Item 3: Measure 37 Claim (Wiper)

Home Browse Search

(RLID), the City Manager concludes that the subject property was acquired by Charles Wiper, Inc., through four deeds filed with Lane County on May 2 and 13, 1929. The subject property is currently owned by Claimant. B. “Land use regulations.” Measure 37 required compensation (or waiver at the option of the government) only for those regulations which constituted “land use regulations” as that term was defined by Measure 37. Measure 37 and other state land use laws defined the phrase “land use regulations” differently. Measure 37 defined the term “land use regulation,” with respect to local governments, as “local government comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, land division ordinances and transportation ordinances.” In contrast, ORS 197.015(11) defined the term “land use regulation” as “any local government zoning ordinance, land division ordinance adopted under ORS 92.044 or 92.046 or similar general ordinance establishing standards for implementing a comprehensive plan.” This difference between Measure 37’s definition and the prior statutory definition – i.e., the omission in Measure 37 of the language underlined above – was significant. Both Measure 37 and other state law included zoning ordinances and land division ordinances within the scope of the term “land use regulation.” Measure 37, however, did not include the language “or similar general ordinance establishing standards for implementing a comprehensive plan” in its definition of “land use regulation.” Because Measure 37 omitted the “or similar general ordinance” language, a proper interpretation of Measure 37 limited the scope of the term “land use regulation” to zoning ordinances, land division ordinances, comprehensive plan provisions and transportation ordinances. As noted above, Claimant included in its request for waiver: all of Chapters 6 and 9 of the Eugene Code; the Metro Plan and various other land use policies, studies and reports; and all implementing regulations and standards, including provisions of the CUP. Measure 37 defined “land use regulation” to include comprehensive plans, and consequently, to the extent that Claimant’s claim was based on the Metro Plan, the claim involved a land use regulation. Measure 37, however, did not define “land use regulation” to include all land use code provisions, but instead, only “zoning ordinances,” “land division ordinances” and “transportation ordinances.” Accordingly, the regulations contained in Chapters 6 and 9 of the Eugene Code which are not zoning ordinances, land division ordinances or transportation ordinances do not constitute “land use regulations” as defined by Measure 37. To the extent that Claimant’s claim is based on those provisions of the Eugene Code or other regulations or provisions which did not constitute land use regulations under Measure 37, the claim lacked merit. C.Enactment or Enforcement. Measure 37 provided that a property owner had a valid claim under the measure if a newenforces public entity “enacts or enforces a land use regulation or a land use regulation enacted prior to the effective date ” of Measure 37. With very few exceptions (one of them being the City’s enactment of the /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone), all of the provisions of the Metro Plan and Chapters 6 and 9 of the Eugene Code were enacted prior to the effective date of Measure 37. The mere adoption or existence of those provisions was not enough to give rise to a Measure 37 claim; for the claim to have been valid, the City must have Page 4 of 7