 |
|
|
| County court clarifies M37 ordinance |
|---|
|
|---|
During the past two years, Crook County officials have learned many lessons regarding Measure 37.
Soon those lessons will be incorporated into an ordinance.
"It's amending our ordinance to reflect some of the decisions George Neilson made, the contents of his letter of opinion and other lessons learned over the last two years," Crook County judge Scott Cooper said.
Presiding circuit court judge George Neilson provided the requested guidance and a letter of opinion on Measure 37 in August.
In his letter of opinion, Neilson addressed the issue of waiver transferability, and took a position opposite than that of Crook County.
"The new owner cannot secure a waiver from pre-existing regulations and the governing body cannot grant one," Nielson said in his letter.
During the Crook County Court meeting Wednesday Cooper presented several corrections, updates and clarifications on the county ordinance including a clarification on the time frame during which a claim may be filed.
"The language provides more clarity to the way the law actually reads," Cooper said.
The measure itself, adopted in December 2004, said a person must file not later than Dec. 3, 2006 or two years from when they applied and were first denied.
"The two years starts whenever a person applies for permission to use their land in a way that would not be useable under current land use laws but would be if they had a Measure 37 claim," said county counsel Dave Gordon.
If someone applied in May 2005, for example, then their two-year clock started running in May 2005.
"It starts whenever you are first refused permission," Gordon said.
Another highlight of the ordinance is the special consideration on claims arising from the division of land.
"The fact that the right was taken away to divide land that would have existed at the time you acquired it, is evidence on its face of a reduction in value," Cooper said. "In any given condition we could think of, two pieces of saleable land are more valuable than one."
Another clarification concerned county indemnification.
If a claim is approved by the county, and the state of Oregon does not approve the claim or the claimant does not file with the state, then the claimant asks for a building permit from the county, the county will give the building permit on the strength of the claim as long as a statement of indemnification is provided.
"It's on your risk and on your nickel," Cooper said. "We don't want to be dragged into the middle of your dispute with the state."
Other ordinance changes regarding appraisal, hearing continuance requests, and compensation authority for the hearings officer were also submitted.
The second reading of the ordinance will be Nov. 22. There will be a public hearing.
"I predict we will be back here in a year to amend Measure 37," Cooper said. "My hope would be that the 2007 legislature would take another serious run at trying to get a better standardized process statewide, for the processing of these claims. In the absence of any state action we will keep doing the best we can with the information we have at the local level." |
| Go to top. |
|
|
|
