2005-1384-Order No. 2005-109 Recorded 12/5/20051
REV DESCHUTES RECORDS
WED NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK vu 2005~~~~~
A COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 12/05/2005 01:41:48 PM
LEGAL COUNSEL 11111111 1111JI111111111111I III
2005-3BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Approving a Waiver of Land Use
Regulations to Authorize Vicki Atkinson to Use * ORDER NO. 2005-109
the Subject Property as Allowed When She
Acquired the Property
WHEREAS, On November 2, 2004, the voters of the State of Oregon approved Ballot Measure 37
which added provisions to Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 197 to require, under certain circumstances,
payment of just compensation to landowners if a government land use regulation reduces property value. In lieu
of just compensation, Ballot Measure 37 authorizes the governing body of a local government to modify,
remove or not apply the land use regulation, and
WHEREAS, Vicki Atkinson made a timely demand for compensation under Measure 37 for a reduction
in value to her property at 69655 Lake Drive, Sisters, Oregon due to regulations which took effect after they
acquired this property, and
WHEREAS, Section 8 of Measure 37 authorizes the Board, as the governing body responsible for
adoption and enforcement of County regulations, to not apply the identified land use regulation that restricts the
owner's use and reduces the value of the property in lieu of payment of compensation; and
WHEREAS, the Board has received the report and recommendation of the County Administrator as
required by DCC 14.10.090; and
WHEREAS, the Board has considered the Administrator's report and the evidence presented by the
parties at a Board meeting as required by DCC 14.10.090; and
WHEREAS, the Board makes the following findings of facts and conclusions;
On June 28, 2005, Vicki Atkinson filed a Measure 37 claim with the Community Development
Department.
2. Claimant's property at 69655 Lake Drive, Sisters, Oregon is within Deschutes County.
3. The County Administrator has recommended that the zoning regulations for the subject property
at 69655 Lake Drive, Sisters, Oregon that were not already in effect until after April 20, 1981,
not be enforced in lieu of payment of just compensation to Claimant. The Administrator's report
is attached and incorporated by reference into this Order as Exhibit "A."
4. The Board concurs with the Administrator's report that Vicki Atkinson is the present owner of
the subject property described in Exhibit "B," having acquired an interest in it and continuously
owned it since April 20, 1981.
5. The Board concurs with the Administrator's report that the current regulation, F-2, WA zoning,
if applied to the subject property, would not permit a single-family dwelling on this subject
PAGE 1 of 3- ORDERNo. 2005-109 (12/05/05)
property. The current regulation is a land use regulation which is not exempt from Measure 37
claims.
6. The Board concurs with the Administrator's report that an application for a single-family
dwelling on the subject property would be denied if the current zoning were applied. Therefore,
such an application to determine enforcement of the current zoning to the Claimant's property
would be futile.
7. The Board concurs with the Administrator's report that there is no evidence which demonstrates
that the current procedural regulations for land divisions and development applications and
approvals have reduced the value of the subject property.
The Board concurs with the Administrator's report that Claimant has not demonstrated that
domestic water, and septic for the desired use on the subject property are feasible. Despite the
lack of a precise amount of reduction in value, the loss of the ability to add additional buildable
lots from the subject property would be a substantial amount of reduction in fair market value if
the regulations at the time Claimant acquired the property allowed that development; now,
therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY
ORDERS as follows:
Section 1. The Board hereby determines, based on these findings, conclusions, and the Administrator's
report in Exhibit "A," that the Atkinson claim is eligible under DCC 14.10.100.
Section 2. The Board hereby elects to not apply zoning and nonexempt land use regulations to the
subject property described in Exhibit "B" in lieu of payment of just compensation under Ballot Measure 37.
Claimant is hereby authorized to use the subject property as permitted at the time she acquired the property.
Claimant may apply for a use of the subject property consistent with the zoning and regulations in effect at the
time she acquired the property. That use shall be permitted if the subject property fully complies with all
regulations in effect on April 20, 1981. The Community Development Director is hereby authorized to
determine the effects that any other non-exempt regulations in effect on this date would have on Claimant's
proposed development differently than current non-exempt regulations. However, the current procedural
regulations for land division and development applications and approval, including, but not limited to setbacks,
access, height, and landscaping requirements shall be applied.
Section 3. To the extent that any law, order, deed, agreement or other legally enforceable public or
private requirement provides that the subject property may not be used without a permit, license, or other form
of authorization or consent, this order does not authorize the use of the subject property unless the Claimant first
obtain that permit, license, or other form of authorization or consent.
Section 4. This Order is a waiver of a non-exempt County land use regulation from a property
determined to be claim eligible as defined in DCC 14.10.020(0)
Section 5. A STATE OF OREGON WAIVER MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OR
USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS WAIVER APPLIES ONLY TO THE LOCAL REGULATIONS
SPECIFIED ABOVE. DESCHUTES COUNTY LACKS THE AUTHORITY TO WAIVE ANY STATE
REGULATIONS OR LAWS. STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS MAY APPLY TO THE USE OF THE
PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND A WAIVER OF SUCH LAWS AND REGULATIONS MUST BE
SEPARATELY OBTAINED BY THE OWNERS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON. AS A RESULT OF A
DECISION BY THE MARION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, THE STATE MAY BE UNABLE TO
PROCESS CLAIMS MADE UNDER MEASURE 37 CHALLENGING STATE LAND USE REGULATIONS.
PAGE 2 OF 3- ORDER No. 2005-109 (12/05/05)
Section 6. This order does not affect any land use regulations of the State of Oregon. If the use allowed
by Section 2, above, remains prohibited by a State of Oregon land use regulation, the Planning Director shall
send notice of the Board's decision to the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development.
The notice shall include a statement that the County will not accept an application for a building permit related
to the newly allowed use on the property until the earlier of the following events: (i) notice by the Department of
Land Conservation and Development that it concurs with the Board's decision, or (ii) a date 180 days from
issuance of the Board's decision where no response is made to the notice by the Department of Land
Conservation and Development.
Section 7. This Order shall be recorded in the Deschutes County Deed Records together with portions
from the deed or other instrument in Exhibits A and B sufficient to identify the subject property for recording
purposes.
DATED this day of December, 2005.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DFSCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ATTEST:
Y,
I el -
Recording Secretary D NNIS R. LUKE, Commissioner
PAGE 3 of 3- ORDER No. 2005-109 (12/05/05)
Deschutes County Department of Administrative Services
1300 NW Wall St., Ste. 200, Bend, OR 97701-1947
(541) 388-6570 Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orq
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: December 5, 2005
From: Michael A. Maier, County Administrator
RE: Measure 37 Claim - Vicki Atkinson (Claimant)
69655 Lake Drive, Sisters, Oregon
Introduction
The County processed the initial Measure 37 claims using its brief claim form, evaluating the initial
submission, asking that the Claimant furnish more evidence to complete or clarify the claim, and
preparing this report and recommendation under DCC 14.10, the Measure 37 ordinance. The County's
claims process recognizes that less precise evidence of value may be sufficient to evaluate claims, since
there are currently no County funds available for payment of compensation. Also, the ordinance provides
further opportunities for affected neighbors to present evidence and testimony at the Board meeting when
these claims are considered.
This report and recommendation is intended to be a summary and evaluation of evidence in the record.
The report may be attached to the Board's Order that decides Measure 37 claims, as a factual basis for
the Order. Any factual changes or additions to this report from testimony or other evidence can be made
part of the Board's Order. Claimant and affected parties have the opportunity to rebut this Report and
provide additional relevant evidence to the Board. Also, under the County's process, Claimant must
provide evidence that the desired use of the property, which may be allowed by a waiver of County
regulations is feasible, i.e., not prevented by physical, utility or other development limitations of the site.
Report and Recommendation - DCC 14.10.090
This is my report and recommendation on this Measure 37 claim received on June 28, 2005 when
Measure 37 was in lawful effect. Claimant has paid the filing fee and has submitted the County's official
demand form. The property, shown on the attached map, is estimated to be 40 acres. The current zoning
Page 1 of 5 - Exhibit A - Order No. 2005-109 (12/05/05)
is Forest Use (F- 2) with a Wildlife Area Combining Zone. The Claimant's desired use is to develop the
property with a single-family dwelling. The following is an analysis of the evidence in the record on the
elements of this Measure 37 claim.
Current Owner - Vicki Atkinson
Claimant presented a copy of a Warranty Deed, showing she and her husband, Charles Atkinson,
purchased the property on April 20, 1981. Claimant has indicated that since their divorce and the
distribution of marital assets, she is the sole owner of the property.
Owner Date of Acquisition - April 20, 1981
The date of acquisition by the current owner is the relevant date for Board consideration of waivers under
section (8) of Measure 37. The compensation section of Measure 37, section (6), uses the acquisition
date of a family member to determine the extent of reduction in value for compensation. Since the County
has no funds budgeted for payment of compensation, waivers that are issued by the County are limited
by section (8) of Measure 37 to County land use regulations that were adopted after the later acquisition
date of the current owner. If a waiver is granted as to County land use regulations which were adopted
after the current owner's acquisition date, no compensation is due, even if the prior family member held
the property for many years. While this may seem inconsistent, the measure was, evidently, written to
encourage waivers of local and state land use regulations.
Restrictive Regulation - F-2, WA zoning.
Under the terms of the ordinance, the Claimant must identify County land use regulations that prevent the
Claimant from using the property in a way that he or she otherwise could have used the property at the
time the property was acquired. The Claimant must also show that these identified regulations cause a
reduction of property value.
The Claimant has identified the Forest Use zoning as the land use regulation restricting the desired use of
a non-farm dwelling. This regulation is a County land use regulation, which is subject to Measure 37
claims. The applicability of additional development standards listed in the Claim will be determined
consistent with the Board's Order when a specific land use application has been received. Non-exempt
Page 2 of 5 - Exhibit A - Order No. 2005-109 (12/05/05)
land use regulations will not be applied. Public safety regulations or others exempt under Subsection (3)E
of the Measure cannot be waived.
Enforcement of County Regulation - futile DCC 14.10.040(G).
Measure 37 requires that an ordinance that restricts the current owner's use be "enforced" against them.
In 1999, the owner of the property applied for a lot of record verification as a necessary precursor to an
application for a land use permit. Staff issued a decision denying the lot of record application, finding that
the property was not created in conformance with applicable land use regulations and, thus, was not
eligible for any development permits (i.e., land use, building or septic). That decision was appealed to the
Hearings Officer, who upheld the staff decision (See: A-99-4,). Before the decision of the Hearings
Officer became final the applicant withdrew the application/appeal. So, there has been no decision on
whether the lot was lawfully established. As part of a separate proceeding, it will need to be decided
(separate from any development application) whether the lot was created lawfully. This, despite the fact
that the lot of record provisions in PL-15 were adopted in 1988 via Ord. No. 88-009. There is no
evidence that Claimant has applied for a permit resulting in the current zoning being enforced on the
subject property. Claimant has not demonstrated that submitting an application for such a land use would
be futile. This Report confirms that such an application for the desired use would violate the current
zoning and be denied. Therefore, the intent of DCC 14.10.040(G) has been met for this claim.
Reduction in Value - $145,120 alleged in claim
The ordinance requires that the Claimant provide evidence of the amount of the claim in alleged reduction
in the fair market value of the property resulting from the enforcement of the County's land use regulation.
• Claimant has not submitted evidence that domestic water is available.
• Claimant has not submitted evidence that septic approval is feasible in the area.
• Claimant has submitted a map showing access from Hinkle Butts Drive as evidence of available
road access for the desired dwelling.
• Claimant has not submitted an appraisal of the reduction in value or evidence of the reduction in
value that complies with DCC 14. 10.040(1). The opinion evidence which calculates a reduced
market value of $145,120 does not includes estimated costs of development for the calculated
value.
Page 3 of 5 - Exhibit A - Order No. 2005-109 (12/05/05)
Assuming Claimant could obtain approval of a single-family dwelling on the property, absent current F-
2/WA zoning restrictions, the value of Claimant's property for Measure 37 purposes would be
substantially reduced.
Effect of County Waiver - Measure 37 clearly allows the County to waive its non-exempt land use
regulations only back to the date the current owner, not family members, acquired the property:
"(8) Notwithstanding any other state statute or the availability of funds under
subsection (10) of this act, in lieu of payment of just compensation under this act,
the governing body responsible for enacting the land use regulation may modify,
remove, or not to apply the land use regulation or land use regulations to allow
the property owner to use the property for a use permitted at the time the owner
acquired the property.,, (emphasis added)
11(c) "Owner" is the present owner of the property, or any interest therein. "
In this case, the present owner has continuously owned an interest in the property since 1981. This
follows the effective date of PL-15 which contains zoning regulations which may or may not allow the
desired use.
A Claimant who receives a waiver must use the current process to seek the needed development permits
based on the zoning in place at the time the current owner acquired the property. Except in a rare case,
the current procedural requirements for handling permits are not regulations that reduce value. Therefore,
the County's procedural regulations are not waived.
Conclusion and Recommendation
The present owner of the property submitted a claim pursuant to Measure 37 that demonstrates eligibility
for their use of the subject property based on non-exempt land use regulations in effect on April 20, 1981,
the date she acquired an interest in the property. There was zoning of the subject property at the time.
There is some evidence in the record that some additional development on the subject property would be
feasible for available domestic water, and sanitary waste disposal. The non-exempt County land use
regulations that were in effect at the time Claimant acquired the property would be applied to a
subdivision application for that use.
Page 4 of 5 - Exhibit A - Order No. 2005-109 (12/05/05)
My recommendation is that the Board approve a waiver in the form of Order attached. This Order would
have the effect of waiving the non-exempt County land use regulations that were not in effect until after
April 20, 1981, to allow the owner to use the subject property in a manner permitted at the time she
acquired an interest in the property. In essence, the County would not apply the current F-2, WA zoning
to the Claimant's property which were not in effect when the Claimant acquired the property unless they
are exempt from a Measure 37 waiver under Subsection (3)E of the Measure. This waiver is not a
development permit. Claimant must apply for a permit under April 20, 1981 regulations. In addition, it still
be necessary for the Claimant to establish that the subject parcel was lawfully created.
Cautionary Note on Measure 37
On October 14, 2005, Marion County Circuit Court announced its decision in MacPherson v. Dept. of
Administrative Services, (Marion Co. Circ. Ct. Case No. 0OC15769), which involved a challenge to
Measure 37. The Court ruled that Measure 37 violates the constitution in the following particulars:
impermissibly limits the Legislative Branch of Oregon government from exercising its plenary power to
regulate land use in Oregon; violates the Oregon Constitution, Article I, Section 20, the Privileges and
Immunities clause; violates the Oregon Constitution, Article I, Section 22, the Suspension of Laws; and
violates the United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment Procedural and Substantive Due
Process. This decision is expected to be appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court. However, until ruled on
by the Supreme Court (and unless a stay is granted), this decision will prevent the State of Oregon from
processing or deciding Measure 37 claims and from administering State laws as if Measure 37 were valid.
Deschutes County will, for the time being, process Measure 37 claims unless a claimant requests that
such process be placed on hold. Claimants should understand that a decision by Deschutes County may
not enable them to proceed with future development or construction in light of the fact that the State may
be prevented from processing "State" claims. Claimants who wish to obtain information relative to their
"State" claims under Measure 37 are advised to contact the State Department of Land Conservation and
Development.
Page 5 of 5 - Exhibit A - Order No. 2005-109 (12/05/05)
EXHIBIT B
The Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25,
Township 14 South, Mange 10 East of the Willamette Merid-
ian, D C3Chutes County, Oregon.
Excepting a 60' road easement along the southerly boundary
line of the above described property from a point where
Hinkle Butte rive intersects the South boundary line
easterly to the East line of the subject propert.y.,
Order No. 2005-109; Atkinson