Staff Report (91) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(b) The challenged regulation was enacted or enforced after the applicant or a family member, as defined in Ballot Measure 37, became the owner. As noted in #7 above, applicant 7D Lands, Inc. never acquired an ownership interest in the subject property (tax lot 800). Applicant SAD, LLC acquired an ownership interest in the subject property on October 16, 2002 when the property was already zoned FT, according to Ordinance #580. Under the FT zone a subdivision was not a permitted use. As such, the challenged regulation was enacted prior to SAD, LLC owning the property. Marion County Ordinance 1209, Section 8.1(b) is not 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 applicants’ proposed use is restricted through the Marion County Rural Zoning Ordinance. Under the property’s current FT 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 applicants submitted an appraisal indicating that the property has a current assessed value of $213,000. The appraisal further states if the property were divided into 5-acre lots each lot would have a fair market value of approximately $225,000, for a total of $900,000. The applicants conclude the loss in value due to zoning restrictions is approximately $687,000. However, as noted in (b) above, when applicant SAD, LLC acquired the property it was already zoned FT. Therefore, it does not appear there has been any reduction in value as the restrictive regulation was in place when the property was acquired. Marion County Ordinance 1209, Section 8.1(d) is not satisfied. (e) The application for compensation was timely filed. Under the provisions of Measure 37 applicants have two years from the date of a denial or the effective date of the Measure to file a claim. The claim was timely filed on December 1, 2006. Marion County Ordinance 1209, Section 8.1 (e) is satisfied. (f) The applicant is the current owner. Marion County deed records (Reel 2143; Page 82) indicate that SAD, LLC acquired title to the