TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 119, A

Chair Garrard

Calls the meeting to order at 1:27 p.m. and makes announcements.  Opens a work session on HB 3120.

HB 3120 – WORK SESSION

016

Rep. P. Smith

Suggests asking if any audience members would like to speak.

025

Rep. Anderson

Raises issues of lands outside urban growth boundaries (UGB) and preserving open spaces while allowing small clusters of developments.  Discusses new technologies allowing for waste treatment in rural areas.  Frames these issues as part of a larger discussion around land use. 

069

Chair Garrard

Comments that the issue of UGBs is addressed in the HB 3120-3 amendments (EXHIBIT A).  Asks Bob Rindy to explain the distinction between lot of record and tract of record.

076

Bob Rindy

Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD).  Defers to Ron Eber.

Ron Eber

Farm and Forest Land Specialist, DLCD.  Asks what specifics they would like to hear about.

Chair Garrard

Responds the committee would like him to address all aspects of the issue.

Eber

Explains the generic difference between “lot of record” and “tract of record”.  Notes that lots are created by subdivisions and parcels are created by partitioning.

106

Rep. P. Smith

Asks about what common ownership entails and gives her understanding.

Eber

Agrees and reviews how the statute talks about contiguous ownership.

Rep. P. Smith

Asks a question about how jurisdictions define ownership.

Eber

Responds he is not aware of any county who has defined ownership more specifically and elaborates.

130

Chair Garrard

Asks if one wanted to contain the growth of M37 claims, this would be better done on a tract rather than by lot of record.

Eber

Responds that there will be fewer dwellings if done on a tract basis rather than lot by lot basis and explains why.

Chair Garrard

Asks about recordation of tracts and if a choice exists to have multiple lots or one tract.

148

Eber

Responds that the determination would be made at the time of application.

Chair Garrard

Asks who awards the designation.

Eber

Responds it is done at the county level as part of the land use application.

Rep. Anderson

Verifies that on a lot of record one would allow for one house on each lot and a tract would allow for one house on the tract.

Eber

Confirms this.

Rep. Anderson

Verifies that the lots have to be contiguous to be considered a tract.

168

Eber

Confirms this.

Rep. Anderson

Asks if it must be common ownership or just contiguous.

Eber

Replies contiguous ownership.

Chair Garrard

Asks if it is possible to have multiple tracts.

Eber

Responds affirmatively and adds that if the tracts are contiguous, they become one tract.

17

Rep. Anderson

Asks for clarification on the issue of having a choice to use a tract of record provision or a M37 application.

Eber

Responds he is not sure because of the variations of HB 3120.

Rep. Ackerman

Points to Section 19 in the -3 amendments.

Rep. Nolan

Defers the question until tomorrow when the proponents of the -3 amendments will be present.

198

Rindy

Clarifies that when they refer to lot or tract of record, it means “as of a certain date”.  Relays that part of the issue is determining what date should apply and the impact on M37 claims.

210

Rep. Anderson

Asks if it is appropriate to put tract of record into HB 3120 or to handle it as a separate issue.

Rindy

Cannot respond on its appropriateness but comments it has been discussed by the work group. 

Chair Garrard

Asks for elaboration on the judicial review portion.

Rindy

Responds that he cannot.  Notes it would be generally positive to clarify the issue of judicial review.

147

Eber

Agrees generally with Rindy.  Reports on what the judicial review section elaborates on.

Chair Garrard

Verifies that this section appeared in SB 1037.

Eber

Confirms this.

267

Chair Garrard

List parties who have spoken and notes difficulty in trying to determine areas of agreement.  Asks for Eber’s opinion on what will happen to M37 claims if the attorney general’s opinion that claims are not transferable is not altered by the legislature.

290

Eber

Explains his understanding of how a M37 waiver would be applied.

Chair Garrard

Asks what happens to whatever was built with the waiver after the property is sold.

Eber

Responds that if something was built with the waiver, it would remain.  Notes that jurisdictions vary with how they deal with bringing buildings up to code.

Chair Garrard

Verifies that one would never be able to sell it.

Eber

Corrects to say that one would be able to sell.  Clarifies what happens after land is sold and counters the suggestion that dwellings would be torn down once the lot was sold.

330

Rindy

Adds that this really becomes an issue with subdivisions.

Chair Garrard

Asks Eber to elaborate on what happens when under M37 as currently written when an owner obtains a claim to allow subdivision and wants to sell to a prospective builder.

Eber

Explains the scenario under M37 as currently interpreted by Department of Justice (DOJ). 

Chair Garrard

Verifies that an individual property owner could build the subdivision themselves.

Eber

Confirms this.

400

Rep. Anderson

Asks if one could co-venture with someone and retain ownership until the lots were build and sold.

Eber

Responds he believes so.  Remarks on possible interpretations of “interest therein”.

TAPE 120, A

Chair Garrard

Verifies that there is no minimum percentage of interest in a partnership one must have to retain interest.

Eber

Confirms that there is no limit and comments on currently filed claims and how this effects waiver date.

017

Chair Garrard

Asks if a scenario would currently be allowed.

Eber

Responds affirmatively.

Rindy

Discusses ambiguities surrounding the issue of transferability.

025

Chair Garrard

Raises the issue of financial uncertainty in that situation.

Eber

Speaks about one specific claim.

044

Eber

Comments on confusion in determining ownership.

055

Rep. Anderson

Asks if the panel has comments on putting a time limit on M37 claims.

Rindy

Comments that the issue is important and elaborates on discussions and possible litigation on the issue.

072

Eber

Continues on possible interpretation of M37 limits.

Rep. Ackerman

Asserts the statute goes into perpetuity unless there is a statute of ultimate repose and verifies there is no clear limit to when claims end.

Eber

Agrees and explains how the timeline is pushed out when further regulations are enacted.

Chair Garrard

Notes there has been a lack of discussion around this issue.

092

Rindy

Speculates there will be more discussion.

Eber

Remarks on possible deadlines on the Senate side for claims.

Chair Garrard

Asks if they would address the separation of powers issue.

Eber

Responds that he is not an expert.

Chair Garrard

Acknowledges that the panel will not address the issue.

103

Chair Garrard

Asks about minimum lot sizes.

Eber

Reviews what the Farm Bureau discussed on minimum lot sizes in a prior meeting.

Rindy

Comments on waiving statutes and the separation of powers issue.

Chair Garrard

Asks for their opinion on the legislature giving counties the ability to designate their own minimum lot sizes.

131

Rindy

Responds there has not been much discussion on that point.

Eber

Asserts that the question would be about the standard to base the lot size on.  Reviews prior standards.

156

Rep. Ackerman

Asks what the problem with minimum lot sizes is.

Chair Garrard

Remarks it was brought up by Don Schellengberg yesterday and asks him to come speak.

162

Don Schellenberg

Oregon Farm Bureau.  Comments on the reason for separation of powers and its relation to minimum lot sizes.  Relates this issue to M37 claims.

Rep. Ackerman

Asks what standard would be used to determine what minimum lot size would apply.

Schellenberg

Responds they would not be able to do a M37 claim and describes the tradeoff that would occur.

198

Rep. Ackerman

Asks a question about which lot standards would apply in a given situation.

Schellenberg

Answers the later date would apply.

216

John Foster

Vice-President, Oregon Small Woodlands Association.  Reports his organization did not take a position on M37 once it passed.  Discusses SB 676 and template tests. 

326

Chair Garrard

Asks if there is anyone present who would like to address the committee.

336

Stephen Kafoury

Responds to Rep. Anderson’s comments allowing counties to decide their own minimum lot sizes outlining the problem.  Advises the committee to work on the technical problems surrounding M37 and urges support for SB 82 which would allow for a comprehensive look at land use planning.

Chair Garrard

Comments on the fiscal impact of SB 82.

Kafoury

Reiterates support.

Chair Garrard

Comments that an interim group should be a part of the plan.

405

Rep. Ackerman

Wonders about procedure with dealing with amendments and makes suggestions.

TAPE 120, A

Chair Garrard

Agrees with the suggestion and explains how the committee will procede.

018

Rep. Ackerman

Asks about a timeline.

Chair Garrard

Speculates they have at least a week.

The following material is submitted for the record without public testimony:

Lynn Lundquist

Oregon Business Association.  Submits Oregon Land Use Statewide Survey (EXHIBIT B).

Laurel Hines

Submits an article from the Seattle Times on Oregon land use (EXHIBIT C).

Chair Garrard

Closes the work session on HB 3120 and adjourns the meeting at 2:25 p.m.