Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

not move forward with such discretionary requests. He supported the council's approach to fees due to the uncertainty of the financial impacts of the measure. Mr. Matthews thought subsection 2.090(4) should put back existing land use regulations and allow some language that would serve the public good. He opposed regulations that would make it possible for current land use regulations to be waived and pose the possibility that a property would have no land use regulations at all. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, averred that people who supported Ballot Measure 37 were fighting against "Smart Growth" measures. He opined that the public no longer felt that the Planning and Development Department knew land use best. He felt the measure would give the State a chance to step back and look at "Smart Growth" plans and talk to the public about who was behind it and what it really was. He thought public awareness of such plans should be raised. Mayor Torrey asked the council if it was willing to take action on this issue. He warned them that comments and questions from the council could preempt further public hearings scheduled for the evening's agenda. The council indicated its willingness to take action. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing and opened the floor for council questions and comments. At the council's request, Mayor Torrey called for a five-minute recess at 9:10 p.m. Mayor Torrey reconvened the meeting at 9:17 p.m. Councilor Kelly thanked everyone for testifying. He suggested to the council that it proceed with adoption of the ordinance as written at the present meeting because of the importance of having a process in place prior to Ballot Measure 37 going into effect. He thought it would provide experience that the council could base future amendments on. Councilor Pap6 voiced his opposition to the ordinance as it was currently written. Councilor Pap6 moved to table consideration of the ordinance until the work session scheduled for November 24. The motion died for lack of a second. In response to a question from Councilor Solomon, Mr. Klein stated that whether the City had the ordinance in place before or after December 2, if someone believed a part of the ordinance that affects the individual was unlawful, it would be possible to challenge that part of the ordinance. Councilor Solomon expressed concern about the lack of a cap on fees. She also wondered if it was true that a waiver granted to one person was not transferable and, to this extent, she asked if it was possible for a person who had purchased a dwelling for which a waiver had been granted under previous ownership to be found to be in violation of land use code to the extent that he or she would have to tear down said dwelling. Mr. Klein replied that the answer was yes, assuming that the house could be built in the first place. He referred to the language of the ballot measure which stated that in lieu of compensation the governing body may authorize the current owner of the property to use the property in the way that the MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 11 Regular Meeting