HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrder 035 - Measure 37 Claim - Hingley���Esc
G
tL 2A
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orq
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board Business Meeting of April 21, 2008
Use "tab" to move between fields, and use as much space as necessary within each field. Do not leave any fields
incomplete. Agenda requests & backup must be submitted to the Board Secretary no later than noon of the
Wednesday prior to the meeting to be included on the agenda.
DATE: 4/11/08
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Kevin Harrison; CDD; 385-1401
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Consideration of claim for compensation under Measure 37 (DCC Chapter 14.10) and signature of
Order.
HEARING?: Yes
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Claims to be considered are: (1) M37-07-171 (Hingley ), Order No. 2008-035; (2) M37-07-172
(Dunham), Order No. 2008-036; (3)M37-070173 (Kulin), Order No. 2008-037.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Decision on the three claims.
ATTENDANCE: Tom Anderson/Mark Pilliod
DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS:
Orders and staff reports to be recorded with County Clerk. Copies to be sent to Legal Counsel, CDD,
DLCD (Cora Parker, Deputy Director; DLCD; 635 Capitol Street, NE, Suite 150; Salem, OR 97301.
2524); Claimants.
� REVIEV E�
7/4„,4_
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Denying a Waiver of Land Use
Regulations pursuant to Ballot Measure 37 -
Hingley
*
*
*
ORDER NO. 2008-035
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 circumstanwes,
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, Gary Hingley made a demand for compensation under Measure 37 for a reduction in value
to its property at 20925 Young Avenue, Bend, Oregon due to regulations which he claims 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 one or more identified land use regulations that
restrict 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;
1. On February 26, 2007, Gary Hingley filed a Measure 37 claim with the Community
Development Department.
2. The property is located at 20925 Young Avenue, Bend, Oregon and is within Deschutes
County.
3. The County Administrator has recommended against waiver of county regulations for the
subject property. 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 Gary Hingley is the present owner of
the subject property, having acquired an interest in it and continuously owned it since AprI 1,
1971. The County finds and concludes as set forth below.
5. The Board concurs with the Administrator's report that the current zoning regulations, if applied
to the subject property, would not permit a subdivision of the subject property in the des red
PAGE 1 OF 2- ORDER NO. 2008-035 (04/21/08)
location. The current land use regulations are exempt from Measure 37 claims to the extent
they were adopted by the County prior to April 1, 1971.
6. The Board concurs with the Administrator's report that an application for a 9 -lot subdivision of
the subject property would be denied if the current regulations were applied. Therefore, such an
application to determine enforcement of the current zoning to the Claimant's property would be
futile. However, Measure 37 also requires that a claim be submitted within two years of its
adoption and this claim was filed later than two years.
7. The Board concurs with the Administrator's report that there is no evidence which demonstrates
that the County's regulations for a land use permit adopted after Claimant's acquisition date
have reduced the value of the subject property.
8. The Board concurs with the Administrator's report that subdivision of the property may be
feasible, although the claim does not offer any evidence thereof, 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 claim is not eligible under DCC 14.10.100.
Section 2. A STATE OF OREGON MEASURE 37 WAIVER WOULD 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, AND A WAIVER OF SUCH LAWS AND REGULATIONS MUST BE SEPARATELY
OBTAINED BY THE OWNERS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON.
DATED this day of April, 2008.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
DENNIS R. LUKE, CHAIR
ATTEST: TAMMY BANEY MELTON, VICE CHAIR
Recording Secretary MICHAEL M. DALY, COMMISSIONER
PAGE 2 OF 2- ORDER No. 2008-035 (04/21/08)
SES
0 Deschutes County Department of Administrative Services
-11
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
From: David Kanner, County Administrator
RE: Measure 37 Claim — Gary Hingley (Claimant)
20925 Young Ave, Bend, OR
DATE: April 21, 2008
Introduction
The County processed the initial Measure 37 claims using its brief claim form, evaluating the submission.
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 which 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 February 26, 2007, when
Measure 37 was in lawful effect. While Claimant's documents are dated October 23, 2005, the claim was
not received by the county until February 26, 2007. Claimant has paid the filing fee and submitted the
County's official demand form. The property consists of one lot with approximately 19.64 acres in one tax
lot. The current zoning is EFU-TRB. The Claimant's desired use is to subdivide the property into 9 lots,
Page 1 of 5 — Exhibit A - Order No. 2008-035
currently restricted by County land use regulations. Claimant alleges a reduction in value of approximately
$1,148,190 due to the inability to subdivide as desired. The following is an analysis of the evidence in the
record on the elements of this Measure 37 claim.
Current Owner — Claimant asserts on the claim form that he is the owner of the property comprising this
claim: 16-12-15, Tax lot 700 located at 20925 Young Ave., Bend. Claimant submitted a copy of a land
sales contract, dated April 1, 1971, showing claimant and his wife, Janet, as purchasers. They acquired
fee title by deed dated 1997.
Owner Date of Acquisition — April 1, 1971
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. The first date for which there is documentation
showing claimant obtained an interest in the property is April 1, 1971.
Restrictive Regulation — Zoning Regulations.
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 it otherwise could have used the property at the time the
property was acquired, and thus reduce the value of the claimants' property. The Claimant has identified
specific provisions of the county's ordinance which claimant alleges have reduced the value of the
property by prohibiting his ability to divide the property into smaller lots. Despite claimant's assertion that
there were no county regulations in place in 1971, the property had a comprehensive plan designation of
"Intensive Agriculture" (Effective 6/17/70), and was subject to the development standards for a "Rural
Subdivision" under PL -2 (Effective 1011170). The comprehensive plan was adopted in 1970. A subdivision
ordinance (PL -2), was adopted in 1970, and a zoning ordinance (PL -5), was adopted in December 1971.
While minimum lots sizes would ordinarily be contained in a zoning ordinance, the County's first
Page 2 of 5 — Exhibit A - Order No. 2008-035
subdivision ordinance contained minimum lot sizes. So, there is internal consistency between the
comprehensive plan, the subdivision ordinance and, ultimately, the zoning ordinance with respect to land
divisions. This consistency is reflected in the comprehensive plan map that identified broad plan
designations, subdivision standards that were tied to the comprehensive plan designations, and the
zoning ordinance that contained both text and maps, consistent with the plan designations. Rural
subdivision standards under PL -2 required a minimum lot area of 5 acres. Thus, while a subdivision mighl
have been permitted, it would not have allowed 9 lots on claimant's 19 -acre parcel.
Additional requirements were adopted after the acquisition date of 1971 and would have the effect of
further restricting the subdivision of the property. While the county would need to evaluate any land use
application that may be submitted pursuant to regulations in effect at the time Claimant first acquired an
interest in the property, it appears that in theory, based upon regulations in effect in 1971, that a land
division or some type, perhaps three Tots, may have been permitted at that time.
Enforcement of County Regulation - futile DCC 14.10.040(G).
Measure 37 requires that an ordinance which restricts the current owner's use be "enforced" against
them. Claimant has not applied for a land division resulting in the current zoning being enforced on the
subject property. Claimant has asserted that submitting an application for such a land division would be
futile. This Report confirms that such an application for the desired subdivision would violate the current
requirements and be denied. Therefore, the intent of DCC 14.10.040(G) has been met for this claim.
Measure 37 also requires that a claim for compensation be filed within two years of December 2, 2004 or
the date the public entity applies the land use regulation as an approval criteria to an application
submitted by the owner. In this case claimant has submitted the claim later than two years after
December 2, 2004 and has not demonstrated that he has otherwise applied for, or been subject to,
county land use regulations from which he seeks a waiver. Thus, claimant's application under Measure
27 is barred.
Reduction in Value - $1,148,190 alleged on Claim Form
The ordinance requires that the Claimant provides 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 asserted that a land division would be approved. While this may be true, a 9 -lot
subdivision would not have been consistent with County land use regulations in effect in 1970.
Page 3 of 5 — Exhibit A - Order No. 2008-035
• Claimant has not submitted an appraisal, or opinions from real estate professionals in an attempt
to show the diminution in value based upon limitations on land division of the property.
• Claimant's alleged reduction in value appears to be based upon the assumption that lots created
by subdividing the property are fully marketable and useable by others for development.
Referring to a recent Opinion of the Oregon Attorney General, rights obtained under Measure 37
are personal to the present property owner. Assuming an owner, having obtained the necessary
"waivers" from the County and the State, could subdivide the property, future owners would
according to the Attorney General, be precluded from using the property in a manner inconsistent
with land use regulations in effect at the time of the transfer. Thus, the amount of reduction it
value asserted by the Claimant may be unreliable, if the resulting lots are unusable by future
owners, based on it having to comply with zoning regulations in place when such future owners
acquire the property. If Claimant could have obtained approval of a subdivision of the property
on the date he first acquired an interest in the property, but not under zoning restrictions adopted
after Claimant's acquisition date, and the resulting Tots are fully marketable and useable by future
owners, then the value of Claimant's property for Measure 37 purposes would be reduced.
Consistent with the County's procedural ordinance, Chapter 14.10, this report takes no position
on whether a waiver obtained by a claimant and any resulting development approval are fully
transferable with the property.
• Claimant's opinion on the reduction in value is based upon claimant's analysis of recent (2005)
real property sales in the vicinity of claimant's property, calculation of average value per acre and
multiplying by the number of acres available to claimant. The actual data on which such
calculation is based was not submitted. Claimant incorrectly assumes that a 9 -lot subdivision
would have been allowed. Claimant asserts that the cost of development would be minimal.
However, this assertion is not supported by any factual information and assumes that no road
construction or community water supply system would be needed despite the further assertion
that all parcels would share a well. Claimant's assumptions as to the number of potential lots,
their marketability subject to Measure 37 waivers, the cost of developing same all lead to the
conclusion that Claimant has not demonstrated a reduction in value due to county or state land
use regulations.
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 owners, 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, claimant has continuously owned an interest in the property since 1971. A claimant who
receives a waiver must use the current process to seek the needed 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.
Page 4 of 5 — Exhibit A - Order No. 2008-035
Effect of Adoption of Measure 49
On November 6, 2007 the Oregon electorate approved a measure referred by the Oregon Legislature
commonly known as Ballot Measure 49 (HB 3540), herein Measure 49, which had the effect of
substantially amending the provisions of Measure 37. It would appear that since claimant submitted his
claim under Measure 37 prior to close of the 2007 legislative session that he may be entitled to submit a
claim under Measure 49 and obtain approval for up to three residential homesites. Such a claim would be
submitted to the State Department of Land Conservation and Development.
Conclusion and Recommendation
The present owner of the property has submitted a claim pursuant to Measure 37 which fails to
demonstrate eligibility for use of the subject property based on nonexempt land use regulations in effect
on April 1, 1971, the date when Claimantfirst acquired an interest in the property. There is limited
evidence in the record that a land division of the subject property would be feasible. However, the claim
was filed after the 2 -year statute of limitations contained in Measure 37 and fails to demonstrate that
nonexempt county and state land use regulations have reduced the value of claimant's property. Further,
because of adoption of Measure 49, claimant no longer has the opportunity to pursue a claim under
Measure 37.
My recommendation is that the Board deny the claim in the form of Order attached.
Page 5 of 5 — Exhibit A - Order No. 2008-035
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/ .dd/
Demand for Compensation - Measure 37 Claim
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION (Please type or print firmly in dark ink)
Cary kiln aA
Name of P operty Ownkt
2o 22.5- Ye ,n y Ave
Mailing Address
wend OR 9770 /
City, State, Zip
5 y / - 3'2 - 7/ 73
Phone
Fax
Name of Representative (If Any)
Mailing Address
City, State, Zip
Phone
Fax
PRIVATE REAL PROPERTY D,�SCRIeTION
1612J50000 —� n
Assessor's Map and Tax Lot Number: 700 ! r�a�- ship /‘ Sdv M Ran ye /7 £ .$eci7yh
Street Address: 20925 i'ovii q Ave Ren 1 n R 9 77
ZONING DESIGNATION WHEN ACQUIRED: /v2/Je
CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATION: F U- TR B
DATE CLAIMANT ACQUIRED PROPERTY: /port/ 1 /9 7/
other conveyance).
DATE CLAIMANT'S RELATIVE ACQUIRED PROPERTY, IF APPLICABLE: /1//4
(include deed, contract, or
(include title report; chain of title letter; lot book report; Assessor's tax lot card).
AMOUNT OF CLAIM: $ / L/ g � / 9'0 A statement of the amount of the claim in dollars
based on the alleged reduction in the fair market value of the property resulting from the enforcement of
the County's regulation
Sig `f ture of Claim . t (P3'. - rty Owner(s):
DISCLAIMER NOTICE:
Approval of compensation or modification, removal or non -application of land use regulation does not warrant or otherwise
guarantee that the present property owner or any successors interest can legally use the subject property for the purpose, or in
the manner, approved by the County as such use or purpose may impact third parties, including rights established by
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), other private restrictions, or other regulations, restrictions or contracts.
SCANNED
Quality Services Performed with Pride
FEB 26 200?
MY-- 07-1-1!
20925 Young Ave
Bend, OR 97702
October 23, 2005
Deshutes County Community
Development Department
ATTN: Larry Shaw
117 NW Lafayette Ave.
Bend OR 97701
State Department of Administration Services
Risk Management -Ballot Measure 37 Unit
1225 Ferry Street SE U160
Salem, OR 97301
Dear Sirs
This letter is written to accompany our demand for compensation under Ballot Measure
37. As I mentioned in my cover letter, I do not wish to be compensated by money for my loss, but
wish to have the land laws relaxed to allow me
to partition off 9 buildable lots from
our 19.64 acre parcel. I would like to split my property into 9 two acre lots and one lot of 1.64
acres that I can pass down to my family or sell somtime in the future.
I have supplied you with basic information involving the history of my ownership of the property
and our demand. My purpose here is to provide a basis for the amount of our compensation
claim. I understand that Oregon Law allows property owners to offer an opinon as to the value of
their property.
The basis for my computation are the assessed values set forth in the Tax Asssessors recordsfor
the Tax Year 2004-2005 for my 19.64 parcel (Tax Lot 700, referred to as the subject property) and
5 acre lots or small in close proxmety of my land.
The Assesors data shows that my 19.64 acre parcel (land only value) is assessed at $197,170.
Tax lots that are not subject to 20 acre minimum parcels average about $67,268 assessed value
per acre. I used an example of three tax lots with similar views and within 200 yards of my
property. Tax lot 00502, 00501, 00500 are smaller in size then 5 acres but are the best
comparisions I could find to show the decrease of value to my property due to restrictive zoning. If
you would take the $67,268 (average price of per acre for lot 00500, 00501, 00502) multiplie it by
19.64 ( my parcel of land) would equal $1,345,360. a diffrence of $1,148,190 from the current
assessed value of my land.(see attached copies of the above Tots and their assesssed values)
The cost of developing the newly created parcels would not be great, as each of the parcels would
have road frotage and the new parcels could all share a well. The only expense of developing the
new parcels would be the cost of placing a septic system on each lot, hooking up to the well, the
cost of building a driveway and of course the cost of permits. In my opinion
such costs would not be enough to offset the decrease in value that the subject parcel has
suffered due to the restrictive zoning.
This number is not intended to be a precise determination of the reduction in value that we have
suffered, but is used to establish that we have in fact suffered loss in value due to our inability to
split up my 19.64 acre parcel into buildable lots as I could of done in 1971.
Sincerely
Gary Hingley
RE: Ballot Measure 37 Demand for Compensation
Gary Hingley- Tax lot 1612150000700
I Gary Hingley represent myself in making a demand under measure 37 for compensation for a
reduction in fair market value due to restrictive land use regulations applied by the County since I
acquired the property. This letter and enclosures constitute the written demand contemplated by
Section 4 of Ballot Measure 37.
A completed claim form is included. Also inclosed (for the County demand letter only) is the filing
fee of $750.00.
Claimant: Gary Hingley
Property: Tax Lot 1612150000700 Township 16 South Range 12E Section 15
Date Property Acquired: Contract of sale April 1st, 1971
Demand Amount: $ 1,148,190
Relief Requested: Repeal, modification or waiver of restrictive requirements that preclude the
division of 20 -acre EFU-TRB zoned parcel into 9 parcels of 2 -acres and 1 parcel of 1.64 -acres
and that required proving up dwellings as farm, non farm or lot of record dwellings.
Basic Property and Claiment Information
I the claimant Gary Hingley, 20925 Young Ave, Bend, OR 97701, telephone no. 541-382-7173
I the Claimant is the owner in fee simple. There are no mortgage holders or easement holders
that affect the title.
The property in question is Tax Lot 700 as shown on Deschutes County Tax Assessors Map 16-
12-15. The address of the property is 20925 Young Ave, Bend OR, 97701. The property is zoned
EFU-TRB and is 20 acres in size. The property has 18 acres of water rights.
Ownership Information
I have owned the property since 1971, when I purchased the property on a land sale contract.
The property is 20 acres in size. There has been no break in the chain of ownership during this
time.
Basis of Claim
I the claimant contend that since I bought the property in 1971, the real market value of my
property value has been diminished by the restrictive zoning that has limited my ability to divide
my property and to place dwellings on the property. In particular, the county -adopted Exclusive
Farm Use zoning, in force since January 30, 1980, has severely restricted the developement
options of the property. The current EFU zoning does not allow Claimants to further divide their
property.
When I purchased the land in 1971 under an land sale contract, there was no zoning on the
property, Zoning having been repealed by the voters at the November 1966 election, and the
property could have been split into small acreages subject only to state subdivision rules. On
January 12, 1973 the A-1 zone had been adopted but likely was not in effect.
Because there was no minimum lot size under County zoning in 1970, the property could have
been split into small lots subject only to the states subdivision laws, if applicable. Even after the
enactment of A-1 zoning , the property could have been split into five acres Tots. In the absence of
zoning , single family dwellings were allowed as an outright use in the A-1 zone.
Specific regulations that must be removed
- Those land use laws found at ORS Chapter 215.263(1) and 215.780 and OAR 660-033-100 that
restrict land divisions in EFU zones to farm parcels of a size necessary to further commercial
farming.
- The restrictions found n 215.263(5)(b)(B) that restrict further land divisions for non-farm parcels
of under 80 acres to those parcels that were lawfully created prior to July 1,2001
-The restrictions found in ORS 215.263 that restrict further land divisions of non-farm parcels of
under 80 acres to the creation of on additional parcel.
-The restrictions found in ORS 215.263(5)(b)(A) that require proof that a non farm dwelling can be
approved on the newly created lot and that requires that a non farm dweling be approved at the
same time as the parcel is created.
- The restrictions found in ORS 215.263(5)(b)(D) that requires proof that a new non farm parcel
have bad soils or are otherwise not suitable for the raising of crops or the grazing of livestock.
-The restrictions found in ORS 215.283, 284, 705 that restrict uses in the EFU zone to only those
uses that fit the use criteria of those sections, and specifically that do not allow for single-family
residences to be approved as a matter of right and that require such dwellings to be approved
either as farm dwellings, non farm dwellings or lot of record dwellings.
-Any state or local land use limitations that would preclude splitting my property up into 9 parcels
of 2 acres and one parcel into 1.64 acres each and that would preclude approval of single family
dwellings as a matter of right.
-The restrictions found in DCC 17.22.020 (B) and DCC 17.48.170 to the extent that those
provisions would be applied to require the improvement of Young Ave to county standards or to
construct a community water system.
- The restrictions found in DCC 17.48.230 (B) to the extent that provision would require that utilities
be placed underground.
-The restriction found in DCC 17.24.100 (A)(1) to the extent application of those provisions
would,pursuant to Court of Appeals, decision in Hammer vs Clackamas County, allowing the
County Surveyor to make an independent assessment of whether the plat of the land division
complies with the substantive provisions of the countys subdivision and zoning ordinances.
I the Claimant seek to have any waiver of these regulations run with the property so that their
transferees will have the ability to place houses on each of the new parcels without having to
prove them up as farm, non-farm or lot dwellings.
i
SEE MAP Ifi 12 160
SEE WP11.16 12 16.12
rei
7212.611
1333.11
a
NI
6J)
m
O
rn
cjiC1
1.
c �
rncr,
tn0
xj
� N