Staff Report (93) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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 4, 2006. Marion County Ordinance 1209, Section 8.1 (e) is satisfied. (f) The applicant is the current owner. Harold and Elaine Meadors signed a farm lease agreement and option to purchase agreement for the subject property on February 6, 1992 with Leo Olson. On August 1, 1996, the Leo Olson Trust recorded a real estate contract to sell the property to Harold and Elaine Meadors (Reel 1329; Page 452). In 2000, US Bank, trustee for the Leo Olson Trust, recorded fulfillment deeds to Harold and Elaine Meadors (Reel 1732, Page 558, October 3, 2000 and Reel 1736, Page 373, November 29, 2000). The applicants are the current owners and have had a continuous ownership interest in the property since February 6, 1992. 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 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 applicants’ claim appears to meet all of the necessary criteria. For compensation purposes ownership dates back to February 6, 1992, when the property was already zoned EFU. Under the 1992 EFU zone the proposed subdivision was not permitted, however, partitions were permitted subject to certain criteria. 12. Under Section 10.3(b) of Ordinance 1209 if the claim is approved, in lieu of payment, the Marion County Board of Commissioners may remove, modify, or not apply the regulation. If the Board chooses not to apply regulations the applicable date is also February 6, 1992, when the property was already zoned EFU and the proposed subdivision was not permitted. The applicants are advised therefore, that removal of regulations back to February 6, 1992, will not provide the ability to subdivide the property as proposed. However, partitions were permitted in the 1992 EFU zone, subject to certain criteria. In order to allow partition of the property under its current EFU zone the Board would have to not apply the following regulations: MCRZO sections 136.010, 136.030 (a), 136.050 (a) (except 136.070), 136.060 (a) and (b), 136.090 (a) and (b) except (b) (4), 172.36 and MCCP Agricultural Lands Policies 2, 3, 4, and 5. 13. The EFU zone is regulated through Oregon Revised Statute 215.283 and Oregon Administrative