|
regulations currently applicable to the subject property. Claimant anticipates that a purchaser
<br />would necessarily include such costs in the purchase price for the portion of the subject property
<br />devoted to cemetery uses. Therefore, Claimant alleges that these costs are “directly attributable
<br />to the land use regulations enacted and enforced since the Claimant acquired the property in
<br />1929.”
<br />II. BACKGROUND
<br /> Claimant acquired the subject property in 1929. At the time of acquisition the subject
<br />property was located outside Eugene city limits and no county zoning applied to the property. In
<br />May of 1929, Claimant dedicated the subject property to the public for cemetery uses. In 1966
<br />the property was annexed to the City. Claimant applied to the City for a conditional use permit,
<br />and in August of 1995, the City approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) creating a master
<br />development plan for Rest-Haven Memorial Park. In October of 1998, the City and Charles
<br />Wiper III signed a CUP Agreement, binding the subject property to the uses outlined in
<br />Claimant’s CUP.
<br /> In 1999 and 2001, the City conditionally approved two tree removal permits for the
<br />subject property. In 2002, the City rejected Claimant’s application for a Controlled Income and
<br />Rental Housing Project (CIR-CUP). Claimant appealed the City’s decision to the Land Use
<br />Board of Appeals, (LUBA) which remanded the application back to the City with instructions to
<br />process the application and render a decision. At Claimant’s request, the City did not process the
<br />CIR-CUP application. In 2003, the City denied Claimant’s application to modify the existing
<br />CUP to excise a portion of the subject property from the CUP master plan. In 2005, the City
<br />approved tree removal permit for the property, and also in 2005, the City applied the provisions
<br />of the /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone to the subject property.
<br />The claim provides an idea of how Claimant would like to develop its property. Claimant
<br />describes for the site: “cemetery and cemetery-related uses (such as, but not limited to, open
<br />lawn cemetery use, mausolea, columbaria, crematorium, headstones, maintenance structures and
<br />facilities, soil reclamation areas, chapels, parking areas, and all other funeral, cemetery and
<br />accessory uses), residential uses, including, but not limited to single-family residential (up to 5
<br />units per acre), multi-family residential, townhomes, rowhouses, assisted living residential
<br />facilities and controlled income and rent housing (“CIR”), and various commercial uses, such as,
<br />but not limited to, supermarkets, post offices, office buildings, retail, banking, and restaurant
<br />uses.”
<br />Several Measure 37 claims, including this one, were scheduled for a public hearing
<br />before Council in May 2007. Shortly before the date of that hearing, the Legislature both
<br />amended Measure 37 to extend the time for acting on Measure 37 claims, and referred to the
<br />voters a measure to revise Measure 37. That referral – Measure 49 – was approved by the voters
<br />in November 2007, and became effective on December 6, 2007. However, on December 26,
<br />2007, the Lane County Circuit Court entered an order requiring the City Council to adopt a
<br />resolution approving or denying Claimant’s Measure 37 claim, and to do so based on Measure 37
<br />as it existed on May 30, 2007 (i.e., pre-Measure 49).
<br />Page 2 of 7
<br />
|