Staff Report (92) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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 information indicating the current assessed value of the property is $2430. The applicant also submitted a market analysis from a real estate broker who indicated if the property were buildable the fair market value would be $139,191. The applicant concludes that the fair market has been reduced by $128,761. 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. (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. Circuit Court Order No. 34143 indicates that Marcus Berlin acquired an ownership interest in the property on April 4, 1983, when decreed to him from the estate of Porter Wyatt Magness. The applicant is the current owner of the property and has had a continuous ownership interest in the property since April 4, 1983. Marion County Ordinance 1209, Section 8.1(f) is satisfied. (g) The County is the entity responsible for payment, not some other agency that enacted the challenged regulation. The property is outside any city limits and regulated by the Marion County Rural Zoning Ordinance. The denial in the zoning verification letter dated November 27, 2006 was based on the use being inconsistent with the goals of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the EFU zone. As these regulations were enacted by Marion County the County is the responsible entity. Marion County Ordinance 1209, Section 8.1(g) is satisfied. CONCLUSION 11. The Planning Division has concluded that the applicant’s claim appears to meet all of the necessary criteria. For compensation purposes family ownership dates to July 20, 1966 when the property was not zoned and the proposed use was permitted. 12. Under Section 10.3(b) of Ordinance 1209 if the claim is approved, in lieu of payment, the Marion Board County Board of Commissioners may remove, modify, or not apply the regulation. If the Board chooses not to apply regulations the applicable date is April 4, 1983. At that time, the property was zoned EFU and a dwelling may have been allowed subject to certain criteria. In order