October 16, 1996
Harris Hall Main Floor - 1:30 p.m.

Chair Bobby Green, Sr. presided with Steve Cornacchia, Ellie Dumdi, Jerry Rust and Cindy Weeldreyer present. Sharon Giles, Recording Secretary.


a. RESOLUTION 96-10-16-1/In the Matter of Proclaiming October 1996 as Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

Susie Kent, Public Health, reviewed this item for the Board. She introduced Brooks Duff, Executive Director of the local chapter of the American Cancer Society, and Pat Cookson, active volunteer for the Cancer Society. Duff distributed Cancer Society breast cancer awareness pins to the Board members.

Green read this Resolution into the record and presented a copy of the Resolution to Gillette and Duff.

MOTION: Approval of the Resolution. Dumdi MOVED, Rust SECONDED. Rust offered his appreciation for the work being done in this field.

VOTE: 5-0.


a. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance PA 1093/In the Matter of Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Land from "Marginal Land" to "Rural" and Rezoning that Land from "ML/Marginal Land" to "RR-5/Rural Residential 5", Adopting Exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals 3 and 4; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (file PA 3960-95; Hammitt).

Green read this ordinance into the record. He provided a brief explanation of the rules governing this hearing. Weeldreyer declared an ex parte contact with Susan Weaver on April 19, wherein Weaver discussed her concerns regarding notice and planning commission proceedings. Weeldreyer indicated that none of that conversation had biased her in any way.

Michael Copely, Associate Planner, presented a brief staff report on this matter (see material on file). He highlighted some specific items related to this issue, which are outlined on pages 2 and 3 of the agenda memorandum. Copely used overhead projection to refer to the property in question.

Green opened the Public Hearing. Responding to Cornacchia, Copely indicated that no comments were received from DLCD.

Tom Miller, 682 Woodcrest Drive, certified urban planner, spoke representing the applicants, the Hammitts. He explained that the Hammitts 9.66 acres resulted from a partition. Miller stated that the variance at issue was .04 of an acre of land, approximately 2.6 feet by 10 feet. He indicated that variance language in the Director’s approval says that the variance condition does not apply to the Hammitt property. Miller noted that if applicants do partition in the future, they will need to request a variance to size. He expressed concern that this variance destroys their ability to have their property redesignated and rezoned. Miller stated that an issue for the Board is whether or not adjacent dwellings can be resource dwellings and/or residential dwellings. Miller commented that there are slopes on the land up to 16% which cannot be utilized as agricultural unless there was significant terracing. With regard to the adjacent land uses, Miller indicated that an analysis shows a fairly intensely developed area with only Tract 301 being between the development and the subject parcel.

Bob Carlock, 85340 Ridgeway Road, Tax Lot 301, spoke in support of the applicants. He indicated that he does not use the property for agriculture and may want to partition eventually.

Jerry Hammitt, 85472 Ridgeway Road, stated that he has sold two parcels to the opposition and is trying to get a parcel for his son to live on. He indicated that the ML property is only 80 feet from his property line and that one house will not create a traffic problem. Hammitt stated that he never signed anything saying that he would never divide the property again.

Al Couper, 2258 Harris, representing Dan Guistina, stated that there are six reasons for denying this request: 1) Marginal Land is a resource land category and this change to Marginal Land was made in contemporary times; 2) The variance condition prohibits a rezone to higher density and the condition was applied to both properties; 3) It would be a bad precedent to "bootstrap" Marginal Lands up to Rural Residential; 4) The resulting land use patterns would be undesirable; 5) The law does not allow consideration of physical development of dwellings or parcelization to be used as a justification for a goal exception; and 6) The proposed plan and zone change would produce adverse impacts on adjacent and nearby agricultural operations. Couper distributed copies of his statement to the Board.

John Ohm, 1652 Westfall Court, licensed real estate broker, indicated that he was here on behalf of Carolyn and Scott Chambers, who have submitted written testimony, and he indicated that their primary concern is that this will result in the extension of urbanization into a resource area. He noted that if the Board approves this matter, it will be tough not to do it with other parcels in the area.

Susan Weaver, 85606 Lattin Lane, Pleasant Hill, distributed pictures and described the subject area. She stated that she submitted a letter to the planning commission and wants it as part of this record. Weaver stressed that she opposes the application. She distributed photographs which she commented on by number. Weaver emphasized that this is a large area of farmland and Hammitt’s property, as it is now, acts as a buffer. She expressed concern about the possibility of a domino effect and what it will do to farmland, including cattle, sheep and grass raising. Weaver highlighted the liabilities involved in mixing residential and farming lands, and the need for a buffer zone for Mt. Pisgah.

Cecil Saxon, 85769 Second Street, stated that it is important for the Board to understand that both parties to the original partition (Hammitt and Saxon) were represented by legal counsel. He indicated that Guistina supported the original partition as it would still create a buffer of large parcels between him and the residential community. Saxon remarked that the condition imposed by Lane County that nothing would be used to reduce the size of these parcels is a very important issue. He stressed that it is a legal, binding condition and it would be a disservice to the public if the Board waivers from the imposed condition.

John Saxon, 34008 "L Street," indicated that he is opposed to the application. He stated that he owns Tax Lot 303 and believes that the variance should stay in effect.

Copely clarified that the redivision condition does apply to both Tax Lots 303 and 304.

Green asked for rebuttal. Miller disagreed with Copely regarding the imposition of the original condition and does not believe it is based on anything in Lane Code. He indicated that his client did have the required acreage if the right-of-way acreage at that time were considered.

MOTION: Denial of the Ordinance. Rust MOVED, Dumdi SECONDED for discussion. Weeldreyer noted that she is on record of supporting protection of prime resource land and is aware of conflicts where rural residential comes up against farming operations. She questioned the possibility of a compromise, possibly one that would allow the Hammitts to meet the needs of their family by allowing them to move on a temporary structure, mobile or modular, to be connected to existing water and septic systems. Weeldreyer stated that the variance would not conflict with the current variance restriction. Rust noted that that would need to be treated in a separate proceeding. He remarked that Hammitt had an opportunity to take care of this before he sold some lots and that this zoning procedure should not be turned into a hardship procedure as it needs further research. Rust stressed that approval of this ordinance would cause intrusive permanent zoning into a farm area and will produce adverse effects on adjacent agricultural operations. Copely confirmed that the hardship condition is possibly available in this zoning, but may be against the intent of the code. He also observed that the applicant could remodel or replace his present dwelling.

Cornacchia commented that he resists the idea that a single home on five acres would have an injurious effect on neighboring agricultural practices and objects to that as a finding to disallow this application. He remarked that the real issue involves two tests: a) that the land is impracticable for resource use itself, or b) that the nature of the area around it is such that that area lends difficulty to farming practices. Cornacchia noted that the first option was not chosen by the applicant and that they used the parcelization test. He stressed that it is imperative that the Board address the policy issue regarding which kind of dwellings can be used in these types of applications. Cornacchia expressed his belief that the Board has never intended that dwellings on resource lands be available for the counting procedure on determining impact. He indicated that the Board generally tries to allow property owners to do what they want to with their properties, but that it would be inconsistent to count resource dwellings as part of the Developed and Committed test. Cornacchia stated that he remembers this original application and does remember arguing whether this was enough to make sure further divisions didn’t occur. He observed that it is important that every time a policy comes up, the Board address that policy. Cornacchia stressed that he supports the motion for different reasons and asked that those reasons be included in the findings. Rust stated that farm land/resource land can be defined as the absence of Developed and Committed circumstances. Responding to Copely, Cornacchia reiterated his comments regarding the variance issue, noting his belief that it was the intent to apply the conditions to the entire original site and that they are there with the express intent of preventing future division of land thereafter unless there is a significant change in the area. VOTE: 5-0. Copely was directed to prepare Findings and return to the Board with an Order.


a. ORDER 96-10-16-2/In the Matter of Adjusting the Salaries of the Lane County Board of Commissioners and Other Elected Officials.

MOTION: Approval of the Order. Rust MOVED, Dumdi SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

b. ORDER 96-10-16-3/In the Matter of Opposing Siting of a State Correctional Facility in the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Area.

MOTION: Approval of the Resolution. Cornacchia MOVED, Rust SECONDED. Reference was made to the discussion on this issue yesterday. Weeldreyer remarked that a constituent had commented to her that the state should utilize its Fairview site before coming to Eugene. Green commented on District Attorney Harcleroad’s letter regarding impacts on his attorneys’ caseload. Cornacchia suggested adding a paragraph that talks about potential workload increase on the District Attorney’s office.

VOTE: 5-0. Bill Van Vactor, County Administrator, referred to Eugene’s list of (30) conditions and asked the Board regarding Lane County developing its own set of conditions, agreeing with some of Eugene’s conditions and adding some related to Lane County and some small cities. There was consensus for that process to proceed.

c. DISCUSSION/Support Letter for HACSA for the Economic Development Support Services Grant.

Consensus for approval of the letter (see material on file).

There being no further business, this meeting adjourned at 3:02 p.m.


Sharon Giles, Recording Secretary

go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices