2006-411-Order No. 2006-006 Recorded 4/13/2006DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ 1006.411
NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL
111111111111111111111111111111
0411312006
09;05;19
AM
200
6-411
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK
CERTIFICATE PAGE
G
i6
O
1
This page must be included
if document is re-recorded.
Do Not remove from original document.
REV 'D
EGAL COUNSEL
COUNTY OFFICIRL
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS 2006.15096
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 NOFEE 0 0 200600250960090098
04/iZ/Z006
0_1137 Cntsl Stn=23 PAM 03;51 r43 PM
This is a no fee document
\ BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Approving a Waiver of Land Use
Regulations to Authorize John Gill to Use the * ORDER NO. 2006-006
Subject Property as Allowed When He 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, John Gill made a timely demand for compensation under Measure 37 for a reduction in
value to their property at 64300 Tyler Rd.,, Bend, Oregon due to regulations which took effect after he 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 August 19, 2005, John Gill filed a Measure 37 claim with the Community Development
Department.
2. Claimant's property at 64300 Tyler Road, Bend, Oregon is within Deschutes County.
3. The County Administrator has recommended that the zoning regulations for the subject property
at 64300 Tyler Road, Bend, Oregon that were not already in effect until after July 24, 1969 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 John Gill is the present owner of the
subject property described in Exhibit "B," having acquired an interest in it and continuously
owned it since July 24, 1969.
5. The Board concurs with the Administrator's report that the current regulation, EFU-TRB
zoning, if applied to the subject property, would not permit a subdivision on this subject
PAGE 1 of 3- ORDER No. 2006-006 (04/12/06)
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 subdivision 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 John Gill's 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 properties 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 he acquired the property.
Claimant may apply for a use of the subject property consistent with the zoning and regulations in effect at the
time he acquired the property. That use shall be permitted if the subject property fully complies with all
regulations in effect on July 24, 1969. 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. ALTHOUGH THE COUNTY WILL ACCEPT AND PROCESS
SUBSEQUENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY,
APPROVAL MAY NOT BE GRANTED WITHOUT A VALID WAIVER FROM THE STATE PERTAINING
TO STATE REGULATIONS WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE PRECLUDE THE PROPOSED LAND USE.
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,
PAGE 2 of 3- ORDER No. 2006-006 (04/12/06)
AND A WAIVER OF SUCH LAWS AND REGULATIONS MUST BE SEPARATELY OBTAINED BY THE
OWNERS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON.
Section 6. 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 January, 2006.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTF,WOUNTY, OREGON
R. LUKE,
ATTEST:
(~4~ (t~
Recording Secretary
PAGE 3 of 3- ORDER No. 2006-006 (04/12/06)
BEV CLARNO. VICE CHAIR
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.org
TO: Board of County Commissioners
From: Michael A. Maier, County Administrator
RE: Measure 37 Claim - John Gill (Claimant)
64300 Tyler Road, Bend, Oregon
Introduction
The County processed the initial Measure 37 claims using its brief claim form, evaluating the initial
submission, asking that the Claimants 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. Claimants and affected parties have the opportunity to rebut this Report and
provide additional relevant evidence to the Board. Also, under the County's process, Claimants 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 August 19, 2005 when
Measure 37 was in lawful effect. Claimant has paid the filing fee and submitted the County's official
demand form. The property is estimated to be 19.32 acres. The current zoning is EFU-TRB. The
Page 1 of 5 - Exhibit A - Order No. 2006-006
Claimant's desired use is to subdivide the property . The following is an analysis of the evidence in the
record on the elements of this Measure 37 claim
Current Owner - John Gill
Claimant presented a copy of a Warranty Deed, dated July 24, 1969 showing that Claimant and his wife
Jane acquired the property on that date. By separate Bargain and Sale deed Jane Gill conveyed her
interest in the subject property to John Gill on March 30, 1994,.
Owner Date of Acquisition - July 24, 1969
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 - EFU-TRB 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 the property could have been used 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 EFU zoning and several related land use regulations as restricting the
desired use of a 5-lot subdivision. 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.
Page 2 of 5 - Exhibit A - Order No. 2006-006
Non-exempt 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.
There is evidence that Claimant has applied for a land division of the property resulting in the current
zoning being enforced on the subject property (See: County file no. MP-92-59). Claimant has not
demonstrated that submitting an application for the desired land division would be futile. However, 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 - $400,000 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 submitted no evidence that domestic water is available.
• Claimant has submitted no evidence that septic approval is feasible in the area.
• Claimant has indicated access from Tyler Road, as evidence of available road access for the
desired additional lots.
• Claimant has submitted a statement on which they base their opinion of the value of his property
if he were able to develop and sell 5 additional residential lots. The value includes the cost of
development.
Assuming Claimant could obtain approval of a subdivision of the property, absent current EFU 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:
`(S) 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
Page 3 of 5 - Exhibit A - Order No. 2006-006
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 1969. This
precedes the effective date of PL-2, the 1970 subdivision ordinance, and PL-5, the County's first zoning
ordinance.
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 his use of the subject property based on non-exempt land use regulations in effect on July 24, 1969,
the date he acquired an interest in the property. There was no 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.
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
July 24, 1969, to allow the owner to use the subject property in a manner permitted at the time he
acquired an interest in the property. In essence, the County would not apply the current EFU 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 subdivision under current regulations.
Page 4 of 5 - Exhibit A - Order No. 2006-006
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. 2006-006
EXHIBIT B
North half of this Southeast quarter of the
Northwest quarter {N 1/2, SE 1/4( 'NW 1/4) of
Section Two, Tovnship Seventeen (17) South,
Range eleven (11),East of the Willamette
Meridian.. Deschutes County, Oregon.
Order No. 2006-006; Gill, John