CC Minutes - 01/28/08 Public Hearing

Home Browse Search

recommendation indicated that to the extent that there were land use regulations identified which were not regulations as defined by Measure 37, the claim was invalid. He said Eugene Code Chapter 9 was a land use regulation for purposes of ORS 197.352 and the City had enforced land use regulations. He said the waiver of certain land use regulations would increase the fair market value of the property and the claim was therefore valid. Allison Hassler, 4183 Brae Burn Drive, Eugene, said her property was adjacent to the Rest Haven property at issue in the claim. She supported the City Manager's recommendation. She said from a legal perspective the restriction the claimant asserted diminished his property value was not a land use regulation under Measure 37; it was a voluntary dedication to cemetery use in 1929. She was concerned about the potential affects on the neighborhood if the claim was approved. She said the neighborhood was stable with many long-term residents. She said she paid a premium price for her property based on assurance that the subject property was dedicated to cemetery use. She also relied on that dedication when she buried her mother there. She was also concerned for the serenity of the cemetery and trusted that the council would consider the interests of all the citizens of Eugene and accept the manager's recommendation. Douglas White, 391 Brae Burn Drive, Eugene, said he had previously submitted two letters for the record. He said the claimant had not identified specific provisions within the Eugene Code, plans or conditional use permit that gave rise to the claim. He wondered how the intended development would encroach upon the memories of people in the neighborhood who had buried friends and relatives in the cemetery. He said he also had purchased his property based on assurance that the property would remain a cemetery and supported the manager's recommendation. Thomas L. W. Roe, 4207 Brae Burn Drive, Eugene, spoke in support of the City Manager's recommenda- tion with respect to the Wiper Measure 37 claim. He said he had lived on Brae Burn Drive since 1969 and other than expressing concern about lack of good stewardship, the undeveloped cemetery had been a good neighbor. He said that changed in 2002 when a majority of property owners bordering the cemetery opposed Mr. Wipers' application for a controlled-income and rental housing project on cemetery property. He said the application was denied and the project terminated. He said the neighbors were now involved in opposing the Measure 37 claim and strongly supported the Planning Commission and City Manager's recommenda- tions for denial. John Sihler, 4235 Brae Burn Drive, Eugene, pointed out the many letters from neighbors describing in detail how the subject property owners had promised several years ago that the cemetery would remain forever with a 75-foot buffer around it if the neighbors would not oppose logging on the site. He said there were many reasons to deny the claim, including the fact that the original dedication as a cemetery in 1929 was voluntary for a business purpose, not imposed. He said the appraisal ignored the fact that the present value of the cemetery was as a business. He emphasized that a neighborhood community was based on mutual respect and trust. Aaron Noteboom, 800 Willamette Street, Suite 800, Eugene, representing the claimant, disputed the suggestion that the Measure 37 claim was not valid because it did not cite specific land use regulations and how each regulation reduced the fair market value. He said that was not a requirement of Measure 37 and the City had set a precedent on a previous waiver granted to Lane Plywood. He said it was true the property was dedicated as a cemetery in 1929, but the claimant had the right to have that dedication removed by ORS 97.440. He said the portion of the property from which the dedication would be removed had not been used for the interment of human remains. He asserted that the appraisal was done by qualified appraisers who had been used by the City in the past, although the City could hire its own appraiser to rebut the informa- MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2008 Page 2 Regular Meeting