Staff Report (88) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Section 3.4 of Ordinance 1209 contains the definition of an exempt regulation. A subdivision and the placement of dwellings are uses that are not recognized as a public nuisance. The subdivision process requires an application and review and could only be approved if the non-exempt regulations are satisfied. A subdivision is not regulated by federal law, is not a system development charge, and not a regulation related to the pornography or nude dancing industries. A subdivision is not an exempt regulation. Marion County Ordinance 1209, Section 8.1(a) is satisfied. (b) The challenged regulation was enacted or enforced after the applicant or a family member, as defined in Ballot Measure 37, became the owner. The applicant acquired tax lot 1100 on December 7, 1959 and tax lot 200 on September 17, 1962. On both dates the parcels were not zoned and, therefore, not regulated by the Marion County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed use, to subdivide and place a dwellings, would have been permitted outright. The challenged regulation was adopted on July 2, 1986 (Ordinance #727) when the SA zone was applied to the property. However, the transfer to West Coast Trust Company, as trustee, and other trust actions may have created a break in ownership. The regulation was enforced when the applicant was denied a subdivision request by zoning verification letter dated November 3, 2006. Marion County Ordinance 1209, Section 8.1(b) may or may not be satisfied. (c) The challenged regulation restricts the use of the owner’s real property or any interest therein, and no other regulation authorizes an exemption, variance, waiver or other release from the regulation. The applicant’s proposed use is restricted by the Marion County Rural Zoning Ordinance. Under the property’s current SA zoning there are no other processes available that would permit the use. Marion County Ordinance 1209, Section 8.1(c) is satisfied. (d) The restriction on the use has the effect of reducing the fair market value of the subject property. According to Section 3.13 of Ordinance 1209, a reduction in fair market value means the difference in fair market value of real property, as it exists at the time a claim is made under Measure 37, with and without application or enforcement of a land use regulation. The applicant submitted a statement and market analysis from a real estate broker indicating that the current value of the property is $445,000. The broker further stated that if the subdivision had been allowed the subject property would have a market value of approximately $$1,430,000 and that the fair market value has been reduced by $614,000. Based on this evidence it appears that the fair market value has been reduced by the subdivision denial. Marion County Ordinance 1209, Section 8.1(d) is satisfied.