11-14-16 Council Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a reduction of the fair market value of the property. Fifth, the regulation must not fall within one of Measure 49’s six exemptions. As discussed below, the regulation that is the subject of this claim qualifies as land use regulations, was enacted after January 1, 2007, and less than five years before the date the claim was filed, effectively restricts a previously allowed residential use on the residentially zoned property, and reduces the property’s fair market value. Further, the regulation does not fall within one of Measure 49’s six exemptions. Therefore, this report concludes that the claim is valid. If a claim is determined to be valid under Measure 49, a local government must either (1) compensate the claimant for the reduction in the fair market value of the property, or (2) authorize the claimant to use the property without application of the land use regulation “to the extent necessary to offset the reduction in the fair market value of the property.” The Claimants do not specifically request compensation; accordingly, the City Manager recommends that the City Council waive EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. as it relates to the existing structure on the property and to the extent the waiver is needed to allow conversion of that structure to a secondary dwelling unit. III.Analysis of Claim A.Ownership Measure 49 provides for payment of compensation or relief from (waiver of) specific regulations for “owners” as that term is defined by the Measure. Ballot Measure 49, defines “owner” to include “\[t\]he owner of fee title to the property as shown in the deed records of the county where the property is located\[.\]” ORS 195.300(18). Based on the information submitted by the Claimants (Warranty Deed 2003-082408 and Deed 2014-049003), and information from the Lane County Regional Land Information Database (RLID), the City Manager concludes that the subject property was acquired by Claimant Chad Wilson on August 26, 2003, and an undivided one-half interest in the property was transferred to Claimant Katie Wilson on December 9, 2014. Accordingly, both Claimants are owners. B. “Land Use Regulations” Measure 49 requires compensation (or waiver) only for those regulations that constitute “land use regulations” as that term is defined by Measure 49. Further, the regulation must have been enacted after January 1, 2007. Measure 49 defines “land use regulation,” with respect to cities, as a “provision of a city comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance or land division ordinance that restricts the residential use of private real property zoned for residential use.” ORS 195.300(14)(c) For purposes of Measure 49, EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. is a “land use regulation” if it is a provision of a city zoning ordinance that restricts the residential use of private real property zoned for residential use. EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. is a provision of the city’s zoning ordinance, and it regulates residential uses on property zoned for residential uses. This land use regulation was adopted as part of Ordinance No. 20526, which became effective April 12, 2014. Thus, the only question remaining is whether EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. “restricts the residential use” of the subject property. Page 2 – REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER