Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Welsh called Section 2.080(1) open-ended and intimidating. He recommended that fees be <br />established that were consistent with the cost of doing business for other land-use action process fees. He <br />felt very few individuals would be willing to proceed without knowing what the cost would be. Regarding <br />Section 2.090(1), he asserted that according to the language the claimant could be held responsible for <br />paying for a public hearing and for the subsequent meetings of the City Council. He also found Section <br />2.090(4) to be intimidating as it allowed for the reintroduction of previous land use regulations in effect at <br />the time the property was acquired. He called out Section 2.090(5) and noted that it required the Measure <br />37 resolution to be personal to the claimant and not to the property. He suggested that this could make the <br />resolution invalid and void upon transfer of ownership. <br /> <br />Lauri Sega[ 120 West Broadway, spoke on behalf of 1,000 Friends of Oregon. She appreciated the <br />council's review of the ordinance but felt the changes for the public good had not been made explicit <br />enough. She recommended that Section 2.075 include a requirement that names and addresses, including <br />residences and mailing addresses, be recorded so that claims submitted by out-of-state owners could be <br />tracked. Regarding Section 2.075(d), she noted the ordinance required an appraiser certificate and <br />licensure for an appraisal by a claimant and requested that the ordinance also specify that the appraiser not <br />be related to or affiliated with the property owner involved in the claim. She related that Section 2.075(4) <br />indicated that the City Manager would post information relating to a claim on the City's Web site. She <br />recommended that the City participate in a statewide claims registry, not yet established. She suggested <br />an additional subsection, the language of which would require that a notice of a pending claim would be <br />sent to any owners or occupants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the subject property and neighborhood <br />groups or community organizations officially recognized by the City Council whose boundaries include <br />the property. She asked that, under Section 2.090, the council not have the discretion to consider a public <br />heating prior to taking final action. <br /> <br />Jozef Zdzienicki, 1025 Taylor Street, averred that the notification process should include adjoining <br />houses, houses across the street and behind the property, and the process should be conducted by mail. He <br />thought the notification process would make it fair for everyone and not just the person applying for a <br />permit. <br /> <br /> David Itinldey, 1350 Lawrence Street, Apartment 7, supported the ordinance, with reservations. He did <br /> not think it was premature as the measure went into effect on December 2. He opined that part of the <br /> reason the measure passed was the public's sense that faceless bureaucrats were taking away property <br /> rights. He felt the measure could be categorized as"'having faceless bureaucrats consider a claim." He <br /> noted that in his written testimony he suggested these claims be handled in the Municipal Court rather <br /> than administratively through the City Manager's Office. His second reservation had to do with the <br /> section governing public heatings as he thought the public hearing should be required. He felt the <br /> individual claims could be as controversial as the measure itself had been. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hinkley approved of the Eugene ordinance sections that instituted the private cause of action. He <br /> opined that the purpose of land use regulations was to provide rules to enable people to live in close <br /> proximity to one another amenably. He thought the Eugene ordinance balanced out the implications of the <br /> ballot measure. He also felt the claim should end when the property owner ceased to own the property <br /> and that it was up to a new buyer to determine whether or not to buy a lawful non-conforming use. <br /> <br /> Terri Harding, 132 East Broadway, Suite 536, planning manager for Satre Associates, supported the <br /> ordinance before the council with regards to Ballot Measure 37. She especially approved of the City <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 9 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />