County grapples with passage of Measure 37, which puts a new twist on land-use regulationsClatsop County enters the unknown with the rest of the state when Ballot Measure 37 takes effect.

Beginning Thursday, property owners who feel they’ve been harmed financially by land-use regulations can seek compensation from cities, counties and the state.

As in most jurisdictions, officials in Clatsop County say they won’t know what impact the new law will have until people actually begin making claims. The county commissioners will consider an ordinance spelling out the claims review process at their Dec. 8 meeting.

Measure 37 requires local governments to provide monetary compensation to property owners for regulations that lowered the value of their holdings, or, if they will not or cannot pay, to modify or waive the rules in question.

“Until we see what people are coming in with, we really don’t have a clue” how many or what type of claims the county will face, said Community Development Director Kathleen Sellman, whose department will handle Measure 37 claims.

What is known about the measure is that the county, along with most other jurisdictions, doesn’t have extra money available, and will likely have to consider the option of waiving regulations for claims that are deemed to be valid.

“We don’t have in our current budget any pot of money to pay Measure 37 claims,” said County Commission Chairwoman Helen Westbrook. “I don’t know where the money would come from.”

The community development department has already fielded questions about the measure from a few citizens, including some who appear to misunderstand the new law. People making claims must be able to point to a particular land-use regulation and prove how it harmed the value of their property, Sellman said. The measure applies to rules enacted after the current owner acquired the property, except in the case of land passed down within the same family.

“Some people seem to have gathered the idea that they can come in and say, ‘I want the same zoning that existed in 1970,'” she said.

Sellman said her hunch is that the first claims the county sees may come from owners of agricultural-zoned lands, who may seek relief from the zone’s strict limits on new home construction.

Under the review process, the community development staff will study each application and pass it on to the county administrator with a recommendation. The administrator makes his own review and forwards claims that he deems could be valid to the board of commissioners, who make the final decision on the county’s response.

The ordinance calls for surrounding property owners to be notified, and provides the opportunity for a public hearing in front of the commissioners on each claim.

Some cities and counties have enacted stiff fees for Measure 37 claims. Clatsop County is taking a “middle of the road” approach, with an application fee that includes a $150 deposit plus charges of between $50 and $60 an hour for any research required by staff, Sellman said. That will encourage people making claims to do as much research on their own before bringing their case to the county, she said.

County Counsel Blair Henningsgaard, who drafted the claims review process the commissioners will consider next week, said he doesn’t believe the county is likely to see a large number of claims – at least many that would meet the legal threshold for compensation.

Existing land-use zones, for the most part, reflect where development would naturally occur, Henningsgaard said – homes are built near other homes, commercial uses next to other businesses. The measure requires that market value be taken into account when a compensation claim is being reviewed – the owner of an isolated tract miles from any town would likely have a hard time showing that a Kmart store could be built on the land if the zoning was relaxed, he said.

There are some recent land-use changes that could potentially result in claims, including a state-mandated limit on home development in the residential-agriculture zone, as well as traffic-access rules, Henningsgaard said.

Aside from concerns over the potential costs of paying compensation or waiving the county’s land-use rules, Westbrook said the measure’s language is unclear and could result in many claims ending up in costly court battles.

Governments have 180 days to handle a claim – if they don’t, or if the applicant doesn’t like the result, the case can then be taken to the local circuit court, with the government covering all the legal costs, including attorney fees for the claimant.

“It seems the measure forces decisions without adequate information for the decision-making bodies to make a decision,” Westbrook said.

Opponents of Measure 37 worry that the initiative could lead to a dismantling of Oregon’s landmark land-use planning system, and open up the floodgates to the type of sprawl that the laws were designed to prevent.

But Sellman said she looks at the new measure as an opportunity for her department to re-evaluate how land-use rules impact property owners.

“This gives us a chance to see what areas of our ordinances people perceive as damaging them,” she said. “We’re under great scrutiny, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

“The land-use system is intended to implement the community’s vision for its future, and our challenge is to balance what the community says it wants that vision to be with individual property rights people perceive they have,” she said. “It’s a constant balancing act – this is a new twist.”