TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 26, A

002

Chair Garrard

Calls the meeting to order at 1:38 p.m.  Opens a public hearing on HB 2549. 

HB 2549 – PUBLIC HEARING

005

Rep. Dennis Richardson

HD 4.  Submits written testimony (EXHIBIT A) and speaks in favor of HB 2549 “Lot of Record Bill”.

052

Chair Garrard

Asks if those who would file a Measure 37 (2004) claim could instead use HB 2549 to build as they had originally planned.

057

Rep. Richardson

Confirms and adds that with HB 2549 transferability of waivers would not be an issue.

060

Rep. Anderson

Wonders what in HB 2549 is different than in Measure 37 in regards to transferability of waivers.

070

Rep. Richardson

Submits -1 amendments (EXHIBIT B) and invites Harlan Levy, who helped draft the amendments to testify as well. 

072

Harlan Levy

Senior Staff Attorney, Oregon Association of Realtors.  References -1 amendments (EXHIBIT B) lines 19-23 and summarizes that this provision allows for a dwelling to be transferable to a new purchaser.

090

Rep. Richardson

Reads from Page 2, Lines 1-5 of HB 2549 and summarizes.

111

Rep. Anderson

Asks how many single family dwellings might be involved in this process.

113

Rep. Richardson

Responds that he doesn’t know.  Adds that in most cases it will apply to land purchased before 1994.

124

Rep. Nolan

Ask if HB 2549 would authorize property owners that do not have claims under Measure 37 to assert a claim.

131

Rep. Richardson

Responds that it is more restrictive in its definition of family members.

136

Rep. Nolan

Asks Rep. Richardson to address the purpose for the definition of  “owner” in HB 2549 which seems to expand those eligible.

143

Rep. Richardson

Reads from Section 2 (3) which defines “owner” and explains that if a legal title of ownership changes but the owner remains the same, it would still apply.

157

Rep. Nolan

Asks if this definition is broader than what is in current law or Measure 37.

161

Rep. Richardson

Defers to Levy.

167

Levy

Responds that it would not expand those eligible but would provide fewer people claims.

171

Rep. Richardson

Refers to HB 2549-1 amendments (EXHIBIT B) and notes word-smithing changes to the amendments. 

247

Rep. Ackerman

References HB 2549 Page 2, Line 43 and questions its compatibility with Page 2, Line 6 and their planned intent of having current building codes apply.

268

Levy

References Page 2, line 5 and reads “except as required in section 5” explaining their compatibility towards the desired aim.

286

Lane Shetterly

Director, Department of Land Conservation and Development.  Speaks to the Department’s recognition of this as a “concept for consideration” in the broader context of Measure 37 and notes the Senate’s possible interest as well.

320

Rep. Nolan

Asks if the term “reinterpretation” has precedent in land use.

331

Shetterly

Believes that further discussion to clarify intent may be appropriate but offers two options:

• reinterpretation by local government because of a change in administration
• reinterpretation as mandated by court decision

Defers to Levy for further clarification.

366

Levy

Submits and summarizes written testimony (EXHIBIT C).  Elaborates on the inclusion of the term “reinterpretation” which is referenced on Page 1, Line 22 of HB 2549. 

397

Levy

Elaborates on policy reasons for the bill.  Notes lot of record statutes ORS 215.700-730 from HB 3661 (1993) and explains restrictiveness of statutes resulting in frustration with the land use system. 

TAPE 27, A

021

Levy

References an American Farmland Trust press release (EXHIBIT C, Page 3).  Reports that no other states have the types of restrictions that Oregon does on farmland.  Notes laws with restrictions on subdivisions but allow one dwelling on farmland parcels.

048

Levy

Points out that HB 2549 will not allow subdivisions or urban sprawl but one house on a legal lot of record.  Believes a reasonable compromise would be to further narrow the application to tract of record.  Urges adoption of Richardson’s amendments and support of the bill.

085

Rep. Nolan

Asks for clarification of Levy’s definition of “reinterpretation”.

096

Levy

Defines “reinterpretation” as “application of the land use restriction that differs from the established interpretation”.

102

Rep. Nolan

Gives a hypothetical situation and asks if it would be considered a  reinterpretation that triggers a right under this bill

110

Levy

Responds that it would trigger a right if the net effect of the reinterpretation would be to deny a building permit to built a single family dwelling.

115

Rep. Nolan

References earlier statistics and asks if they have an objective as to how many properties will be effected.

126

Levy

Responds that they have no specific number objective but to provide land owners some degree of relief based on their reasonable investment expectations.

136

Rep. Nolan

Asks if his testimony was that this bill would not allow building on parcels smaller than 80 acres.

140

Levy

Clarifies that this bill will not change the 80 acre minimum lot size but that he used the number as a comparison with other states in which the closest minimum lot size was 50 acres in New York.

156

Rep. Anderson

Asks Levy how he believes Measure 37 will be effected when those who are able to use HB 2549 have been exhausted.

167

Levy

Notes the bill’s intent as a “parallel route to Measure 37”, not as a replacement, and would give people the right to build rather than seek compensation.

170

Rep. Anderson

Clarifies that it will not weaken the chances of those who want to do more under Measure 37 than what HB 2549 allows. 

174

Levy

Confirms that it won’t effect other Measure 37 claims.

188

Chair Garrard

Asks if the bill were law, if a local government entity could deny a Measure 37 claim on the basis of the other route the bill would provide.

196

Levy

Responds negatively and confirms they would be independent statutes. 

205

Bob Leipper

Troutdale, Oregon.  Describes the restrictions disallowing him building a single house on his 24 acres of land.  Urges passage of HB 2549.

230

Carrie MacLaren

1000 Friends of Oregon.  Submits written testimony to address functional problems with HB 2549 and policy issues to consider (EXHIBIT D).  Asserts HB 2549 expands the number of people eligible for and the scope of what triggers a land use waiver within the definition of  “reinterpretation”.

275

MacLaren

Elaborates on the expanded definition of owner (EXHIBIT D, Page 1). 

300

MacLaren

Describes the expanded scope of what triggers a land use waiver and gives hypothetical situations (EXHIBIT D, Page 1). 

327

MacLaren

Discusses the creation of additional “right” for land use waivers (EXHIBIT D, Page 2).  Relays 1000 Friends of Oregon’s support of payments rather than waivers and the concept of transferable development credits as a method of compensation.

365

MacLaren

References historical map (EXHIBIT D, Page 3) and asserts that allowing dwellings in these areas could be substantial development.  Urges addressing issues of Measure 37.

TAPE 26, B

002

Rep. Anderson

Gives a hypothetical situation in which someone is forced to transfer their title.  Clarifies that MacLaren is suggesting they would be ruled out of Measure 37 and asks if they would have a right under this bill.

009

MacLaren

Clarifies the hypothetical situation.

019

Rep. Anderson

Clarifies that in his hypothetical, the title had been transferred into a trust but had the same owners.

021

MacLaren

Comments on discussions about what distinguishes revocable and irrevocable trusts and what constitutes a new entity. 

030

Rep. Anderson

Asks if they consider the same people, but a different legal entity to be the same owner.

033

MacLaren

Responds that her interpretation is that Measure 37 doesn’t and to a certain extent HB 2549 does.

040

Chair Garrard

Asserts that drafters need to address this and while they will finish taking testimony, there will be no work session on HB 2549 today.

043

Art Schlack

Association of Oregon Counties.  Speaks in support of HB 2549 and the concept of “lot of record”.

090

Rep. Anderson

Asks what Schlack thinks the impact of HB 2549 will be on Measure 37.

096

Schlack

Responds it will have a positive impact and mentions other issues which still need to be addressed.

109

Rep. Nolan

Asks what the scale of impact will be.

122

Schlack

Responds on the difficulty in determining and comments on lawfully created tax lots.  States that he will try to give an estimate to the committee.

152

Don Schellenberg

Oregon Farm Bureau.  Submits and reads from written testimony (EXHIBIT E).  Asserts that HB 2549 is not a “lot of record” bill.

190

Schellenberg

Reads their recommendations for conceptual amendments from (EXHIBIT E, Page 1-2).

258

Schellenberg

Speaks about concerns with -1 amendments (EXHIBIT B) and urges the committee not to adopt them.  Reiterates that the intent is to allow dwellings but keep protections.

278

Chair Garrard

Requests that Levy and Rep. Richardson consider testimony to reevaluate the bill and amendments proposed.  Closes the public hearing on HB 2549 and adjourns the meeting at 2:52 p.m.