Item 3: Wiper Inc. Measure 37 Claim

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENTB RCQ ESPONSES TO OUNCIL UESTIONS 1.At the public hearing concerning the Wiper Measure 37 claim on January 28, 2008, members of the public who live near the subject property testified that they paid extra for their property because they liked the neighborhood and were assured by Mr. Wiper that the cemetery would remain a cemetery and the vegetative buffer surrounding the cemetery would remain in place. Councilor Clark asked to whom the neighbors had “paid extra”? Was the money paid to Mr. Wiper? Councilor Clark’s question was answered through an e-mail exchange, the contents of which are included in the council packet in Attachment C to the AIS. 2.Also at the public hearing on January 28, Councilor Bettman observed that persons who have buried their loved ones at Rest-Haven probably have the expectation that it will remain a cemetery in perpetuity and asked whether any contractual or legal barriers to developing the property exist. State law severely restricts the use of property which includes interred remains. The entire Rest-Haven property was dedicated to the public as a cemetery property many years ago. The removal of the cemetery dedication is not within the City’s jurisdiction. City staff is not privy to any conditions of sale or contractual agreements related to the purchase of cemetery plots or internment activities at Rest-Haven. RACRL ESPONSES TO LLEGATIONS ONTAINED IN THE EEDER ETTER SUBMITTED TO COUNCIL J28,2008,WM37CPH AT THE ANUARY IPER EASURE LAIM UBLIC EARING For ease of reference the responses have been structured in the same format as the Reeder Letter. Many of the arguments raised in the Reeder letter were addressed in the City Manager’s Report and Recommendation, and will not be repeated here. 1. Land Use Regulations The Reeder Letter asserts that the city manager’s interpretation of the term “land use regulation” under Measure 37 is under inclusive. The plain language of Measure 37 limited the definition of “land use regulation” as applied to local governments, to “[l]ocal government comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, land division ordinances, and transportation ordinances.” Measure 37 did not create an entitlement to relief for reduction in property values caused by laws and regulations that are not “land use regulations.” 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 lacks merit. 2. Enactment or Enforcement The Reeder letter asserts that the City’s interpretation of the plain language of Measure 37 fails for four reasons. First, no other jurisdiction has made the distinction between enactment