HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LAND USE AND REGULATORY FAIRNESS

 

 

May 17, 2001                                                                                                       Hearing Room 357

3:30 p.m.                                                                                                                       Tapes 17 - 18

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:         Rep. Max Williams, Chair

Rep. Kurt Schrader, Vice-Chair

Rep. Chris Beck

Rep. Betsy Close

Rep. Kathy Lowe

Rep. Karen Minnis

Rep. Susan Morgan

 

 

STAFF PRESENT:                 Virginia Gustafson Lucker, Counsel

Jane Bodenweiser, Committee Assistant

 

 

MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD:           LC 4258, Public Hearing                   

 

 

These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules.  Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words.  For complete contents, please refer to the tapes.

 

TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 17, A

004

Chair Williams

Calls the meeting to order at 3:45 p.m.

024

Keith Cubic

Douglas County Planning Director

Introduces Dave Camramon.  Submits testimony and testifies on transferable development rights and the potential application of them (EXHIBIT A).  Says that his comments are as a representative of rural Oregon.

110

Vice Chair  Schrader

Asks about exceptions.

114

Cubic

Replies that within the rules an exception is a way to vary the standards of Oregon’s law.

120

Rep. Close

Asks if a variance is the same as an exception.

122

Cubic

Explains the differences.

142

Rep. Morgan

Asks about a transferable development right and wonders if it is a forward development fix as opposed to a backward development fix.

146

Cubic

Replies that it is solutions oriented toward future development.

152

Vice Chair  Schrader

Asks if exceptions should be used in a coordinated fashion to avoid a patchwork of different types of uses.

156

Cubic

Replies that it has to be coordinated.


 

200

Vice Chair  Schrader

Wonders if it would be helpful for members of a community to have discussions about the transferable development rights.

214

Cubic

Says yes, it could happen, but it could be unsuccessful.

219

Rep. Morgan

Wonders what the nature would be of the types of claims that might be expected to see.

231

Cubic

Explains a very simple approach for rural Oregon.

262

Rep. Morgan

Asks about the nature of development in Douglas County.

268

Cubic

Replies that it is a very large county with one of the lowest per acre housing densities in western Oregon.

298

Rep. Beck

Asks about dealing with entitlement of a landowner.

310

Cubic

Discusses the fairness issues.

410

Rep. Lowe

Wonders about compensation for an investment that went bad, and if there should be some element of proof that the intention was to subdivide.

446

Cubic

Replies that Oregon does not have a statutory vesting provision that would provide proof of the intention.

TAPE 18, A

024

Rep. Lowe

Suggests a possible method of providing an element of proof.

032

Cubic

Speculates that this would be unreasonable.

058

Rep. Close

Asks for clarification of what year he would consider with regard to land ownership.

063

Cubic

Replies that his recommendation would be 1985 when all county comprehensive planning was acknowledged.

094

Chair Williams

Asks for some input on the retroactive concept piece.

098

Cubic

Gives an overview of his response to the retroactive concept piece.

149

Rep. Beck

Asks if a waiver would be discretionary on the state’s part, and wonders if the state had the discretion, should it have the ability to direct where development should occur on a property.

169

Cubic

Replies yes to the discretion of the state, and says no at the state level on directing where development should occur.

186

Rep. Lowe

Wonders about the standards for a locality with regard to waivers, and how to develop consistency.

217

Cubic

Responds with regard to individual rights.

292

Rep. Close

Asks how the “broad public purpose” is dealt with.

300

Cubic

Replies that it will be controlled by the available funds.

305

Cubic

Continues his sectional analysis of the retroactive concept piece.

TAPE 17, B

023

Rep. Lowe

Wonders about a time period for presenting claims, so that the state could assess funding needs.

037

Cubic

Says he likes that idea but doesn’t think that 6 months is adequate.

056

Rep. Beck

Asks if it is appropriate for the State to receive something in return for compensation.

074

Cubic

States that it is a reasonable part of the balance.

103

Don Schellenberg

Oregon Farm Bureau

Submits testimony and testifies on the rural concepts document (EXHIBIT B). Says that the Farm Bureau supports the direction that the rural concepts draft is taking.

179

Rep. Beck

Expresses his concerns about waivers.

198

Rep. Lowe

Wonders if a waiver plan could be developed.

212

Schellenberg

Says that such a plan might work is some areas but not all.

221

Chair Williams

Adjourns the meeting at 4:55 p.m.

 

Submitted By,                                                                           Reviewed By,

 

 

 

Jane Bodenweiser,                                                                    Virginia Gustafson Lucker,

Committee Assistant                                                                 Counsel

 

EXHIBIT SUMMARY

 

A – Written testimony submitted by Keith Cubic, dated 5/17/01, 12 pp    

B – Written testimony submitted by Don Schellenberg, dated 5/17/01, 1 p