BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
WORK SESSION
April 3, 2007
9:00 a.m.
Harris Hall Main
Floor
APPROVED
4/9/2008
County Commissioner
Faye Stewart presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bill Fleenor and Peter
Sorenson present. Bobby Green, Sr.,
was excused. County Administrator
Bill Van Vactor, Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Recording Secretary
Melissa Zimmer were also present.
A. ADJUSTMENTS
TO THE AGENDA
None.
B. PUBLIC
HEARINGS/MEASURE 37 CLAIMS
1. PUBLIC
HEARING/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim and Deciding
Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use Regulations in Lieu
of Providing Just Compensation (PA05-6425, Bixler).
2. PUBLIC HEARING
AND ORDER 07-4-3-1/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim
and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use
Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA06-7095, Burch).
3. PUBLIC HEARING
AND ORDER 07-4-3-2/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim
and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use
Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA06-7100, Campbell).
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 (PA06-7102, Carpenter).
5. 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 (PA 06-7117, Defoe1).
6. PUBLIC
HEARING/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim and Deciding
Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use Regulations in Lieu
of Providing Just Compensation (PA06-7126, Defoe2)
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 (PA06-7125, Edgemon).
8. PUBLIC HEARING
AND ORDER 07-4-3-3/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim
and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use
Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA06-7107, Gifford).
9. PUBLIC
HEARING/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim and Deciding
Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use Regulations in Lieu
of Providing Just Compensation (PA06-7327, Glover).
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 (PA 06-7119, Grant).
11. PUBLIC HEARING
AND ORDER 07-4-3-4/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim
and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use
Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA06-7108, Keepers1).
12. PUBLIC HEARING
AND ORDER 07-4-3-5/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim
and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use
Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA06-7085, Kirkpatrick2).
13. PUBLIC
HEARING/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim and Deciding
Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use Regulations in Lieu
of Providing Just Compensation (PA06-7106, Lamb1).
14. PUBLIC
HEARING/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim and Deciding
Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use Regulations in Lieu
of Providing Just Compensation (PA06-7328, Lassiter).
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 (PA06-7115, Lone Rock2).
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 (PA06-7116, Lone Rock3).
17. PUBLIC HEARING
AND ORDER 07-4-3-6/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim
and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use
Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA06-7094, Neumann).
18. PUBLIC
HEARING/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim and Deciding
Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use Regulations in Lieu
of Providing Just Compensation (PA 06-7121, Rankin).
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 (PA06-7124, Ridgley).
20. PUBLIC HEARING
AND ORDER 07-4-3-7/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim
and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use
Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA06-7122, Sletager).
21. PUBLIC HEARING
AND ORDER 07-4-3-8/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim
and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use
Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA06-7109, Svingen).
22. PUBLIC HEARING
AND ORDER 07-4-3-9/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim
and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use
Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA06-7118, Swearengin).
23. PUBLIC HEARING
AND ORDER 07-4-3-10/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 (PA 06-7120, Watson).
24. PUBLIC HEARING
AND ORDER 07-4-3-11/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37
Claim and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use
Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA06-7101, Willie).
25. PUBLIC HEARING
AND ORDER 07-4-3-12/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37
Claim and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use
Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA06-7111, Woodard1).
26. PUBLIC HEARING
AND ORDER 07-4-3-13/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37
Claim and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use
Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA06-7112, Woodard2)
Stewart asked if
there were any ex parte contacts.
Sorenson said
someone called him about a hearing from the Cottage Grove area.
He thought it was on Woodard. He
asked Woodard to call Stewart.
There were no other
ex parte contacts.
Kent Howe, Land
Management, reported there are 26 claims today and staff had mailed notice to
the property owners within 1500 feet of the subject properties in mid-March. He
stated that staff conducted the analysis of the pertinent Measure 37
requirements on these claims and summarized the information in the staff
reports. He said the analysis
addresses the requirements of ownership, date of acquisition, the current
zoning, the zoning regulations at the time of acquisition and some form of
competent analysis of fair market value reduction resulting from the land use
regulations that have been applied to the property since the current owner’s
acquisition. He noted for those
claims that did not provide an appraisal, the county administrator has waived an
appraisal requirement because they have provided a competent analysis of value
reduction. He said they received a
letter regarding the Grant application. He
said they requested suspending the process for their claim indefinitely. He
noted of the remaining 25 claims, 15 have been recommended for denial.
He added of those, seven do not appear to be valid because there is not
any reduction in the fair market value from the enforcement of restricted land
use regulations. He indicated those
are Defoe1 and Defoe2, Lamb1, Lassiter, Lone Rock2 and Lone Rock3.
He said the other claims recommended for denial have not submitted
adequate evidence regarding the alleged reduction of value despite requests for
that information. He noted without
additional information, the county administrator would be compelled to recommend
denial of those claims.
Howe indicated the
Bixler claim was submitted in September 2005 and the application was not
complete at that time. He said the applicant was notified by written
correspondence and no further information has been received.
Bixler
Lucette Wood,
said she was speaking on behalf of her parents who own the land.
She said they don’t have representation.
She had documents to submit. She
stated it was her grandparents’ land and they bought it intending to have
plots for their grandchildren. She
said her mother was going to have the land transferred and they did do it in
1982, but thereafter the new zoning restrictions were applied and they were not
able to get family plots. She requested three family plots of five acres and to
leave the rest undeveloped.
MOTION:
to keep the record open to April 24 and another hearing on May 8.
Dwyer MOVED,
Sorenson SECONDED.
Van Vactor
indicated they were also lacking valuation information.
VOTE:
4-0.
Birch
There was no one
signed up to speak.
Campbell
There was no one
signed up to speak.
Carpenter
Gary Carpenter,
Eugene, said his parents bought the property in 1975.
He said his wishes were to sell a portion of the land to pay for it. He said the zoning changed after he bought it to five acre
plots. He said his dad hesitated
selling five acres, then decided he would and the County said no. He said his
father’s wish before he died was
that the property would be divided among his kids and grandkids.
He said they are petitioning for the five acre plots.
MOTION:
to leave the record open to April 24 and
to work with Land Management to get
the correct information and the hearing on May 8.
Dwyer MOVED,
Sorenson SECONDED.
VOTE:
4-0.
Defoe1
Norm Waterbury,
Eugene, represented the Defoes. He
just received the staff report. He
said there was an issue of title. He
said the applicant hadn’t identified the original family and whether the
current owners are family members as defined by Measure 37.
He said they are the original owners but it would take time to address
the issue. He asked for a
continuance.
MOTION:
to leave the record open to April 14 with a hearing on May 8 for Defoe1 and
Defoe2.
Dwyer MOVED,
Fleenor SECONDED.
VOTE:
4-0.
Defoe2
Ronald Major
Defoe, Junction City, stated he hadn’t seen the staff report.
He wanted to continue this.
Edgemon
Sheryl Balthrop,
Eugene, said the only issue is
whether they had submitted a complete claim regarding valuation.
She said they had submitted a comparative market analysis and they have a
realtor present to qualify. She
noted that the claimant has owned the property since 1967 and wants to place one
residence on tax lot 1000. She
believed they submitted sufficient evidence regarding the reduction in fair
market value caused by EFU 40 in 1976. She
asked that the waiver be granted.
Robert Edgemon,
said he bought the property in 1967. He
said he owns additional property. He
noted after he bought it, everything was changed on the zoning.
He said he raises cattle and hay and he wanted to put one dwelling on the
bottom of the property.
Dale Veenendaal,
Springfield, said he did a market analysis and it showed flatland property,
through Marcola was between $8,000 to $10,000 per acre for land.
He said it is not developable land. He said with their property he came
out between $25,000 to $40,000 per acre with a house on it.
He went by the comparables.
Van Vactor said
they still need a linkage. He asked
if the regulation as to whether or not it is buildable affects the value of the
property. He asked if there was a
difference between buildable and non-buildable land at $10,000 per acre.
Veenendaal said the
properties that do have houses on them brings the value up
Van Vactor
indicated there are parcels zoned rural residential that would not be impacted
by the resolution and it could be a comparable.
MOTION:
to keep the record open to April 24 and a hearing on May 8.
Dwyer MOVED,
Fleenor SECONDED.
VOTE:
4-0.
Gifford
No one signed up to
speak.
Glover
Ron Funke,
stated he represented the Glovers. He was surprised to see it was recommended
for denial. He indicated that all evidence had been submitted.
He said there was a note back from the planning department that the
appraisal was not submitted when the application was initially submitted. He
noted the appraisal has been submitted. He
said it has been submitted as supplemental information.
He added the appraisal has been done by a state certified real estate
appraiser and he shows a current value of $640,000 and an after value of
$910,000 for a net difference of $570,000.
He said the Glovers bought the property in 1968 and they want to create
two or three additional parcels. He
said they want to have their children build on one parcel with two other parcels
to be sold for other development.
Van Vactor said in
reviewing the file it looked like an appraisal had been submitted.
He said the waiver has been granted to the claim.
Adele Glover,
Junction City, said they bought their property in 1968 with the idea that after
they build a house for themselves, they would establish a rental or supplemental
income. She said with Measure 37, they saw it as an opportunity to
develop their land.
Jeff Greenwald,
Junction City, stated he was a neighbor. He
wasn’t opposed to the Measure 37 claim but he wondered what it would do for
his land.
Grant
MOTION:
to keep the record open to April 24 with a hearing on May 8.
Dwyer MOVED Fleenor
SECONDED.
Howe indicated the
Grants requested an indefinite extension. They
don’t want to proceed at this time.
Dwyer withdrew his
motion, Fleenor withdrew his second.
Keepers1
Nadine Keepers,
Eugene, said her grandmother bought the property in 1941.
She indicated it was turned over to her parents in 1953 and she bought 10
acres in 1969 with the idea she would build one house on it.
She didn’t get to and it was rezoned to Exclusive Farm Use.
She wanted to build one house on it.
Kirkpatrick2
Terry Casey,
said he owns the meadow that is adjacent to the property they want to build on.
He said they already have a trailer on their property and they want to
put two more trailers on their property. He
was opposed to the claim.
Daren
Kirkpatrick, Marcola, said he
never met Casey and it is not in a timber area, he lives next to fields.
He added he is not going to put trailers in, he will put homes in.
He said he bought the property in 1986 and it was zoned RR1.
He said in 2000, the state administrative rule changes changed his
property to RR2. He didn’t think
it was fair.
Lamb
Doris Lamb,
said she bought the property in 1958 to have it become a Century Farm.
She said she still owns part of the land her father started in 1912.
She said the valuation is what the County disagrees on.
She said her timber is valuable. She
wants to continue the land in timber and wants to set up a trust where her
children could build on the land if they want.
She said she is on a hardship case and has moved a manufactured home on
her property. She wanted a waiver.
She wanted to use the proceeds from timber management.
She asked for a waiver on the hardship and a waiver to set up a trust for
her heirs to have rights to the property for development.
Stewart said there
wasn’t an appraisal.
Lamb said the
valuation doesn’t show what she wants to do with the land.
She wanted more time to do research.
MOTION:
to leave the record open to April 24 and a hearing on may 8.
Dwyer MOVED,
Fleenor SECOND.
VOTE:
4-0.
Lassiter
Bernard Woodard,
Cottage Grove, said he is the agent for the Lassiters.
He just received the report on Friday.
He thought the ownership was good but the problem was with the competent
form of value reduction analysis. He
asked for an extension.
MOTION:
to leave the record open to April 24, and a hearing on May 8.
Dwyer MOVED,
Fleenor SECONDED.
VOTE:
4-0.
Lone Rock2
Samuel Garst,
Elmira, stated he had no comment.
Sally Cowan,
Veneta, found out about the notice. She
wanted to be put on record. She
wasn’t familiar with the valuation and how it could have been higher with farm
and forest land. She noted all
surrounding timber is concerned about a domino effect.
Linda Davies,
Veneta, said she only knew about this as it was put in her mailbox.
She had questions about water and will comment on it later. She was opposed to this and she has lived in the area for ten
years and it is in the floodplain area.
Kate Cole,
Veneta, was concerned about watershed.
Greg Corbin,
said he represented the Lone Rock timber claim for both claims.
He wanted an extension of time to respond to the staff report. He was unable from the staff report to identify the analysis
that was used to come to a conclusion. He
indicated there are two claimants: Lone
Rock Timber Company and one for the timber holder. He said the analysis was different. He wanted to be able to provide that for the record.
With regard to the development, a development proposal in a claim is used
to give a target for purposes of compensation and understanding what the
diminution in value is. He said it
doesn’t represent an actual proposal for development .
MOTION:
to keep the record open to April 24 with a hearing on May 8 for Lone Rock2 and
Lone Rock3.
Dwyer MOVED,
Fleenor SECONDED.
VOTE:
4-0.
Ida Templeton,
was against this. She said she has lived on Knight Road since 1960.
She wants to give her property to her children.
She never received any information and wants to get put on a list.
Lone Rock3
Daniel Stander,
Eugene, said he was speaking on behalf of 32 neighbors.
He said his testimony addresses continuous ownership and alleged
reduction in fair market value. He
noted the property was sold in 2004 for $99,000 and it was recorded in July
2004. He said the bargain and sale
deed was in the packet. He said
because Richard Sohn owned stock in both Umpqua and Lone Rock that there had
been continuous ownership. He noted
under Measure 37, legal entities cannot have family members.
He said one entity selling to another entity breaks the chain of
ownership. He noted both entities
are currently active and are separate and distinct legal entities.
He noted that eight Lone Rock claims have been filed with the state and
have been denied, because the state concluded that Richard Sohn does not own the
properties and the current ownership began when the property was conveyed to the
current owner. He said they
concluded there has been no reduction in fair market value because no
regulations have been put in place after Lone Rock gained ownership.
He said Mr. Sohn is not an owner of the property as defined by ORS
197.353 11 (c). He said Lone Rock
purchased the property in June 2004. He
said it was zoned F1 at that time and is zoned F1 today.
He said there have been no changes to what land uses are allowed since
the time of purchase. He indicated
that there has been no reduction in fair market value.
He urged the Board to deny the claim as there has been no restrictive
regulations enacted since Lone Rock Timber Company acquired the property.
Greg Corbin,
Portland, wanted to continue the matter.
Neumann
No one signed up to
speak.
Rankin
Eileen Rankin,
wanted an extension of time as she
just received the staff report. She
was missing the valuation and she will have it.
MOTION:
to leave the record open to April 24 with the hearing on May 8.
Dwyer MOVED,
Sorenson SECONDED.
VOTE:
4-0.
Ridgley
Wes Ridgley,
said he didn’t have the property values.
He used the County’s real property values..
MOTION:
to leave the record open to April 24 with the hearing on May 8.
Fleenor MOVED,
Dwyer SECONDED.
VOTE:
4-0.
Sletager
Trudi Sletager,
appreciated the recommendation.
Svingen
Karen Lawrence, stated that this was the second Measure 37 claim in her
neighborhood in Santa Clara. She indicated the proposed development would place
12 acres of urban density in actively farmed land. She said there was a lack of clarity in the zoning provisions
that would have pertained to this property in 1964. She said the tax lot is stamped as being in a Lane County
special permit area. She asked to
see the accompanying code provisions to verify what it means, because it is in
the area of a floodplain. She
indicated that staff had not provided to date the designation and the
development restrictions. She noted
the area was unzoned in 1964. She
found Lane County 9.700 to 9.995 for an unzoned development permit that
restricts development in unzoned areas based on compatibility with surrounding
properties, nuisance potential, adverse effects on the livability of surrounding
properties and noise levels. She
said there is incompatibility in the center of productive farmland.
She said there is no indication that a development of this kind would
have been allowed at the time of purchase.
She asked the Board to deny the claim.
Kathy Lesiak,
Eugene asked the waiver be denied for the claim.
She noted in 1998 the property was transferred into a living trust that
said the transfer deed did not allow use of the property in violation of land
use laws and regulations. She said
in 1998 the Svingens accepted the EFU zone and conveyed it into a trust and the
EFU 30 zoning. She thought it could be contested at the state level.
She said the claim of loss of fair market value is not properly
substantiated. She said the property is downstream from the confluence of the
McKenzie and Willamette Rivers. She
commented that in 1964 it wouldn’t have been suitable for subdividing into one
acre parcels. She said the comps
didn’t take into consideration the siting of the subject property in
relationship to the waterways.
Joshua Clark,
said he represent the Svingens. He
said they are not asking for approval of any specific development plan.
He said the one used in the application was used for getting a valuation
assessment. He said they are asking
for a waiver of the regulations to allow uses that would have been allowed at
the time the applicants acquired the property.
He recommended approving the claim.
Swearingen
Steven Cordel,
Cottage Grove, said he and his wife oppose the proposal about dividing the
property at Saginaw. He said it would have a negative impact to his property.
Watson1
Roger Emmert,
Sweet Home, said he hadn’t obtained a copy of the staff report..
He agreed with staff’s recommendation.
Willie
Robert Crider,
Creswell, said he lives adjacent to the Willie property.
He said his family has owned the property since 1967 when they bought it
from Willie. He said the property
was productive farmland. He said
the land has been overgrown with brush. He
didn’t see how Measure 37 could reduce the property anymore than it already
is. He was concerned about a
millrace that runs through his property onto Willie’s property.
He opposed development of the property.
Fleenor indicated
the findings show a lack of demonstration of ownership.
Norm Waterbury,
stated he represented Berta Willie. He
said the staff report he received said something about a revocable trust.
He said he received a note about the trust and they presented the current
trust as it currently exists. He
said there was another trust that was vacated ten years ago dated 1995.
He said staff asked if the first trust was a revocable trust.
He said it was because she couldn’t’ create a revocable trust from an
irrevocable trust. He indicated
that his client is 90 years old and she had a hard time coming up with
paperwork. He said Willie called her last night and found the original
revocable trust from 1995. He asked
for an extension.
MOTION:
to keep the record open until April 24 and the hearing on May 8.
Fleenor MOVED,
Dwyer SECONDED.
VOTE:
4-0.
Woodard1
Jerry Plat,
Elmira, he said they want to build 12 single family dwellings on two acre
parcels within the 115 acre parcel and access to the land is off of Suttle Road.
He said the water table is low in the area.
Woodard2
Mike Reeder,
Eugene, represented Steve Woodard. He
said he sent an e-mail to Vorhes responding to the staff report that discussed
the issue of when the claimant acquired an interest in the property for purposes
of Measure 37. He said they have a
warranty deed from 1948 where Woodard has an ownership interest in the property.
He added that his father had a life estate in 1948 with the executory
interest being reserved for the four siblings.
He said the staff report discussed the issue about having an ownership
interest in the property at that time. He
said Measure 37 speaks to having any interest in the property.
He said there were no land use regulations on the property in either 1969
or 1948. He wanted it waived to
1948 because it was clear. He said
it is a valid claim and he recommended approval.
Vorhes said in the
past they have had a life estate holder and the remainder claim and the orders
have issued waivers to the life estate holder but not to the remainder holders.
He indicated that the deed in this case is specific.
He said it raised the question of when the
operation of the deed actually conveyed. He
thought that took place at the time of Oscar Woodard.
Dwyer asked if the
claim was complete and where they go back to.
Vorhes said the
representation of 1969 is when the father died and that was the position they
took in the staff report and full ownership of the property vested in the four
children.
Reeder said they
didn’t have a problem with the County using the 1969 date for purposes of the
waiver. He said it was from
County Circuit Court showing when he died.
Reeder’s concern was about how the state handles their Measure 37
claims because they don’t get a chance to explain issues like this.
He wanted the County to let the state know this is a valid claim.
Vorhes said if it
Board wants to take action today, they might take tentative action and direct
staff to draft an order. He said
based on the evidence, they do have a date of waiver they could put into the
Board order of the 1969 date. He
added that they could check with the state to see where the state is with this
claim before they take final action.
Steve Woodard,
Cottage Grove, said he is the claimant. He
said they want to complete the claim but there is no rush.
He said they want to lock in whatever opportunities they could get from
Measure 37 to provide for their children and grandchildren in the future. He
hoped the Board would approve the claim.
There being no one
else signed up to speak, Commissioner Stewart closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION:
to approve Campbell, Keepers, Kirkpatrick2, Newman, Sletager, Swearingen,
Watson1, and Woodard1.
Dwyer MOVED,
Fleenor SECONDED.
VOTE:
4-0.
Burch and Gifford
claim.
Sorenson said they
had a hearing and no one spoke and then they received a letter.
He indicated the letter in the Gifford case asked if they could have the
hearing rolled to May 8 to have staff look at the legal issues.
MOTION:
to keep the record open to May 24 and
a hearing on May 8.
Dwyer MOVED,
Fleenor SECONDED
Vorhes said this
raised issues more to the state law about transferability.
He said in addressing waivers, they look at minimum lot size of the
applicable zone and waive that provision in the appropriate case, but don’t
waive the land use regulations. He
added that they apply those in conjunction with the applicable regulations that
remain in place under the waiver. He
said the argument under state law affects the ability to divide agricultural
lands and it might come into play in the future if someone raises it as an
issue. He indicated the Board only
has the authority to address and waive the land use regulations if enacted.
VOTE:
1-3 (Fleenor, Stewart, Sorenson dissenting).
MOTION FAILED.
Burch
MOTION:
to approve the Burch waiver.
Dwyer MOVED,
Fleenor SECONDED.
VOTE:
3-1 (Sorenson dissenting).
Gifford
MOTION:
to approve the Gifford waiver.
Dwyer MOVED,
Fleenor SECONDED.
VOTE:
3-1 (Sorenson dissenting).
Glover
Stewart said they
brought in an appraisal and it met their needs and it is recommended for
approval.
MOTION:
to tentatively approve the waiver.
Dwyer MOVED,
Fleenor SECONDED.
Vorhes said they
did not have an order.
VOTE:
4-0.
Svingen
Fleenor said he had
reservations about this claim.
Vorhes explained
the issue in a conveyance to a trust is whether it is revocable and who the
trustees are. He said in the case
where the grantor to the trust is designated as a trustee (and there is a
revocable authority within the trust) they viewed that the trust is a new owner
but the trustee, the grantor, who continues to hold power over the property as
trustee and has the ability to revoke the trust, continues to hold an interest
in the property that has not changed as a result of the conveyance into the
trust. He said to the individuals
for the grantor trustee, they waive to the individual, not to the trust and
waive to the date the individual first acquired an interest in the property and
that is the proposed order for Svingen. He
said they do not waive to the trust because it is a new date of acquisition and
it is uncertain under the trust that the trust won’t continue, it would go on
to someone else. He added there is a transferability issue. He recommended only
waiving to the trustee who was the original grantor and retains the interest in
the property.
MOTION:
to approve the waiver.
Dwyer MOVED,
Stewart SECONDED.
Stewart thought it
met the criteria for date of acquisition and revocable trusts.
Fleenor said he
would vote a reluctant yes.
VOTE:
4-0.
Wood2
MOTION:
to tentatively approve to March 9, 1969 pursuant and having the order placed on
the Consent Calendar.
Dwyer MOVED,
Fleenor SECONDED.
VOTE:
4-0.
There being no
further business, Commissioner Stewart adjourned the meeting at 11:15 a.m.
Melissa Zimmer
Recording Secretary