisions.  He said it doesnít usually occur and that was why the focus was on the lot size and dwellings. He added if that was intended to be done if the lot size and the dwelling provisions of the F2 zone are gone, then the use is allowed in a way that could have been done at the time of acquisition by the current owner.  He said he was willing to look at more analysis.

 

Russell said they supplied a comparative market analysis in addition to a letter from a licensed real estate agent.  He believed the restriction reduced the fair market value of the property

 

Dwyer didnít think his client was damaged.  He didnít want to spend staff time.

 

Russell said having it on the record would let her do what she wanted to do.

 

Dwyer stated she would be able to do what the order specifies.

 

Stewart said they believe it was a valid claim and they were willing to waive certain restrictions to the date she acquired the property, as long as it is not life, safety and health. 

 

Russell stated with the passage of a new law that may require different qualifications to qualify for a Measure 37 claim they would like to be able to deal with the problems under the current law as it would be more consistent with her property rights. He said if they attempt to put a home on the back of her lot, in the future most likely there would be a new Measure 37 law that she would have to qualify for under her new Measure 37 claim on when they could have dealt with it with the current law.

 

Dwyer thought that any law that changes Measure 37 would be prospective and not retrospective.

 

Russell understood what staff said was Ms. Keinlen claim would be considered as if it had been filed today instead of at the time she develops the property.

 

Vorhes indicated that the claim has been filed and the Board is being asked to act on the claim and if they act on the claim, it covers it.  He said the development approval process is not a Measure 37 process, it is the normal development review process that is subject to the rules of development review.  He commented that he didnít know how final legislation would come out and how it would affect previously acted upon Measure 37 claims.  He said if the Board takes action on the claim and adopts an order, he thought it would be the end of the Measure 37 process.

 

Russell stated that they wanted to preserve their claim for appeal on this issue and on the issue of the narrowness of the order. 

 

Kester

 

Jim Belknap, Cottage Grove, stated he represents Linde and Sharon Kester.  He said their claim stated it should be denied based on ownership.  He said the current owners are the Kester Family Trust, Linde and Sharon Kester are the current owners and have been the owners since the date they acquired the property.  He said he has copies of their deeds, memorandums and land sale contracts and those were included in the application packet submitted.  He thought the issue on the recommendation for denial last Friday was strange.  He said the staff personís position was that the application should be denied because the Kesters were not seeking to take the zoning back to what it was zoned at their date of acquisition.  He indicated that the property is currently zoned Exclusive Farm Use 40, 1200 acres in size.  He said the entire property is zoned E-40.  He noted at the time they acquired the property, it was zoned Forest Management.  He recalled in 1984 the property was rezoned to Exclusive Farm Use varying between E 25 and E 40.  He said at that time the Exclusive Farm Use zoning did not have requirements to demonstrate farm related income to gain approval to place a dwelling on a piece of land.  He said the request of the Kesters is to have the Exclusive Farm Use zoning that was applicable in February 1984 applied to their property.   He said they want to divide the property into as many as 15 parcels between 80 and 100 acres in size to construct dwellings for their children and grandchildren on the property.  He said they understand the limitation that currently exists of transferability to construct homes for the remainder of their family.  He said they are seeking to go back to the February 1984 zoning.  He said the staff person he spoke with said that wasnít allowed and their only option was to seek recourse back to the Forest Management zoning that would have allowed them to divide the property into 40 acre parcels and place a dwelling on each piece.  He indicated that they will ask for a continuance and ask for an application to have the FM zoning.  He thought that was contrary to the EFU zoning and the Kesters are not objecting to that. 

 

Howe explained that the way the measure reads, you waive to the date the current owner acquired the property.  He said they either waive the current regulations or apply those in effect at the time they acquired the property.  He said it is a 1200 acre parcel in the Exclusive Farm Use E-40.  He said it is their understanding that what the Kester family intends is to divide the property into lots of 80 or 100 acres in size and place a dwelling on each lot.  He said in the E-40 zone they can divide land to sizes of 80 to 100 acres in size and the zoning code also allows for the provision of dwellings on parcels of that size if they can show they meet certain standards and income tests or other provisions of the code.  He said the applicant hasnít demonstrated that this Exclusive Farm Use zone they are currently regulated by has in fact precluded them from being able to do what they are requesting to do.  He said staff is unable to come to the conclusion that the Exclusive Farm Use zone in fact has resulted in a reduction in value of their property.

 

Dwyer said under Measure 37 he is allowed to do more than what they reasonably want to do.  He asked how they accommodate that aspect of Measure 37.  He said it is in the public interest to have less development on farm land.  He asked why there is a question of ownership.

 

Vorhes said it breaks down to what the evidence is and how it affects the analysis in terms of a trust where there is the assertion that the individuals continue to hold an interest in the property.  He said there is a provision that states if one of the trustors passes, the other one no longer holds a revocability power to it.  He said that was the reason for the question coming up around ownership issues.  He said the difficulty of the 1984 EFU zoning is that gets to the issue the claimant is asking for, to put in zoning that was in place since the time of their acquisition, but is no longer in place.  He said that leads to the measure language that discusses having the authority to modify, remove or not apply the land use regulations.  He expressed concern about the Board acting in a fashion that looks like they are amending the current zoning because in some ways that could create a potential snag for another Measure 37 claim if it is not enough.  He said not to change everything, but to say you could do what you could when you got the property in lieu of the compensation and making sure there is adequate evidence in the record for the Board to take an action to approve the claim.

 

Dwyer thought they should amend their application.  He would be willing to leave the record open and they could be consistent.

 

Belknap said that Lane Code 2710 defines land use regulation as any statute regulating the use of land or any interest therein.  He thought the point was still valid that they have a claim to go back to the 1984 regulation.  He added if it simplifies things, they will go to the FM zoning.  His concern is the County has waived the land use regulation in one case taking it back to an industrial zoning where it is zoned Exclusive Farm Use and the state has chosen to reject that claim because Goal 3 was in place at the time the industrial zoning was applied to the property.  He said their position is given the soils, it should have been classified as Exclusive Farm Use from the outset.   He recalled that Goal 3 was in effect in 1981 and 1983 when the Kesters acquired the property and that property should have been zoned Exclusive Farm Use as it subsequently was.  He added the issue with the EFU zoning is the income test.  He thought staff erred in the application.

 

Vorhes indicated this property was acquired at several different dates.  He thought they could run up against state issues and part of the reason for the valuation difficulty.  He noted there was an acquisition date of 1996 that would reflect zoning on the property of EFU instead of FM.

 

Belknap responded that the 1996 date is a deed that satisfies a contract purchase.  He added the property had already been purchased and the Kesters had acquired the ownership interest.

 

Vorhes explained in this claim, given the dates of acquisition, there may still be state law versus county law types of issues that they donít have an answer for.

 

Dwyer said given the fact the deed was recorded at the date of satisfaction of the contract, he wanted to have another hearing.

 

MOTION:   to keep the record open to May 25 with a hearing on June 5.

 

Dwyer MOVED. Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

Lamb1

 

Doris Lamb, Veneta, said she wants to set up a trust for her heirs and to be able to have it become a century farm in 2057.  She wanted to wait until the legislature acts.  She said she would turn in what is requested. She wanted a continuation.

 

Dwyer asked by putting this on hold how it affects the legislation and how she preserves her application fee.

 

Vorhes responded that he didnít see anything that necessarily eliminates previously filed Measure 37 claims unless the claimant makes a choice under the statute.  He said unless that changes, he wasnít sure there was anything the legislature is going to do that will change the pending Measure 37 claims or approvals that have been granted. He said it could set up a choice for those individuals and whether they want to take their chances on what currently exists or move into whatever the legislature final crafts as an alternative to the current system.

 

Stewart said it appeared that she was close to having a valid claim if the broker could do comparative sales  and state the regulations in a value reduction.  He said it wonít cost her any money and then she could move forward with the claim.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to May 24 with a Public Hearing on June 5.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

Langan

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Lassiter

 

Berny Woodward, said that everything was in place.

 

Mitchell1

 

Jim Belknap,  said he thought the order should be adopted.

 

Lone Rock 1, 2 & 3

 

Lynn Trumberly, Cottage Grove, asked why they withdrew and if they would be able to re-apply for their claim.

 

Stewart stated that they officially withdrew and they were recommended for denial because of an ownership issue.

 

Mitchell2

 

Jim Bellnap, said that Mr. Mitchellís mother owns the property and wants to divide it into four lots and staff recommended the waiver.

 

Nielsen2

 

George Nielsen, Junction City, said this came as a surprise that his claim was denied because of valuation.  He said he received a letter that his first valuation was incorrect and he submitted another valuation of the property and he hadnít received any notice of any kind that indicated the valuation was not correct.

 

Howe stated that information staff received was a statement from a Remax realtor that appraises the property value as it currently is.  He said it didnít compare with other properties or refer to any reduction in zoning value. 

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to May 25 with a continued hearing on June 5.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

Nielsen said he would be out of state until June 15.  He asked if he could get the hearing put forward to another date.

 

Dwyer asked when the 180 days ran.

 

Howe indicated June 2.

 

Dwyer asked if Nielsen would waive the 180 day provision and they could schedule it later.

 

Nielsen said he would be in agreement.

 

Fleenor amended the motion to continue the hearing to June 27.

 

Dwyer agreed to the second.

 

Dwyer said the record is still open and if he wanted to have a deliberation at the date of the hearing, Nielsen has to provide the information in a timely manner prior to June 27.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

Novick

 

Robert Russell, stated he represented Adam and David Novick.  He said they want to preserve this for the record and they believe their evidence does demonstrate that the other provisions in the application do decrease the fair market value of the property.

 

Pitney

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Stewart indicated there was a typo error in the packet that called it out as FF20 and it needs to be EFU and was cleared up.

 

Powell1

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Pupke

 

Jim Belknap, said he represents Ron and Gladius Pupke.  She said the Pupkes acquired the property in various transactions from 1963 to 1966 and they want to subdivide the property.  He said staff recommended that the current application of the rural residential zoning be waived.

 

Rankin

 

Eileen Rankin, thanked the Board for approving the claim.

 

Reich

 

Jim Belknap, said he represents Roger Reich, the owner of the property.  He noted at the time of his acquisition, it was zoned AGT 5 and it has been rezoned to F2 forest land and his request is to have the AGT 5 zoning returned and staff was recommending a waiver on the current zoning.

 

Ridgley

 

Wes Ridgely, Veneta, said he has the same problem that others have had.  He said he went with a claim the Board approved before and went to a real estate broker and had an analysis made like the others.  He said staff said this case wasnít proven.

 

Dwyer asked if he referenced the property.

 

Ridgely gave it to Dave Wilkins, a real estate broker and  he re-did the market analysis and agreed with his neighbor.  He said in the original one, it is 20 acres and they were going to divide it into four parcels of five acres each and in their analysis, four parcels were $200,000 each and they said their loss was $600,000, assuming their property was of no value as 20 acres and the Board accepted that.  He took the current value off and it came to $248,000.

 

Howe indicated that the market analysis that was provided on another application has been referred to by a broker for this application.  He said what it says is please view the letter as a verification endorsement of the market analysis performed on another piece of property.  He said it didnít say that as a result of the restricted land use regulations the property has had a reduction in value.  He said it just made a statement about a valid market analysis on  another piece of property.

 

Ridgely recalled his original application was complicated.  He wanted three new parcels.

 

Fleenor asked what he needed to do to verify valuation.

 

Vorhes said a description given comparing claims might make a difference.  He said it is how it is assembled and connected to the land use regulations in place and the restrictions on the value and what could be done under the land use regulations in effect when the property was first acquired.  He commented that connection is the most difficult part for staff and reach a judgment.  He thought he was close.

 

Dwyer asked if he made the regulation that reduced the value and the claim.

 

Howe noted the information submitted on April 24 refers to the zoning as F2, with 21 acres and the real market value is $344,000.  He wants to make four parcels and compared those values as $200,000 each from the additional information he attached from what was earlier submitted, less development costs and less the real market value, and because the zoning restriction of the F2, comes in at $255,000. 

 

Dwyer asked if the claimant has met the test.

 

Vorhes indicated that he might have enough to support the application.

 

Stewart thought he met the test.

 

Saunders

 

Robert Russell, said he represented Ina Saunders.  He believed their evidence demonstrates that the individual provisions within the Lane Code sections they stated in their application decreased the fair market value of the property.

 

Howe recalled that they have had a number of claimants that have challenged land use regulations of Chapters 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16.  He said that Chapter 16 is the only one where claimants have been able to show a reduction of value as a result of those land use regulations.  He said they have been limiting the waivers to Chapter 16.

 

Russell commented that cases that have been decided are not binding on any other parties because they are not from a higher court.

 

Schrenk

 

Jim Belknap, Cottage Grove, represented Corrin and Betty Schrenk.  He indicated there were errors in the staff report and the waiver and order.  He said there was a need for substantial change.  He asked the Board to look at the map.  He said the most important error in the staff report indicates that the dates of acquisition of the property are January 28, 1978, and April 19, 1979 and stipulates the zoning applicable at the time as FF20.  He said the staff relied on that error in preparing the order reiterating those dates of acquisition and relying on the zoning that was applicable on those dates.  He stated the actual dates of acquisition are in the summary.  He said there is a land sales contract  from May 1, 1966 between Belva Shrenk and Erna Schrenk and Corrin and Betty Schrenk as buyer.  He said Belva and Erna Schrenk were Corrin Schenkís parents and at that time they conveyed the property.  He said subsequently there were deeds that were delivered to Mr. and Mrs. Shrenk that conveyed fee title to the property.  He said there was a 1978 deed.  He said in 1966 the land was zoned agricultural, grazing and timber rising to be divided into parcels as small as one acre.  He added in 1978 the area was zoned FF20. He said the Schrenks acquired the property in two different transactions and in 1979 with Schrenkís motherís passing, he was deeded land and at that time it was zoned FF20.  He said they have two zonings that are applicable.  He indicated that was not reflected in the staff report.  He said the order that was prepared would not allow the Shrenks to develop the property as they requested.  He stated their request is a waiver.  He noted that currently all of the property is zoned E30 and E40.  He said they are requesting a waiver of the Exclusive Farm Use zoning of the application of the FF20 zoning and the application of the AGT zoning to the other areas.  He asked for staff to review the documents.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to May 25 with a continued hearing on June 5.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

Vorhes noted the dates used in the staff report and order were the dates that were identified by the title information that was provided.

 

Belknap indicated that the land sales contract was unrecorded.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

Sea Lion Caves

 

Andy Choler, said he is the contacting agent for Sea Lion Caves.  He indicated they moved after the application was filed.  His correct address is 601 N. Lamar, #301, Austin, TX  78703.  He said staff recommended approval and they approve.

 

Lauri Segel, Eugene, didnít think the rural commercial zone has restricted the value of the property.  She requested more time to make the case there are lack of valuation on this because the rural commercial zone allowed this type of development and allowed tourism.  She wanted the same extension that other claims have been granted.

 

MOTION: to allow the record to stay open to May 25 and a continued hearing on June 5 to allow those parties interested to submit information on the record.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 2-2 MOTION FAILS.

 

Jim Babson, Eugene, said that with all the claims that are being held over to June 5, no one has been asked to waive the 180 day limit.  He asked how the vote went.

 

Stewart said the yes votes for Sea Lion Caves were Sorenson and Dwyer and he and Fleenor were no votes.

 

Babson asked when they need an official waiver of the 180 days limit.

 

Vorhes said there is risk going beyond the 180 days and he was comfortable if the applicant is indicating a willingness to not assert the cause of action under the measure and is interested in providing additional information to move forward to make a decision on the particular claim.  He added some of the discussions the Board had today involved specifically the 180 day waiver.

 

Fleenor asked if they could contact the applicant to ask about 180 day waiver.

 

Choler said they wouldnít be willing to waive the 180 days.

 

Spies

 

Jim Belknap, Cottage Grove, stated he represented Dr. William Spies.  He said Dr. Spies was a family practice doctor in Cottage Grove from the early 60ís to early 70ís, is 84 years old and couldnít be present.  He explained that it is property he purchased in the 60ís and 70ís and it was unzoned at that time.  His request is to have a waiver of the EFU and F2 zoning that has been applied to it since his acquisition.

 

Fleenor wanted a reconsideration of the Sea Lion Caves vote.  He wanted to keep the record open to May 25 and have the public hearing on June 5.

 

MOTION: to reconsider the previous motion.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 3-1 (Stewart dissenting)

 

MOTION: to keep the record open until May 25 and continue the Public Hearing to June 5.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

Dwyer said the applicant is not present.  He didnít think there was risk delaying something three or four days beyond the 180 days.  He commented that the claim will stand on its own merits.

 

Vorhes said they could eliminate the risk and shorten the timeframe.  He said they could leave the record open to May 18 and have it come back for a continued hearing on May 22.

 

Fleenor amended his motion to keep the record open to May 18 with a continued hearing of May 22.

 

Stewart didnít support it.  He said they all had the information the same amount of time.  He said Siegel knows the information is available in the law library.  He said if it would have been someone new from Florence that hadnít received the information this weekend, he would have been more concerned.  He indicated that all of the parties involved have been involved from Day 1 and they have the same amount of time to look at the information.

 

VOTE: 3-1 (Stewart dissenting).

 

Sunset

 

Jim Belknap, Cottage Grove, represented Sunset Investments, LLC.  He said it is a family partnership of the Larson family.  He said they requested to withdraw the application.  He said they took exception to the staff report that there was no reduction in value.  He said on the Kester application, they consent to a waiver of the 180 day limitation and for the Shrenk application they consent to a waiver of the 180 day application.

 

Troutman2

 

Howe said since staff originally did the analysis on this, they had a problem with the comparative market analysis information.  He said they have overcome that.  He said they reached a conclusion that this is a valid claim.  He said the date of acquisition of Ron Troutman was September 19, 1977 and the deed was for Rebecca and Ron.  He said they have no information on the record as to when Heidi Troutman acquired any interest or whether they have acquired interest.

 

Norm Waterbury,  said the date was corrected.

 

Ron Troutman, Springfield, said that Rebeccaís name shouldnít be on the deed by a divorce decree and Heidi is on the deed.  He said in 1977 the title was Ron and Rebecca.

 

Stewart said it goes to 1977 for Ron and no value in a waiver to Heidi.

 

Howe said they have to bring this back. 

 

MOTION: to continue this to June 5.

 

Sorenson MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

Waterbury said they would waive the 180 days.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

Vorhes thought the acquisition date of Heidi would be helpful.

 

Waterbury asked if it was necessary for Heidi to be tied to this or if Troutman could file by himself.

 

Vorhes said it is up to the applicant.

 

Troutman stated it was not necessary to have Heidi on the claim.

 

Volesky

 

Robert Russell, stated he represented Carol Volesky.  He had the same objection they want to note in the record on Voleskyís proposed order.  He believed their evidence demonstrates the individual provisions within the Lane Code sections. He stated the application shows a decrease in the fair market value of the property. 

 

Steve Hoffman, said he is a property owner adjacent to the applicantís property.  He has concerns about water availability.  He said homes could impact the established neighbors.  He said he has a private road that he doesnít want to be used as access to the land development sites.  He said there is no plan set out for how many sites they want to development.

 

Russell responded that issues for development will be addressed at a future date.  He said the easement does not affect Measure 37 claims.

 

Willie

 

Robert Crider, Creswell, said he owns property adjacent to Willie.  He said since 1967 he has seen a large portion of her property go from fertile farmland to overgrown brush.  He commented that subdividing her property would raise the property value and it would by developing it into farmland.  He has photographs of the property and the property already has three dwellings on the property that were installed fraudulently.

 

Woodrich

 

Linda Woodrich, said she and her husband own the property.  She said there have been issues raised they hadnít considered with regard to the wording of the order.  She asked for a continuation until they could review the wording.  She indicated that Georgeís first wife is deceased and they acquired the property in 1964 and she came in later and has a quarter interest in the property.  She said she would waive the 180 days.

 

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

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

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

 

MOTION: to approve Betz, Day1, DeFoe1, Derby, Furer, Harnsberger, Keinlen Langan, Lassiter, Mitchel1, Mitchell2, Novick, Pitney, Pupke, Rankin, Reich, Saunders and Volesky.

 

Sorenson MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

MOTION: to deny Carpenter and Powell1.

 

Sorenson MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

MOTION: to approve Bowers4

 

Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

Edgemon

 

Howe said there was a cover letter by attorney Sheryl Bathrop enclosing supplemental information.  He said they received the realtorís statement the County Administrator had reviewed and said he would waive the appraisal requirement.  He added in the attachment to the letter there is an additional comparative market analysis data that is the basis for the letter.

 

MOTION: to approve Edgemon.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 3-1 (Sorenson dissenting).

 

MOTION: to approve the  Ridgley order.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 3-1 (Sorenson dissenting)

 

Spies

 

MOTION: to approve the Spies order.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

MOTION: to adopt Willie.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Stewart adjourned the meeting at 12:00 p.m.

 

 

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary