Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e B. Moving and Demolition <br /> Mr. Miller asked whether the Shelton-McMurphey House could be demolished or <br /> would have to be moved if the owner decided to build an apartment complex on <br /> its site. Ms. Brody replied that the process required by the ordinance would <br /> have to occur. If there was strong interest in moving the house and there <br /> was a viable plan to do so, the HRB would have the right to protect the house <br /> by requiring that the moving strategy be put in place. Mr. Gleason added <br /> that the moving process would probably be negotiated, with the owner <br /> participating but not being required to provide all the resources. <br /> Ms. Daly said the owner would be required to advertise the property as being <br /> for sale at a fair value. She maintained that if a buyer came forward <br /> offering to pay the fair value, the owner would be required to sell. <br /> Ms. Brody disagreed with Ms. Daly's interpretation and said the ordinance <br /> made no reference to fair market value and she did not believe the owner <br /> would be required to sell the structure at whatever price was offered. She <br /> asked Mr. Sercombe to comment. <br /> Mr. Sercombe said there are criteria for whether the HRB issues a moving <br /> permit when it is applied for by the owner. If the owner has attempted to <br /> sell the structure and has applied for a moving permit, in considering <br /> whether to issue the permit, the ordinance requires the board to consider <br /> plan consistency, the state of repair, the physical feasibility of moving, <br />e rehabilitation, or restoration, the effects of the demolition or moving on <br /> the use of the property, and the extent of financial hardship for the owner. <br /> Because the moving and demolition criteria are not separated in the proposed <br /> ordinance as it was written, Mr. Sercombe said there is some confusion. <br /> Staff has proposed separating moving requirements from demolition. He said <br /> the owner would not be forced to sell a building in order to achieve either <br /> type of permit. <br /> Ms. Wooten called attention to the apparent differing perceptions of the <br /> ordinance1s requirements. <br /> Mr. Gleason remarked that if the public.s interest is sufficient, the council <br /> could direct to undertake condemnation in the public's interest. That would <br /> be a separate procedure and would involve the court's determination of market <br /> value, based on the highest and best use. <br /> Mr. Rutan noted the seriousness of using a condemnation procedure. <br /> Ms. Brody stated that neither the present nor the proposed ordinance were <br /> worded to allow the HRB to prevent demolition. She said an owner could <br /> refuse an offer, even if it is considered a fair offer based on market value. <br /> Mr. Gleason stressed that an ordinance could not dictate final outcome unless <br /> the governing body was willing to deal with the taking issue. Requiring that <br />e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 26, 1988 Page 3 <br />