Laserfiche WebLink
the use. <br /> <br />Marion County Ordinance 1209, Section 8.1(c) is satisfied. <br /> <br />(d) The restriction on the use has the effect of reducing the fair market value of the subject <br />property. <br /> <br />According to Section 3.13 of Ordinance 1209, a reduction in fair market value means the difference <br />in fair market value of real property, as it exists at the time a claim is made under Measure 37, with <br />and without application or enforcement of a land use regulation. The applicant submitted a letter <br />from a real estate broker who stated the subject property has an as-is value of $250,000. The <br />broker further states if the property were divided into 5-acre parcels each parcel would have a fair <br />market value of $175,000. The applicant concludes the amount of just compensation is $450,000. <br />Based on this evidence it appears that the fair market value has been reduced by the subdivision <br />denial. <br /> <br />Marion County Ordinance 1209, Section 8.1(d) is satisfied. <br /> <br />(e) The application for compensation was timely filed. <br /> <br />Under the provisions of Measure 37 applicants have two years from the date of a denial or the <br />effective date of the Measure to file a claim. The claim was timely filed on November 30, 2006. <br /> <br />Marion County Ordinance 1209, Section 8.1 (e) is satisfied. <br /> <br />(f) The applicant is the current owner. <br /> <br />An unrecorded contract submitted by the applicant indicates that Jerry Marschat acquired an <br />ownership interest in the subject property on March 1, 1968. Marion County deed records (Reel <br />117; Page 1369) indicate that Jerry Marschat acquired title to the property on February 27, 1978, <br />when deeded to him by Dragico and Danica Gostovich. The applicant is the current owner and has <br />had a continuous ownership interest in the property since March 1, 1968. <br /> <br />Marion County Ordinance 1209, Section 8.1(f) is satisfied. <br /> <br />(g) The County is the entity responsible for payment, not some other agency that enacted the <br />challenged regulation. <br /> <br />The property is outside any city limits and regulated by the Marion County Rural Zoning Ordinance. <br /> The denial in the zoning verification letter was based on the use being inconsistent with the goals of <br />the Marion County Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the EFU zone. As these regulations were <br />enacted by Marion County the County is the responsible entity. <br />Marion County Ordinance 1209, Section 8.1(g) is satisfied. <br /> <br /> <br />CONCLUSION <br /> <br /> <br />