BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'

WORK SESSION

May 1, 2007

9:00 a.m.

Harris Hall Main Floor

APPROVED 9/17/2008

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

All claims will be heard together in the order listed. Comments should clearly identify the claims to be addressed and speak to the requirements of Measure 37.  For a separate discussion and action following the hearings, claims may be removed by the Board to be considered separately.  The rest of the listed claims may be acted upon by one motion.

1. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-1-1/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 (Benedick, PA06-7203).

2. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-1-2/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 (Brewer2, PA06-7212).

3. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-1-3/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 (Byers, PA06-7217).

4. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-1-4/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 (Cross, PA06-7342).

5. CONTINUED 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 (Davidson2 (3/20), PA06-7072).

6. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-1-5/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 (Gabrielson, 05-5587).

7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-1-6/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 (Harding1 (3/20), PA06-6979).

8. CONTINUED 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 (Harding2 (3/20), PA06-6980).

9. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-1-7/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 (Henton (2/13), PA06-6612).

10. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-1-8/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 (Hillyard, PA06-7209).

11. CONTINUED 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 (Lamb2 (3/20), PA06-7325).

12. 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 (Louvring, PA06-7199).

13. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-1-9/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 (Makinson2, PA06-7211).

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 (McDonald, PA06-7341).

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 (Miller, PA06-7202).

16. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-1-10/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 (Mord1, PA06-7196).

17. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-1-11/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 (Mord2, PA06-7193).

18. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-1-12/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 (Murray1 (3/20), PA06-7041).

19. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-1-13/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 (Murry2, PA06-7190).

20. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-1-14/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 (Nelson, PA06-7213).

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 (Obie, PA06-7195).

22. 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 (Odegaard, 05-6771).

23. 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 (Patterson, PA06-7340).

24. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-1-15/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 (Pope, PA06-7208).

25. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-1-16/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 (Ritter, PA06-7201).

26. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-1-17/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 (Scott, PA06-7210).

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 (Slocum, PA06-7215).

28. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-1-18/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 (Taylor2, PA06-7192).

29. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-1-19/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 (Thienes, PA06-7204).

30. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-1-20/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 (Wagner, PA06-7214).

31. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-1-21/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 (Wilson, PA06-7216).

32. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-5-1-22/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 (Zip o Logs, PA06-7191).

Kent Howe, Land Management, stated there are 32 claims.  He noted for those claims that are having their first hearing today, they mailed notice to the property owners within 1500 feet on April 10 and it meets the code requirements.   He added for the six claims that are continued from either February 13 or March 20, it was announced at those hearings that they would be heard today.  He indicated that seven of the claims are being recommended for denial: Davidson2, Harding2, Lamb2, Louvering, Miller, Odegaard and Patterson.  He added that McDonald and Obie are two where information came in yesterday and staff reviewed the claims.  He said they think the information provided makes them valid claims.

Howe stated that staff has conducted the analysis of the pertinent Measure 37 requirements on the claims and summarized the information in the staff report.  This 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 owner’s acquisition.  He said for those claims that did not provide an appraisal, the County Administrator has waived the appraisal requirement because they have provided a competent analysis of value reduction.  He said of the claims scheduled for hearing, there are six that were continued from February 13 and March 20 dates to allow time for the applicants and others to submit additional information.  He said those claims are Davidson2, Harding1, Harding2, Hinton, Lamb2 and Murry1.  He noted that these claimants had until April 13 to submit additional information.  He said the supplemental information provided prior to April 13 can be found in Attachment D following the staff report.  He added that information submitted after April 13 will need to be presented at today’s hearing.  He noted that one claim has been cancelled by request of the applicant: Slocum.  He added that another claim Cross has submitted a value reduction analysis that the Board will need to authorize.  He stated that the remaining claims appear valid as described in the attached reports and the County Administrator recommends the Board adopts the proposed orders for those claims.

Commissioner Stewart opened the Public Hearing.

Benedick

Michael Farthing, Eugene, stated that he represented the Benedicks.  He indicated that this is a straightforward application.  He said they acquired the property in 1977, 43 acres on the eastside of Fern Ridge Lake.  He said there was an analysis of comparable values and staff recommended approval.

Monica Shepard, stated she owns property within 1500 feet and is in favor of what the Benedicks want to do with their property.

Brewer2

No one signed up to speak.

Byers

Jim Belknap, Cottage Grove, stated he represented the Byers.  He noted that staff recommended adopting the waiver and he concurred.

Cross

Michael Farthing, Eugene, stated he represented Carrie and Gary Cross.  He said this property is located in Alvadore and is four acres.  He noted that they acquired the property in 1972 and at that time it was unzoned.  He stated there is an issue on valuation that staff has raised.  He borrowed comparable values from the adjoining Decker application. He said there was a reduction in value and they would like to create up to four lots depending on how the subdivision process works out.  He noted that they acquired the property before regulations went into effect and they would like to develop their property as they did when they acquired it.

Davidson2

Norm Waterbury, Eugene, indicated staff recommendation was for denial.  He said they are unable to respond to staff reports because they get them on Friday night.  With regard to the Davidson’s incorporation, they supplied top sheets to a large document showing what percentage was owned by what members of the Davidson family.  He said staff said the supplemental information doesn’t identify the date the Davidson investment document was executed.  He said they could give staff the whole document that has the date in it.  He said with the issue on the land sales contract, they provided the relevant pages and staff made the comment that the contract included seven pages but it didn’t identify the property being conveyed and didn’t include reference to an exhibit of the metes and bounds or description of the property conveyed.  He said he has the contract and it is with Exhibit A, the metes and bounds of the property.  He commented that it is a good application.  He wanted staff to review this or to ask for another continuance.

Vorhes said initially this was heard on March 20 and they didn’t have enough information and it was continued.  He said they received a few pieces of information.  He indicated that they could take whatever is presented and give it to the planner and have them review it.  He indicated that there is a possibility that the recommendation of staff will be to grant more time to put it together.

Gabrielson

F. Gabrielson, Creswell, stated that he acquired the property in 1971.  He recalled they had a hearing last year and staff needed a market analysis from a realtor.  He stated whenever he calls, staff never responds.  He said his appraisal was not accepted because they wanted a market analysis from a realtor or appraiser.  He said the County didn’t accept its own figures.  He had a realtor work on this and submit it to the County and he got a letter back asking if he wanted to continue with his claim.

Harding1

Norm Waterbury, Eugene, said they filed a claim for Vern and Clara Harding.  He said they have their property in a trust.  He indicated that Clara Harding passed away in the process of applying for Measure 37 and Vern Harding has also passed away.  He said the property is owned by the trust.  He understood from County Counsel that the waivers would apply only to current owners of the property.  He believed the ruling might change depending on the legislature.  He asked for a continuance to see what happens.  He noted there are two Harding cases: Vernon and his son Lon.  He said Lon’s claim is recommended for approval and Vern’s was not because he passed away.

Dwyer thought they would set a precedent if they allowed this claim to go forward.

Jim Babson, thought that putting the claim on hold indefinitely comes at a cost.  He didn’t think the County would be exposed to any risk by denying this. 

Stewart indicated they were recommending approval to the 1995 date of his ownership and because his parents purchased the property in 1967, it makes it a valid claim but only to 1995.  He added Harding2 was only submitted by the two people who were deceased.

Howe explained that Harding1 was a separate application from Harding2.  He added that Harding1 was submitted on November 15, 2006. 

Lauri Legel, Eugene, said the agent never disclosed the applicant was deceased when they had the opportunity the first time. She said the Harding1 original application listed the applicant has the Harding Living Trust.  She noted that Harding1 and Harding2 had a different number of pages.  She said Harding1 did not have the applicant as the Harding Living Trust, it was V.A and Clara Harding.  She indicated that it was staff’s research that Lonal was the owner of Harding1 and not the applicants themselves.  She thought there would be clarity from the applicant but nothing was provided.  She thought the applicant should reapply.

Lon Harding, Eugene, said according to Waterbury, the applications got flip flopped.  He said his father signed the original application for his parcel and he didn’t know if it was Harding1 or Harding2.  He noted  it was Lot 3606.  He stated his father signed the application and his father died while the application was being processed.  He asked this matter to be continued as the measure was confusing.

Howe noted that the application submitted for the claim has the applicant as Lionel V. Harding and the landowner as Lionel V. Harding,  He said the agent is Norm Waterbury and the signatures on who made the application were Lionel V. Harding and Vernon Harding.

Harding2

No one signed up to speak.

Henton

Mike Evans, Springfield, indicated that staff recommended approval and he was in agreement.

Hillyard

Michael Farthing, Eugene, said the property is located south of Cottage Grove and east of the freeway.  He noted it is a straightforward claim and staff was recommending approval and he agreed.

Lamb2

No one signed up to speak.

Louvring

No one signed up to speak.

Makinson2

Joshua Clark,, Eugene, said staff recommended approval..

McDonald

Bruce McDonald, Cottage Grove, said with regard to the parcel his dad bought in 1949, he purchased 169 acres from the 200 acre parcel in 1970.  He wanted to split his property so his children and grandchildren could live on it.

Sorenson asked about the recommendation of the McDonald claim.

Howe said there was a problem earlier with value reduction and information came in this week that staff thought addressed the value reduction issue.   He stated that staff is recommending adopting the order.

Miller

Michael Farthing, Eugene, said the property is located on Hayden Bridge Road outside of the urban growth boundary next to Springfield.  He said it is out of the ordinary application. He was asking a waiver back to 1995 when they acquired the property.  He indicated that it is zoned EFU.  He said staff indicated there was insufficient information to determine if this claim is valid.  He said the information was not clear.  He said they have two different letters from a broker about value.  He said they need to clarify what they are asking for.  He said they were asking for a waiver of the $80,000 income rule, to put a dwelling on EFU land to waive it back to the $20,000 income requirement that was in effective in 1995.  He believed the property could qualify for a dwelling under that $20,000  income requirement, but not under the $80,000.  He asked for a postponement to submit the clarifying information.

MOTION: to keep the record open to May 18 and a continued hearing on June 5.

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

Mord1

No one signed up to speak.

Mord2

No one signed up to speak.

Murry1

Steve Cornacchia, Eugene, said he represents the Murrys.  He indicated this was brought back because there was confusion about dueling AGT ordinances and language.  He noted in 1964 was when this property was zoned AGT and in 1964, the AGT provisions allowed one acre parcels with 150 foot width of lot.  He said in 1970 the Board passed a refinement to the AGT regulations and in that they stated that all property zoned AGT from that point on would have a five acre minimum.  He added that paragraph 2 stated that all property zoned AGT prior to 1971 would retain the one acre minimum.  He recalled the Murrys purchased the property in 1975 under the subsequent ordinance that stated one acre.  He noted in 1984 Lane County rezoned everything.  He recalled between 1964 and 1971, some of the properties in Lane County were zoned.  He said the County tried to catch up and do that in the 70’s and zoned more properties AGT but they made sure that those zoned were five acres and the other before didn’t lose the one acre minimum. He noted staff’s initial recommendation was approval and their recommendation today subsequent to their correspondence remains approval.

Kevin Jones, Eugene, recalled that during the last hearing there was a charge made to clarify whether the land was AGT 5 or AGT 1 in 1973.  He said it appears that it is AGT 1. He said in Lane County Ordinance No. 4, (effective date May 31, 1949) including amendments through 5/14/69, under A in Section 6, for use, single family dwellings in accordance with conditions established need be approved by the Planning Commission.  He said the Planning Commission would have reviewed the proposal and they would have said that it was out of character with the neighborhood.  He said the Murrys had a house at the time and they bought the parcel adjacent to it to farm.  He said they are still farming today and a subdivision doesn’t work there.  He hoped this could be put off again.

Katherine, Lesiak, Eugene, said she submitted a letter.  She said the neighborhood farmers were protesting the claim. She commented that there is room for interpretation for land use zoning. She added the AGT zoning has been interpreted differently at different times and there are documents that have amended it that had changed it through time.  She indicated in 1968, Ordinance 2-93 talked about the lot size. She said in her area there were farms that were subdivided and platted prior to 1968.  She noted that the area north of Beacon Drive was always considered agricultural and none of those lands were platted as subdivisions when the Murrys purchased the property in 1973, not 1975.  She thought this needed careful consideration.

Stewart said if the Board decides to grant the waiver, it doesn’t approve the division to one acre lots, it gives them the opportunity to go back to the zoning that was in place at the time and to go through the process.

Keith Walton, stated he lives southeast of the Murry parcel.  He indicated Cornacchia hand delivered a letter addressing issues the neighborhood farmers brought up at the hearing in March as Goal 1.  He said that was not the case.  He said they are concerned the interpretation of Murry’s loss of value is not accurate.  He said if they are considering the value of six parcels, that the Murrys enjoyed a deferral of taxes on that parcel.  He commented that the value of that tax deferral is substantial if it was computed from the time it was granted on six buildable lots and it should be figured against the six developable lots. He added the interpretation of the Lane County ordinances states that because the minimum is one acre it is dividable into six lots.  He noted the Murrys acquired the property in 1975 and in the application it states 1973.

Eric Walton, stated he lives across from the Murry parcel.  He said the Walton family sold the property to the Murrys in 1973 and it was AGT zoning.  He said the R1 proposal for the Murry place is not a good situation for the farmland that surrounds it or the neighborhood.  He commented that it is a six lot subdivision in the middle of farmland.  He didn’t think it was a good situation for farmers trying to farm.

Vivienne Bullock, said she is one of the farmers who raises blueberries.  She said that subdividing farm land is not a good idea.

Cornacchia took issue with a statement that the 1949 subdivision made permitted uses on this property discretionary as opposed to outright.  He noted when Lane Code 10-110 (the 1971 ordinance) was enacted, the Board of Commissioners at that time stated that an outright permitted use within the AGT zone was one single family dwelling or two family dwellings per lot, no restrictions, no relation back to the subdivision ordinance.  He said this ordinance created an outright permitted use of one lot parcels under the acreage requirements and the outright permitted use to have a dwelling on each one.  He said that ordinance was enacted subsequent to the 1949 subdivision.

Murry2

Mike Reeder, Eugene, stated the report was favorable and he agreed.

Jim Babson, indicated that this tax lot has already been approved on a claim last October 25, for board order 06-10-25-8 .  He said the Board determined tax lots 604, 606, 607 and 608 totaling 245 acres were owned by CVM Family, LLC, a conveyance from Corinne and Ross Murry to their family LLC and it constituted a new owner.  He said that claim was approved giving them a date to April 25, 2002 and included lot 607.  He asked why lot 607 was brought up again.

Howe recalled the Board adopted order 06-10-25-8 a waiver for CVM, LLC.  He said the Board approved and allowed a waiver of regulations back to those in effect on April 25, 2002, when the properties were conveyed back to an LLC.  He indicated they were provided with deeds on this property for 32 acres of the area that was part of the order.  He said it established that Corinne and Ross Murry did acquire the property on August 27, 1974 and it wasn’t part of the LLC and it has remained continuous in their ownership.  He indicated for the deeds provided for this one, they find that the 32 acres for the Murry2 claim is a valid claim and can waive back to August 27, 1974 when they acquired the property.

Lauri Segel, Eugene, said this was already approved for CVM to 2002.  She added that the claim raises the question of reconfigured properties.  She said the original parcel has been partitioned and this tax lot was created by a partition in 2005.  She stated staff had accepted online the appraisal by someone who said they were a real estate consultant.  She said he talks about tax lot 607 as if it was two different tax lots.  She said he was confused between tax accounts and tax lots.

Reeder indicated that the claim is for Ross and Corinne Murry.  He stated they have owned the subject property since 1974.  He said the CVM Family owns the property adjacent to and surrounding the property.  He noted the deeds show clearly that Ross and Corinne own the property.

Nelson

No one signed up to speak.

Obie

No one signed up to speak.

Vorhes indicated that information was submitted that addressed how some of the assumptions on which the value reduction was based were confirmable in terms of what could be done under the current zoning and what could be done with zoning in place at the time the current owner acquired the property.  He said there was additional analysis done on the ability of the property to meet the current zoning regulations for dwellings and information on when the property was acquired and what could be done at that point in time

Odegaard

No one signed up to speak.

Patterson

Ron Funke, represented Mrs. Patterson in this case.  He said he didn’t find out until Monday (when the web postings came out) that Mrs. Paterson’s case was recommended for denial. He thought he had submitted everything required. He said in reviewing his file yesterday there was an appraisal, but it wasn’t clear that the two summary pages by the real estate appraiser was included.  He indicated the reduction in value determined was $600,000.

Howe stated that staff reviewed the information provided in the appraisal.  He indicated the appraisal was based on price information, not based on sales and there is no connection to the land use regulations.  He said it was an appraisal that appraised hypothetical situations. He said there was nothing that stated the reduction in value would be because of a land use regulation.

Funke asked for a continuance.

MOTION: to keep the record open to May 18 and a continued hearing to June 5.

Dwyer MOVED,  Green SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

Joan Patterson, commented that this is a unique property and it means a lot to their family.  She counted on the appraiser for what he needed to do.

Pope

Michael Farthing, said this was a straightforward application for Rich and Barbara Pope.  He noted that this claim is ten plus acres south of Dexter, zoned AGT at the time of acquisition.  He said the Pope’s wanted to split their property into half.

Ritter

No one signed up to speak.

Scott

Michael Farthing, explained that this property is located north of Swiss Home near the county line.  He said that Earla Scott acquired the property in 1976.  He noted there is a home on it.  He said it is zoned F1 with only four plus acres.  He said Scott wanted to legalize her home on the property.  He noted that staff was recommending approval.

Slocum

Norm Waterbury, said they requested this application be cancelled in February. He noted at that time staff indicated little progress had been made on the application.  He added that they put in an application for a refund and hadn’t heard anything.

Taylor2

Mike Reeder, said they have a favorable staff report but the matrix has a recommendation for denial based on ownership.

Vorhes indicated a wrong copy of the matrix was attached.   He noted the copy in front of the Board has a valid adopt order recommendation.

Thienes

Michael Farthing, commented that this is a straightforward claim.  He indicated it was a 1971 acquisition date.  He said staff recommended approval.

Wagner

No one signed up to speak.

Wilson

Norm Waterbury, indicated this was recommended approval.  He indicated there was an issue regarding the acquisition date that needs to be corrected.  He said staff has the date of acquisition as being April 8, 1978.  He noted the actual date of acquisition was based on a land sales contract that went to January 1966, not 1978.  He said the problem in this case was the people lost the original land sales contract.  He said they came up with a payment book.  He said they went to Assessment and Taxation and found out  they could get a record of who paid the taxes.  He went back to 1973 and it shows the property in the ownership of Janet Wilson in 1973. He indicated the difference between the 1973 and 1978 acquisition date would not be affected by County rules and regulations, but for statewide goals and guidelines.   He added that it could be implemented and it would be crucial to have the date go back prior to July 1973, when Goal 3 was passed by the state.  He requested keeping the record open so they could communicate with the County.

MOTION: to leave the record open to May 18, with a continued hearing on June 5.

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

Zip O Logs

Marilyn Cohen, Eugene, said she is the neighbor of the subject property.  She said the packet went to the Board without opportunity for their comments to be included.  She thought the Board had an obligation to consider all of their objections.  She didn’t think the Board could rule on this today.  She said all of the challenged regulations are exempt and the Board has no obligation to grant compensation.  She said the Board doesn’t have the power to override a code provision stating the purpose of Lane Code 2.710.  She said they have to rule that the provisions of Chapter 16.210 and all the provisions of Chapter 16 are exempt. She said the case fails to accurately portray the reduction in value.

Mike Reeder, said he represents Zip O Log Mills.  He said they have a favorable staff reporting from the planning department.  He said the property was acquired in two pieces:  July 7, 1961 and May 15, 1961.

Dwyer asked if there was any objection to keep the record open to May 18 and the hearing on June 8.

Reeder said he would contact the client. He indicated they are past the 180 days.

He disagreed with Chapter 16 that it is solely for the purpose of public health safety and other issues.  He said Lane Code 16 is a zoning regulation.  He said the purpose statement encapsulates the desire to promote health and safety and it doesn’t mean for the purpose of Measure 37.  He said if what the proponent stated was true, then almost all Measure 37 claims approved would have to be denied.  He didn’t see any reason why they couldn’t hold this over for two weeks.

Marilyn Cohen on behalf of her husband, said on the issue of ownership, the claim certifies that all the information is true. She said the broker’s statement submitted by the applicant states the owner is Carl Holstrum, it doesn’t list Zip O Log as the owner.  She said they have a deed that states Zip O Log is the owner and they have a sworn statement that all of the materials supplied by Zip O Log is true.  She indicated that Lane Code provisions require the appraiser be certified as licensed by the Oregon License Board and there is nothing in the file that states that.  She thought that became an issue.  She didn’t think a blanket waiver could satisfy a claim.

Neal Miller, Eugene,  said he and his wife live on 130 acres of F2 land that adjoins this property.  He commented that the idea of having 63 homes on prime F1 land as a neighbor is incomprehensible. He asked why his health and safety should be ignored at this stage.  He thought it should be denied on the increased fire danger alone.  With regard to valuation, he indicated it is a water restricted area and they can’t compare five acre lots in other parts of the County to the value of this particular parcel.  He added that should be subject to denial.  He said the quality and quantity of water in the area is limited.  He thought this should be denied.

Jackie Roberts, said she is a neighbor of the subject property.  She said there is confusion of the transfer of property. She asked if it reverts back to F1.  She said if so, it can’t have a house.  She challenged the valuation of the property, based on the possibility of having 63 houses.

Steve Brodsky stated his property borders the subject property and he was against the claim.

Michael Simon, stated that he owns nine acres that abuts the Zip O Log property.  He represented his wife and neighbors.  He said the property is listed as being owned by Zip O Mills and on their own website they document they are a family owned sawmill business and they have been in business since 1944.  He said they bought the property in 1961, after there were zoning laws in existence.  He said they bought the property because they are a forestry timber business and the use of its timber.  He indicated the land benefited them since 1961 and it has been harvested twice.  He said they have replanted three times.  He commented that they have benefited by zoning and if it were not zoned as forest, and they had wanted to keep it as forest, they would have been paying taxes on properties that would have been worth more.  He said they benefited from the timber loss and the property tax laws.  He commented that the claim is invalid because it is falsely inflated by method.  He said it is false at $11 million on the assumption that they could put 63 homes there and that they could have water. 

Rob Hougan, Eugene, said the valuation was incorrect because they compared it to other five acre parcels and none of them existed.   He asked the Board to postpone this and ask Zip O Logs to submit a fair and correct valuation.

Linda Carnine, Eugene, stated she is a neighbor to the north of the property.  She indicated they are trying to build a wildlife habitat because her land has been damaged over time.  She wanted to be on record to  be notified of future hearings.  She opposed the change.

Lynn Bowers, Eugene, heard that Zip O was being forced to do this Measure 37 claim because they get so many complaints from their neighbors about their years of herbicide poisons.  She disputed their lots were buildable.  She commented that if water isn’t there, the lots are not buildable.

Robin Winfree, Eugene raised the question of valuation.

Hal Hermanson, Eugene, commented that the whole zoning system is what is creating a fair market value.  He noted Zip O Logs compared their land with pre-existing properties. He said they should look at the whole and not the individuals’ valuations and the structures they are going after.  He said it was true that Zip O Logs benefited by timber deferral.

Jim Babson, noted on the summary sheet that the 180 days expires on May 29.  He said they wouldn’t need the claimant’s approval to push this over for another two or three weeks.

Reeder stated he spoke with the President of Zip O Logs and he has no objection to moving the hearing to June 5.  He indicated that would allow them to respond to the many comments that were brought up.  He noted in the letter submitted by the real estate professional, Reeder indicated that Carl Holstrum is the Secretary Treasurer and there has not been any transfer of the property.

MOTION: to allow the record to stay open to May 18 with a continued hearing on June 5.

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

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

MOTION: to deny Davidson2, Harding2, Lamb2, Louvring and Odegaard.

Sorenson MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

Stewart indicated that they would be discussing Davidson2 in the afternoon.

Sorenson pulled Davidson2 out of his motion.

Howe indicated they received one page from Norm Waterbury on the legal description for Davidson2, but it doesn’t help them.

VOTE: 5-0.

MOTION: to approve Benedick, Brewer2, Byers, Cross, Gabrielson, Henton, Hillyard, Makenson2, McDonald, Mord1, Mord2, Nelson, Obie, Pope, Ritter, Scott, Taylor2, Theines and Wagner

Sorenson MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

MOTION: to approve the Harding1 claim.

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

Stewart thought this was a valid claim when the son purchased the property in 1995.

Dwyer indicated they looked at the deed and the application and it seems to be valid.

VOTE: 5-0.

MOTION: to approve Murry1

Green MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

VOTE: 3-2 (Fleenor, Sorenson dissenting).

MOTION: to approve Murry2.

Green MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

VOTE; 3-2 (Sorenson, Fleenor dissenting).

This took place in the afternoon.

Davidson2 Measure 37 Claim

Howe distributed copies to the Board.  He said the Warranty Deed has Byron Libby and Lyla Libby, husband and wife, conveying a warrant.  He indicated it was whited out but it explained that the grantee, the husband and wife shall own an individual title, but what was placed was Davidson Investments, LLC in 1975.  He noted on page 2 is the Measure 37 Lien and Encumbrance Report from Evergreen Title.  He said it references in 1974 a Bargain and Sale Deed and in 1980 there was the same and a Warranty Deed in 2002.  He indicated there was Articles of Organization of Davidson Investment, Inc.  He noted that was recorded in 2001.  He stated they went on the website for the Corporation Division and for the Davidson Investment LLC, it shows it registered as an LLC in 2001. 

Howe recalled what they initially had was the deed that had been whited out.  He said in the supplemental memorandum the Board had for the item, all they had were the first three pages of an 11 page agreement on the operating agreement of Davidson Investments.  He said they now have the full document.  He indicated the land sales contract that was in 1975 had the grantors as Byron Libby and Lila Libby who were husband and wife.  He said they granted it to Gerald Davidson and Shirley Davidson, husband and wife.  He added in 2001 there was a Bargain and Sale Deed from Gerald Davidson and Shirley Davidson and David Davison and Leslie Davidson to Davidson Investments LLC.  He said their conclusion is that they don’t have clear title showing family ownership beyond 2001.  He noted that the Libbys and the Titus were involved but the way the deed whited out things in 2001, they lost the chain of title going back to the family.  He said in 2001 when it went into an LLC, it created a new owner and new date of acquisition.  He stated it was zoned RR10 in 2001 and it is zoned RR10 today. He said staff found they didn’t have adequate information addressing the value reduction analysis to have a valid claim.

MOTION: move to deny the claim.

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

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

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary