Since its earliest days, Oregon’s city, county, and state governments have strictly regulated land use throughout the state. Land use regulations serve several purposes, from preserving the natural environment to ensuring the most efficient use of space. Unfortunately for many property owners, land-use provisions can change–impacting future development plans and property values.
Voters passed Measure 37 in 2004 to protect property owners from suffering economic loss when land-use provisions changed. Under the Measure, a property owner could file a claim with the jurisdiction that either implemented or enforced the new land-use provision and seek compensation to make up for the loss in value or a waiver from the new provision. In reality, these governments didn’t have the financial strength to provide compensation as the law outlined, so Measure 49 was introduced to voters in 2007.
Measure 49 had similar goals as Measure 37 but handled the impact of changes to property owners differently. When it was first implemented, two different types of claims could be made, a “former Measure 37 claim” and a “new Measure 49 claim.”
“Former Measure 37 claims” were for property owners that previously received a waiver based on a claim made under Measure 37. These waivers were made null and void under Measure 49, but all waiver recipients were given the opportunity to submit a new claim under Measure 49. If accepted, these property owners were given a limited expansion on their building rights for their property. For example, a property owner now restricted to a single-family dwelling use might have been granted permission to build up to 4 homes on their property. The time limit has since passed for all of these claims to be processed.
“New Measure 49 claims,” or, as they are now known as simply “Measure 49 claims,” can be filed by property owners impacted by land-use provision changes within five years of the implementation date. The landowners must demonstrate that the regulation restricts a residential use or a farm or forest practices and that the change reduces the fair market value of the property. Instead of providing financial compensation like the former Measure 37 did, Measure 49 provides authorization to build a limited number of home sites on a parcel of property to “compensate” for the loss in value.
Measure 49 Approval Reasoning
The reasoning behind Measure 49 approval home site authorization process was to protect the rights of small landowners to pass down property rights to their heirs or allow a property owner to sell off a section of their acreage. According to Shelly Strom, a spokesperson for the pro-Measure 49 lobbying group, “Yes on 49,” “Measure 49 fixes the flaws of Measure 37, and it allows it to work the way it was advertised, to serve the little guy. It closes the loopholes in Measure 37 that allow commercial and industrial development.”
Rights provided to landowners with accepted Measure 49 claims stay with the property if it is sold to a new owner. However, while the original claimant had no deadline to complete the development provided in the award, the new owner must complete the development within ten years. These rights can transfer multiple times as the property is sold again, but the beginning of the ten-year deadline remains when the second owner took possession from the original claimant. If you purchase property with a Measure 49 approval on it, your first step should be to check to ensure the approval is still valid.
Seek the professionals at Richard Stevens & Associates for all your questions about land use provisions.
Before you invest in a parcel of property, it’s important to consult with professionals who can walk you through all of the land use issues you need to consider. At Richard Stevens & Associates, we specialize in assisting our clients with obtaining rural and urban land use permits. We can help you consider the pros and cons of different properties so you’ll feel confident about your final decision. Contact us today to learn more about how we can help you bring your dream home to life.
Leave a Reply