Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (931) AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL STUDY SESSION JANUARY 10, 2007 ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE STUDY SESSION - AT OR AFTER 5:30 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL STUDY SESSION AT OR AFTER 5:30 PM 1. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION CONCERNING PROPOSITION 207 - EMINENT DOMAIN AND REGULATORY TAKINGS • POSTED: 01/05/07 4:00 p.m. rg The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Town Clerk's Office at (520)229-4700. Notice of Possible Quorum of the Board of Adjustment, Development Review Board, Planning & Zoning Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission: In accordance with Chapter 3, Title 38, Arizona Revised Statutes and Section 2-4-2 of the Oro Valley Town Code, a majority of the members of the above listed Boards and Commissions may be present during the Town Council Study Session as a member of the audience only. Private Property Protection Act Page 1 of 5 4 AN INITIATIVE MEASURE AMENDING TITLE 12,CHAPTER 8,ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES,BY ADDING ARTICLE 2.1;RELATING TO THE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Arizona: Section 1. Short title This act may be cited as the"Private Property Rights Protection Act". Sec.2.Findings and declarations A.The people of Arizona find and declare: 1.Article 2,section 17 of our State Constitution declares in no uncertain terms that private property shall not be taken for private use. 2. Our Constitution further provides-that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. 3.Finally,our Constitution does not permit property to be taken or damaged without just compensation having first been made. 4.Notwithstanding these clear constitutional rights,the state and municipal governments of Arizona consistently encroach on the rights of private citizens to own and use their property,requiring the people of this State to seek redress in our state and federal courts which have not always adequately protected private property rights as demanded by the State and Federal Constitutions. For example: (a)A recent United States Supreme Court ruling,Kelo v. City of New London,allowed a city to exercise its power of eminent domain to take a citizen's home for the purpose of transferring control of the land to a private commercial developer. (b)The City of Mesa used eminent domain to acquire and bulldoze homes for a redevelopment project that included a hotel and water park. After the developer's financing fell through the project was abandoned and the property left vacant. (c)The City of Mesa filed condemnation actions against Randy Bailey,to take his family-owned brake shop,and Patrick Dennis,to take his auto-body shop,so that local business owners could relocate and expand a hardware store and an appliance store. (d)The City of Tempe instituted an eminent domain action to condemn the home of Kenneth and Mary Ann Pillow in order to transfer their property to a private developer who planned to build upscale townhomes. (e)The City of Chandler filed a condemnation action against a fast food restaurant in order to replace the fast-food restaurant with upscale dining and retail uses. (f)In the wake of the Kelo ruling,the City of Tempe recently sought to condemn property in an industrial park in order to make way for an enormous retail shopping mall. (g)The City of Tempe told the owners of an Apache Boulevard bowling alley that the City intended to condemn their property and specifically instructed them not to make further improvements to the land. Heeding Tempe's advice,the owners made no further improvements and ultimately lost bowling league contracts and went out of business. The Arizona Court of Appeals refused the owners'request for just compensation. (h)Courts have also allowed state and local governments to impose significant prohibitions and restrictions on the use of private property without compensating the owner for the economic loss of value to that property. 5.For home owners in designated slum or blighted areas,the compensation received when a primary residence is seized is not truly just as required by our state constitution. 6.Furthermore,even when property is taken for a valid public use,the judicial processes available to property owners to obtain just compensation are burdensome,costly and unfair. B.Having made the above findings,the people of Arizona declare that all property rights are fundamental rights and that all people have inalienable rights including the right to acquire,possess,control and protect property. Therefore the citizens of the State of Arizona hereby adopt the Private Property Rights Protection Act to ensure that Arizona citizens do not lose their home or property or lose the value of their home or property without just compensation.Whenever state and local governments take or diminish the value of private property,it is the intent of this act that the owner will receive just compensation,either by negotiation or by an efficient and fair judicial process. Sec.3.Title 12,chapter 8,Arizona Revised Statutes,is amended by adding article 2.1,to read: Article 2.1.PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT 12-1131.PROPERTY MAY BE TAKEN ONLY FOR PUBLIC USE CONSISTENT WITH THIS ARTICLE EMINENT DOMAIN MAY BE EXERCISED ONLY IF THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN IS AUTHORIZED BY THIS STATE,WHETHER BY STATUTE OR OTHERWISE,AND FOR A PUBLIC USE AS DEFINED BY THIS http://www.azsos.gov/election/2006/General/B allotMeasureText/PROP%2020X%20(I-21... 11/21/2006 Private Property Protection Act Page 2 of 5 p y ARTICLE. 12-1132.BURDEN OF PROOF A.IN ALL EMINENT DOMAIN ACTIONS THE JUDICIARY SHALL COMPLY WITH THE STATE CONSTITUTION'S MANDATE THAT WHENEVER AN ATTEMPT IS MADE TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR A USE ALLEGED TO BE PUBLIC,THE QUESTION WHETHER THE CONTEMPLATED USE BE REALLY PUBLIC SHALL BE A JUDICIAL QUESTION,AND DETERMINED AS SUCH WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY LEGISLATIVE ASSERTION THAT THE USE IS PUBLIC. B.IN ANY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SLUM CLEARANCE AND REDEVELOPMENT,THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE SHALL ESTABLISH BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT EACH PARCEL IS NECESSARY TO ELIMINATE A DIRECT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY CAUSED BY THE PROPERTY IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES THAT ARE BEYOND REPAIR OR UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION OR USE,OR TO ACQUIRE ABANDONED PROPERTY AND THAT NO REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE TO CONDEMNATION EXISTS. 12-1133.JUST COMPENSATION; SLUM CLEARANCE AND REDEVELOPMENT IN ANY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SLUM CLEARANCE AND REDEVELOPMENT,IF PRIVATE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE IS TAKEN,THE OCCUPANTS SHALL BE PROVIDED A COMPARABLE REPLACEMENT DWELLING THAT IS DECENT, SAFE,AND SANITARY AS DEFINED IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL RELOCATION LAWS,SECTION 11-961 ET SEQ.AND 42 USC 4601 ET SEQ.,AND THE REGULATIONS PROMULGATED THEREUNDER. AT THE OWNER'S ELECTION,IF MONETARY COMPENSATION IS DESIRED IN LIEU OF A REPLACEMENT DWELLING, THE AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION THAT IS MADE AND DETERMINED FOR THAT TAKING SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THE SUM OF MONEY THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO PURCHASE A COMPARABLE REPLACEMENT DWELLING THAT IS DECENT,SAFE,AND SANITARY AS DEFINED IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL RELOCATION LAWS AND REGULATIONS. 12-1134.DIMINUTION IN VALUE;JUST COMPENSATION A.IF THE EXISTING RIGHTS TO USE,DIVIDE,SELL OR POSSESS PRIVATE REAL PROPERTY ARE REDUCED BY THE ENACTMENT OR APPLICABILITY OF ANY LAND USE LAW ENACTED AFTER THE DATE THE PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED TO THE OWNER AND SUCH ACTION REDUCES THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY THE OWNER IS ENTITLED TO JUST COMPENSATION FROM THIS STATE OR THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ENACTED THE LAND USE LAW. B.THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO LAND USE LAWS THAT: 1.LIMIT OR PROHIBIT A USE OR DIVISION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH AND SAFETY,INCLUDING RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO FIRE AND BUILDING CODES,HEALTH AND SANITATION,TRANSPORTATION OR TRAFFIC CONTROL,SOLID OR HAZARDOUS WASTE,AND POLLUTION CONTROL; 2.LIMIT OR PROHIBIT THE USE OR DIVISION OF REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY AND HISTORICALLY RECOGNIZED AS A PUBLIC NUISANCE UNDER COMMON LAW; 3.ARE REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW; 4.LIMIT OR PROHIBIT THE USE OR DIVISION OF A PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOUSING SEX OFFENDERS,SELLING ILLEGAL DRUGS,LIQUOR CONTROL,OR PORNOGRAPHY,OBSCENITY,NUDE OR TOPLESS DANCING,AND OTHER ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESSES IF THE LAND USE LAWS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THIS STATE AND THE UNITED STATES; 5.ESTABLISH LOCATIONS FOR UTILITY FACILITIES; 6.DO NOT DIRECTLY REGULATE AN OWNER'S LAND;OR 7.WERE ENACTED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION. C.THIS STATE OR THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ENACTED THE LAND USE LAW HAS THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THAT THE LAND USE LAW IS EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION B. D.THE OWNER SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO FIRST SUBMIT A LAND USE APPLICATION TO REMOVE,MODIFY,VARY OR OTHERWISE ALTER THE APPLICATION OF THE LAND USE LAW TO THE OWNER'S PROPERTY AS A PREREQUISITE TO DEMANDING OR RECEIVING JUST COMPENSATION PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION. E. IF A LAND USE LAW CONTINUES TO APPLY TO PRIVATE REAL PROPERTY MORE THAN NINETY DAYS AFTER THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY MAKES A WRITTEN DEMAND IN A SPECIFIC AMOUNT FOR JUST COMPENSATION TO THIS STATE OR THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ENACTED THE LAND USE LAW,THE OWNER HAS A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR JUST COMPENSATION IN A COURT IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED,UNLESS THIS STATE OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE AND THE OWNER REACH AN AGREEMENT ON THE AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION TO BE PAID,OR UNLESS THIS STATE OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE AMENDS,REPEALS,OR ISSUES TO THE LANDOWNER A BINDING WAIVER OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAND USE LAW ON THE OWNER'S http://www.azsos.gov/election/2006/General/BallotMeasureText/PROP%2020X%20(I-21... 11/21/2006 Private Property Protection Act Page 3 of 5 SPECIFIC PARCEL. F.ANY DEMAND FOR LANDOWNER RELIEF OR ANY WAIVER THAT IS GRANTED IN LIEU OF COMPENSATION RUNS WITH THE LAND. MUST BE MADE OR G.AN ACTION FOR JUST COMPENSATION BASED ON DIMINUTION IN VALUE FOREVER BARRED WITHIN THREE YEARS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE LAND USE LAW,OR OF THE FIRST DATE THE REDUCTION OF THE EXISTING RIGHTS TO USE,DIVIDE,SELL OR POSSESS PROPERTY APPLIES TO THE OWNER'S PARCEL,WHICHEVER IS LATER. H.THE REMEDY CREATED BY THIS SECTION IS IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER REMEDY THAT IS PROVIDED BY THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE OR THE UNITED STATES AND IS NOT INTENDED TO MODIFY OR REPLACE ANY OTHER REMEDY. I.NOTHING IN THIS SECTION PROHIBITS THIS STATE OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE FROM REACHING AN AGREEMENT WITH A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO WAIVE A CLAIM FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE REGARDING ANY PROPOSED ACTION BY THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE OR ACTION REQUESTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. 12-1135.ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS A.A PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT LIABLE TO THIS STATE OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE FOR ATTORNEY FEES OR COSTS IN ANY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION OR IN ANY ACTION FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE. B.A PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE AWARDED REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES,COSTS AND EXPENSES IN EVERY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION IN WHICH THE TAKING IS FOUND TO BE NOT FOR A PUBLIC USE. C.IN ANY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SLUM CLEARANCE AND REDEVELOPMENT,A PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE AWARDED REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES IN EVERY CASE IN WHICH THE FINAL AMOUNT OFFERED BY THE MUNICIPALITY WAS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT ASCERTAINED BY A JURY OR THE COURT IF A JURY IS WAIVED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. D.A PREVAILING PLAINTIFF IN AN ACTION FOR JUST COMPENSATION THAT IS BASED ON DIMINUTION IN VALUE PURSUANT TO SECTION 12-1134 MAY BE AWARDED COSTS,EXPENSES AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES. 12-1136.DEFINITIONS IN THIS ARTICLE,UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES: 1. "FAIR MARKET VALUE"MEANS THE MOST LIKELY PRICE ESTIMATED IN TERMS OF MONEY WHICH THE LAND WOULD BRING IF EXPOSED FOR SALE IN THE OPEN MARKET,WITH REASONABLE TIME ALLOWED IN WHICH TO FIND A PURCHASER,BUYING WITH KNOWLEDGE OF ALL THE USES AND PURPOSES TO WHICH IT IS ADAPTED AND FOR WHICH IT IS CAPABLE. 2. "JUST COMPENSATION"FOR PURPOSES OF AN ACTION FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE MEANS THE SUM OF MONEY THAT IS EQUAL TO THE REDUCTION IN FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY RESULTING FROM THE ENACTMENT OF THE LAND USE LAW AS OF THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THE LAND USE LAW. 3. "LAND USE LAW"MEANS ANY STATUTE,RULE,ORDINANCE,RESOLUTION OR LAW ENACTED BY THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT REGULATES THE USE OR DIVISION OF LAND OR ANY INTEREST IN LAND OR THAT REGULATES ACCEPTED FARMING OR FORESTRY PRACTICES. 4. "OWNER"MEANS THE HOLDER OF FEE TITLE TO THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY. 5."PUBLIC USE": (a)MEANS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: (i)THE POSSESSION,OCCUPATION,AND ENJOYMENT OF THE LAND BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC,OR BY PUBLIC AGENCIES; (ii)THE USE OF LAND FOR THE CREATION OR FUNCTIONING OF UTILITIES; (iii)THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY TO ELIMINATE A DIRECT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY CAUSED BY THE PROPERTY IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION,INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF A STRUCTURE THAT IS BEYOND REPAIR OR UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION OR USE;OR (iv)THE ACQUISITION OF ABANDONED PROPERTY. (b)DOES NOT INCLUDE THE PUBLIC BENEFITS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,INCLUDING AN INCREASE IN TAX BASE,TAX REVENUES,EMPLOYMENT OR GENERAL ECONOMIC HEALTH. 6. "TAKEN"AND"TAKING"MEAN THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OR USE FROM A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE OR TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE. 12-1137.APPLICABILITY IF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THIS ARTICLE AND ANY OTHER LAW ARISES,THIS ARTICLE CONTROLS. 12-1138. SEVERABILITY http://www.azsos.gov/election/2006/General/B allotMeasureText/PROP%2020X%20(I-21... 11/21/2006 Private Property ert Protection Act Page 4 of 5 IF ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT OR ITS APPLICATION TO ANY PERSON OR CIRCUMSTANCE IS HELD INVALID THAT INVALIDITY DOES NOT AFFECT OTHER PROVISIONS OR APPLICATIONS OF THE ACT THAT CAN BE GIVEN EFFECT WITHOUT THE INVALID PROVISION OR APPLICATION,AND TO THIS END THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT ARE SEVERABLE. http://wvwv.azsos.gov/election/2006/GeneralBallotMeasureText/PROP%202OX%20(T-21 ___ 1 1/21 0006 LEY Q 0 141 7 4 4 A elk °UNDED Office of the Town Attorney MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and Council; David Andrews, Town Manager; Stacey Lemos, Finance Director/ Risk Manager; Sarah More, Planning &Zoning D'rector From: Melinda Garrahan, Town Attorney Date: January 3, 2007 Re: Proposition 207 Information from AMRRP Defense Attorneys While preparing the Proposition 207 presentation for January 10, 2007, I contacted the AMRRP to ask what they were doing to address the risk management issues associated with the proposition. At this time they are considering adding a Prop. 207 training component. I will be forwarding our presentation as a possible training resource. So far what the Pool has to offer is the attached article. It was written by two of the land use case defense attorneys who work with the AMRRP. It will be published in the near future. The article was sent to me with the caveat that it may be revised somewhat for publication, but the substance will not change. F:\Com Dev\P&Z\Regulatory Taking-Prop 207\010207 MM-M&C-AMRRP atty memo.doc PROPOSITION 207--PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT IT'S THE LAW! By Bill Sims and Brad Woodford In the November 2007 election, Arizona voters approved Proposition 207, an initiative measure purporting to protect private property rights. The governor proclaimed that proposition to be effective December 7,2006—Pearl Harbor Day. Now what? The Proposition included three general components: (1)restrictions on the use of eminent domain,(2)limits on the power and process for enacting and enforcing land use laws, and(3)new rules on how property owners might receive attorney fees and costs in connection with eminent domain and land use law proceedings. Eminent Domain. The condemnation provisions now limit when a jurisdiction may exercise condemnation powers: (a)the use of land by the public or by public agencies, (b)the use of land for utilities, (c)the acquisition of property to eliminate a direct threat to public health or safety caused by the condition of the property to be condemned, and(d)to acquire abandoned property. The proposition expressly excludes economic development as a permissible public use that would permit condemnation. What does this mean for your city or town? If you have a clear public use that falls within one of the four categories of uses described above, your city or town should proceed. Be careful,though,because if you are wrong, your city or town would be subject to paying the property owner's attorneys' fees for the reasons discussed below. Also,the argument that property should be condemned for economic development is no longer available. Land Use Laws. Proposition 207 builds new and significant hurdles to enacting and enforcing"Land Use Laws,"a term defined to include any"statute,rule,ordinance, resolution or law that regulates the use or division of land or any interest in land. This would apply to any zoning, subdivision, design review guideline or other restrictions enacted after December 7. This is one important way to reduce the difficult affects of Proposition 207. The Proposition at least does not apply to land use laws enacted before the Proposition became affective. What does Proposition 207 do? It gives property owners a claim if their rights to "use, divide,sell or possess private real property"is reduced by a Land Use Law. No longer does a city or town have an argument that a Land Use Law, such as rezoning, leaves the property owner with at least some viable economic use. Now, the property owner need only show a reduction in value. This is a big change. What are the exceptions to Proposition 207? Here is where you can try to fashion arguments as to why the Land Use Law enacted by your city or town is still permitted. These exceptions include: (1)public health and safety, (2)transportation, (3)common law public nuisance, (4)federal law requirements, (5) adult business, (6)property not directly regulated by the Land Use Law(otherwise known as the "neighbors") and (7) laws enacted before December 7, 2006. Although the federal law exception,the adult business exception and the grandfathering of older Land Use Laws is helpful and provide some guidance to the city or town attorney trying to advise his or her client, the other exceptions are not as clear and will probably result in litigation. You can bet that many a landowner will try to challenge a Land Use Law if the landowner can show that his or her property has lost value due to a Land Use Law. What should you do or not do? The League of Arizona Cities and Towns has produced good forms and accompanying analysis that you can use when granting requests for Land Use Law changes. You might ask: Why worry-about a property owner who has requested a Land Use Law change, such as rezoning? By getting a waiver, something that is expressly permitted by Proposition 207,you protect your city or town should the property owner decide to challenge aspects of the change, such as conditions that you might want to impose as part of the rezoning. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. On the one hand,the proposition makes it clear that property owners are not liable to a city or town for the city or town's attorneys' fees and costs in condemnation proceedings or in claims involving reduced property values. Not much of a deterrent for the bringing of claims. On the other hand, your city or town will be liable for the property owner's fees and costs(a)if a court determines that the proposed use is not within the four categories of public use noted above, (b)if the final amount awarded in connection with slum clearance and redevelopment is more than the amount offered by the city or town, or(c)if the property owner prevails in his or her claim that a Land Use Law has diminished the value of his or her property. Bottom Line: Be ready for litigation. Get a waiver ifou can when granting g requests for Land Use Law changes. Avoid any down zoning. If other Land Use Laws are challenged(such as design review ordinances or sign codes)analyze the seven exceptions noted above and see if you can pull the challenged Land Use Law into one of the exceptions. Finally,challenge the property owner to show that the property that is the subject of the Land Use Law has been diminished in value. Proposition 207 > Oro Valley Town Council Study Session January 10, 2007 V •:yo: .OA Property Rights Protection k Before Prop. 207 Actual Taking:Federal and State Constitutions prohibit any government from taking private property for public use without just compensation•••• Regulatory Taking:A regulation which a)d nies substantially all economically beneficial or productive use of land,or b)which exacts property from an owner not reasonably related to the owner's use. Both circumstances require compensation under the Takings Clause. Burden was on a property owner to prove that a regulatory taking has occurred. 2 J opo• ett 7k/joti e, 9 • What has Proposition 207 Changed? • >Eminent Domain (Condemnation) AND >Regulatory Takings 3 1 s Eminent Domain In a Nutshell ➢ "Government" paying "just compensation" to acquire private property for the public good. 4 Arizona did not need Prop 207 to limit Eminent Domain! > Why?... Bailey Brake v. City of Mesa. In Arizona private property cannot be transferred to a developer for private use,and; Arizona Constitution specifically requires that private property can only be taken for a"public purpose".(US Constitution does not.) Non"blighted"properties cannot be wrapped into a blight clearance. 5 The Real Reason for Prop. 207? It's a Trojan Horse! :- Prop. 207 makes only minor changes to the Eminent Domain power such as eliminating blight fi <: clearance as a public purpose,and providing for attorney's fees and costs to ro ertowners. �r_ ,_ r Nonetheless,Proposition 207 �X tc was sold to the public as a cure for the Kelo v.City of New London U.S.Supreme Court Case,which did not affect the R" Arizona Constitutional limits on eminent domain. 6 2 • What was hidden inside the Prop. 207 Trojan Horse? rrt "Regulatory Takings"limitations. > Compensation for"Diminution"in Value of individual parcels due to Regulatory Takings. 0 i The two forms of Regulatory Taking before Prop. 207. 1. Conventional,through Regulation, by design or otherwise, that removed economically viable use of land. 2. Exactions of property, usually in the form of conditions of approval, not: Reasonably connected to the project:and/or In proportion to the effect of the project on the public. Pre Prop. 207. Regulatory Taking Example Requiring a hardware store to dedicate a bicycle path across the back of its property in order to obtain permits to expand the store. 9 3 Nimmiip • Regulatory Taking "Burden of likit Proof" before Prop. 207 > Property Owner had the burden of proving that a regulatory taking had occurred, and; > The property owner had the burden of proving the value (cost) of the taking. io I 1 0 111k—At Regulatory Taking after Prop. 207 • After property is hard zoned any exaction condition on an approval that diminishes the value of the land is a potential Prop. 207 claim even if the condition is reasonably related and in proportion to the effect of the proposed development on the public. ➢ Really! ii Prop. 207's affect on new land use regulation and Regulatory Takings claims against Oro Valley ij \ 470 ' ,, ib.., - Wile" _Iiiir , .,,,,-At---4) AN"\\''o 12 4 .4► • Prop. 207'Findings and , Declarations" .� _� . "The people of Arizona find and declare:" ✓ "Our Constitution does not permit property to be taken or damaged without just compensation having first been made." I "[T]he State and municipal governments of Arizona consistently encroach on the rights of private citizens to use their property." "Courts have also allowed state and local governments to impose significant prohibitions and restrictions on the use of private property without compensating for the economic loss of value to that property." ' This is the language that will guide the Courts in deciding Prop.207.Claims. 13 4 What is a Land Use j,aQ `A` Regulation? otN > Under Prop. 207 a Land Use Regulation is any law, rule, ordinance or resolution enacted by government that regulates the use or division of land or any interest in land. 14 .r'.j 4r .„„,,,, Diminution Elements of Prop. 207 ' r A land use regulation is either"adopted or applied" to a parcel of land after the owner obtains title,and; :> The new regulation reduces the property owner's ability to"use,divide,sell,or possess"that land,and; The new regulation also decreases the fair market value of the parcel. Unless the Government can prove that a Prop.207 exception exists,now the property owner has a statutory claim against the government for the diminution in value. 1s 5 . 4.:py Tr' Exceptions & Burden of Proof If a new Land Use regulation fits one of the enumerated exceptions, diminution in value will not be compensated. The legal Burden is on Government to prove that an exception exists. y This is ultimately a judicial decision,tried in Superior Court to a Jury. 16 11 Prop. 207 Exceptions? • Health and Safety regulations. • Common law nuisance. > Federal requirements. • Land use regulations: 1. On Illegal Drugs; 2. On Liquor Control; 3. On Adult oriented Businesses; 4. On Utility Location; 5. Enacted before Prop 207(no retroactive effect); 17 The Most Significant Prop. 207 Exception . . . Neighbors! -• > Prop 207"does not apply to land use regulations that: . . . do not directly regulate g9 an owner's land." • The fact that neighbors are adversely affected by a Prop. 207 claim doesn't give them a Prop. 207 claim against the Town! 1e 6 Why and How Neighbors can be adversely affected? ►0`1� ➢ Because the neighbor's property is not directly regulated. ➢ After hard zoning is already in place Town practice has been to add conditions to subsequent approvals for neighbor compatibility/harmony. Approval Conditions that are not part of the OVZCR/Town Code may be considered new regulations that reduce an owner's ability to divide, sell, use or possess land, and diminish land value. 19 Procedural Elements of Prop. 40,1g' 207 , *, ➢ A property Owner cannot be required to submit a land use application in order to remove, modify or vary the application of a new land use regulation to his parcel as a prerequisite to demanding or receiving compensation for a diminution in value. 20 Procedural Elements o-- Continued . . . ➢ If a Property Owner makes a written demand on the Town for a specific amount claiming a right to compensation for diminution in value due to the adoption or application of a land use regulation that reduces his ability to divide, sell or possess his parcel, the Town has 90 days to respond or face the risk of litigation. 21 7 Procedural Elements a* Continued . . . r In that 90 days the Town may: ✓ Reach an agreement with the property owner on the amount of just compensation; ✓ Amend or repeal the regulation; ✓ Issue a binding waiver of enforcement of the regulation owner that runs with the land. ✓ Take no action on the diminution in value claim. 22 L? ; b 4) Procedural Elements 014eQ Continued . . . If a land use regulation"continues to apply"to a parcel for more than 90 days after the Property Owner's written demand for compensation, then the Owner has a statutory cause of action in Pima County Superior Court. 23 t ;,. Some Problematic Land Use Conditions k:111 Additional Buffer-yard Decreases in Floor Area Ratio("FAR") Building Height Reductions Increased Setbacks r Limiting Hours of Operation All of these reduce an owner's ability to"use"or"possess" land and may diminish value. 24 8 Problematic Approvals • • General Plan amendments. • Rezonings ✓ Upzoning ✓ Downzoning ✓ Overlay Zoning ✓ Annexation Translational Zoning Development Plans Plats • Conditional Use Permits 2s C;;;;"Pli' Why are General Plan 0"/ Amendments a potential problem? Land Use Regulation is government enactment that regulates the use or division of land or an interest in land. Some General Plan amendments may be considered land use regulation if they are"requirements"rather than guiding principals for planning and zoning. If a General Plan amendment: 1) Limits a property owner's ability to use,possess,divide or sell his land and, 2) It Arguably reduces land value then the amendment may be a compensable diminution in value under Prop.207. 26 w 2�.S4"^Mx �. TEY:<v ;�t",mow. Even Up-Zoning Has A N Consequences 9 ▪ The change from less to more dense/intense development is unlikely to diminish land value immediately. • The initial act of up-zoning will generally increase property value, but it will also set a new benchmark value for later development plan and plat approvals. Consequently,exaction conditions placed on subsequent development approval may constitute a diminution taking under Prop 207. 27 9 Zoning, the Down Side (6(''',V ' ft ,."h''.�..!1,,,5. -7 'Downzoning i .9":40-15' :=Overlay Zoning t 91 rAnnexation Translational Zoning . J 28 • R'� Rezoning / Down-zoning ,f- • > Down-zoning on the other hand will create immediate diminution concerns! > Without some form of pre-development agreement, down-zoning is exactly the diminution in value that Prop. 207 aims to protect against. 29 Rezoning / Overlay Zoning .a,. Overlay zoning creates imminent diminution in value concerns. y Possibly the most dangerous of all future zoning changes. ✓ Generally an overlay applies new restrictions to land because of the lands unique character such as environmental or historically significant land or buildings. ✓ Overlay zoning generally reduces the ability to use, possess or dispose of land and now may result in Prop. 207 diminution in value claims. 30 10 C fa TTom`.:a5 Annexation Translational Zoning , Traditionally,the Town has"translated"from county to the most similar existing Town zoning. ✓ Any reduction in uses or restrictions on development due to setbacks,expensive conditions,height restrictions etc., may be a compensable diminution in value under Prop. 207. 31 71( Cell 4 o Development Plans & Plats x '' • Historically it has been the Town's practice to condition approval of Development Plans and Plats. • Now additional conditions may result in Prop. 207 diminution in value claims which TOV will be required to disprove. 32 Conditional Use Permits .. • The issue is the discretionary nature of Conditional use Permits ("CUP"). > Will denying a CUP for"compatibility"result in a Prop. 207 claim? • Will adding expensive conditions beyond the express OVZCR language result in Prop. 207 claims? 33 11 • Less Problematic Approvals • Building Permits y Covered by Prop. 207 > Grading Permits Health and Safety exception. > Grading Exceptions Both involve property > Variances owners requesting the exercise of TOV discretion. 34 r 4 X140 A Possible Prop. 207 Scenario? A developer goes through the development process without a hitch. One of the Development Plan conditions is that the buffer-yard be doubled from 20"to 40'for compatibility with the neighbors. The Developer later claims under Prop 207 that he went along with the"coercive"condition because he saw no other way to approval. r TOV must now choose to pay,waive or fight if the developer pursues a claim. 35 • Prop. 207 Consequences `='' The nature of a Prop. 207 Claim > A new land use regulation is either"Adopted or Applied" to the land since your ownership; and The new regulation reduces your ability to use divide, sell, or possess the land; and Your perception is that there is an associated decrease in the fair market value of your land. 36 12 • Prop. 207 Consequences • Continued . . . > The burden is on the Town to prove to you or the court (if necessary): 1) That the regulation falls under a Prop. 207 exception; or 2) That any decrease in value is unrelated to the regulation; or 3) That there is no fair market value decrease. 37 Prop. 207 Consequences Continued . . . ➢ Land Use Regulation will likely become more static because: • Significant land use regulation often reduces a property owners ability to use, divide, sell or possess his land. • Project-specific regulation through proposed conditions on development plans or plats may reduce a property owners ability to use, divide,sell or possess his land. 38 Prop. 207 Consequences •• Continued . . . • Financial Implications Additional Staff Time Additional consultant expenses to support health&safety regulation • Appraisals/Appraiser Time • Expense of litigation even if TOV prevails on a claim Z Court costs(including attorney's fees)along with the diminution in value if the owner prevails. 'r With lesser or no AMRRP Coverage 39 13 Reduced Risk Retention Pool • Coverage! > Prop 207 claims are NOT covered by the Pool. (No"takings"claims are covered.) • > Other Land use claims and defense are paid 80/20. ✓ 20% paid by the Town. ✓ 80% paid by the Pool. (Per AMRRP Coverage documents and confirmed with pool officials) 40 1 I • Recommendations: P&Z Director and Legal need to: ✓.Conduct Study Sessions with DRB,P&Z Commission BOA and HPC; ✓ Train P&Z,Building Safety and Public Works staff; ✓ Review Town Code and OVZCR to look for problematic language and report back to Council; Note: Process regulations(as opposed to substantive land use regulations)are unlikely to lead to valid Prop. 207 claims. 41 Land Use Review Recommendations > If reviewing development plans or plats, any additional conditions should be based on: ✓ Specific Code Provisions, or ✓ Evident health and safety concerns. 42 14 ♦.11/ Process Recommendations ➢ Legal Department needs to finalize a waiver form and claims process, based on the League of Cities and Towns proposals;; and present to Council for P review and adoption. ➢ Legal, P&Z and Annexation staff need to develop a new translational zoning process and guidelines for future annexations and report back to Council. 43 ll/ Prop. 207 Claims Recommendation • Form a Claim Review Committee comprised of the Town Attorney,the Zoning Director,and an Appraiser. r The Committee will meet ASAP within the 90-day claim period and make a report and recommendation to Council on each claim. ✓ Council will determine how each claim will ultimately be handled. ✓ The review committee assess proposed regulation and report to Council regarding the Prop.207 risk. 44 Community Outreach a . ✓ For New development,Planning and Zoning staff should perform a comprehensive review of proposed CC&R's. r For existing development,Planning and Zoning staff should encourage and assist in the adoption of CC&R's • TOV representatives should meet with HOA's to explain the importance of HOA's in preserving the quality of existing neighborhood character through CC&R's. • These Meetings would be a forum to discuss with neighbors HOA formation and adoption of CC&R's to protect neighborhood character over time. 4s 15 It is not all bad news!! 0, if firalittt‘ 46 ingood Oro Valley is generally shape to cope with Prop. 207 • Oro Valley already has extensive land use regulations in place. ✓ These regulations are grandfathered under Prop.207. Much of the property in TOV is protected by CC&R's Unlike older and/or more urbanized municipalities,Oro Valley doesn't have significant slum/blighted areas in need of redevelopment. • Aside from any future annexations,the Town is near build- out and hard zoning is already in place. 47 16 o�oNINLLty AiQ,�o'� Property Rights Protection Before Prop . 207 ''UNDE0 (\Ia Actual Taking: Federal and State Constitutions prohibit any government from taking private property for public use without just compensation Regulatory Taking: A regulation which a) denies substantially all economically beneficial or productive use of land, or b) which exacts property from an owner not reasonably related to the owner's use. Both circumstances require compensation under the Takings Clause. Burden was on a property owner to prove that a regulatory taking has occurred. o�O�Pt�er AR,ZO9 Proposition 207 ------= .UNDEO\41� Oro Valley Town Council Study Session January 10, 2007 1 1 1 P`v,LEY < a -7 What has Proposition 207 Changed? Aet3S e?r,... _�; tiis?� t <r.�.� ri ??. �_' ss? +rvx" "s e`: . t _ - Eminent Domain (Condemnation AND Takings 7 > Regulatory 3 3 oho JPLLtr gRZo9 47/4 Eminent Domain In a Nutshell _ V �9p ➢ _ _ "Government" paying "just compensation " to acquire private property for the public good . 4 4 Arizona did not need Prop 207 to limit Eminent Domain ! Why? ... Bailey Brake v. City of Mesa. .- In Arizona private property cannot be transferred to a developer for private use, and; Arizona Constitution specifically requires that private property can only be taken fora "public purpose". (US Constitution does not.) Non "blighted" properties cannot be wrapped into a blight clearance. 5 5 The Real Reason for Prop . 207? It's a Trojan Horse! Prop. 207 makes only minor changes to the Eminent Domain such as blight power eliminating clearance as a public purpose, and .. providing attorney's attorne 's fees and costs to owners. property � ss PropositionNonethele 207 A. was sold to the public as a cure fr rr y for the Kelo v.City of New : - London U.S. Supreme Court Case, which did not affect the Arizona Constitutional limits on eminent domain. 6 6 What was hidden inside the Prop . 207 Trojan Horse? 0 "Regulatory Takings" limitations. Compensation for "Diminution" in Value of individual parcels due to Regulatory Takings. II I 'IL61.---A The two forms of Regulatory Taking before Prop. 207. 1. Conventional, through Regulation, by design or otherwise, that removed economically viable use of land. 2. Exactions of property, usually in the form of conditions of approval, not: Reasonably connected to the project: and/or .- In proportion to the effect of the project on the public. 8 I 8 0 0 Pre Prop . 207 . Regulatory Taking Example Requiring a hardware store to dedicate a bicycle path across the back of its property in order to obtain permits to expand the store. 9 9 0 0 Regulatory Taking " Burden of Proof" before Prop. 207 fir, Property Owner had the burden of proving that a regulatory taking had occurred, and; 9- The property owner had the burden of proving the value (cost) of the taking . �o 10 Regulatory Taking after Prop. 207 After property is hard zoned any exaction condition on an approval that diminishes the value of the land is a potential Prop. 207 claim even if the condition is reasonably related and in proportion to the effect of the proposed development on the public. Really! yoi Ja-'-C64 -1)(i? 11 11 Prop. 207's affect on new land use regulation and Regulatory Takings claims against Oro Valley p/at &411.°' \. 11/1// rj 7/// \4\ 12 12 . witali0000~00 Prop . 207 " Findings and p-••••—.9 ueciarauOnsop - - �- ..�. �.- i • "The people of Arizona find and declare:" ✓ "Our Constitution does not permit property to be taken or damaged without just compensation having first been made." ✓ "[T]he State and municipal governments of Arizona consistently encroach on the rights of private citizens to use their property." ✓ "Courts have also allowed state and local governments to impose significant prohibitions and restrictions on the use of private property without compensating for the economic loss of value to that property." This is the language that will guide the Courts in deciding Prop. 207. Claims! 13 13 What is a Land Use \,,1r,,, � Regulation? Under Prop. 207 a Land Use Regulation is any law, rule, ordinance or resolution enacted by government that regulates the use or division of land or any interest in land. 14 14 \ow, Diminution Elements of Prop. 207 s ,.; r r A land use regulation is either "adopted or applied" to a g parcel of land after the owner obtains title, and; The new regulation reduces the property owner's ability to "use, divide, sell, or possess" that land, and; The new regulation also decreases the fair market value of the parcel. Unless the Government can prove that a Prop. 207 exception exists, now the property owner hasa statutory claim against the government for the diminution in value. 15 15 Exceptions & Burden of Proof - =� As- If a new Land Use regulation fits one of the enumerated exceptions, diminution in value will not be compensated. The legal Burden is on Government to prove that an exception exists. �- This is ultimately a judicial decision, tried in Superior Court to a Jury. 16 16 207 Exceptions?Prop . .0- Health and Safety regulations. Common law nuisance. Federal requirements. ➢ Land use regulations : 1. On Illegal Drugs; 2. On Liquor Control; 3. On Adult oriented Businesses; 4. On Utility Location; 5. Enacted before Prop 207 (no retroactive effect); 17 „4„jx.7 c-6)( 11' d(k. 0/ 27'er- 17 The Most Significant Prop . 207 Exception . . . Neighbors ! % Prop 207 "does not apply to land use regulations that: . . . do not directly regulate an owner's land." The fact that neighbors are adversely affected by a Prop. 207 claim doesn't give them a Prop. 207 claim against the Town! 18 I 18 t pfre Why and How Neighbors can irso be adversely affected ? Because the neighbor's property is not directly regulated. After hard zoning is already in place Town practice has been to add conditions to subsequent approvals for neighbor compatibility/harmony. A.- Approval Conditions that are not part of the OVZCR/Town Code may be considered new regulations that reduce an owner's ability to divide, sell, use or possess land, and diminish land value. 19 19 Procedural Elements of Prop . ‘ ,;,,,,� 207 A property Owner cannot be required to submit a land use application in order to remove, modify or vary the application of a new land use regulation to his parcel as a prerequisite to demanding or receiving compensation for a diminution in value. 20 I 20 Procedural Elements �u ' Continued . . . 44.1 -')-- 71//14\C% If a Property Owner makes a written demand on the Town for a specific amount claiming a right to compensation for diminution in value due to the adoption or application of a land use regulation that reduces his ability to divide, sell or possess his parcel, the Town has 90 days to respond or face the risk of litigation. 21 21 Procedural Elements , 6 Continued . . . * 7//„ .\c% In that 90 days the Town may: ✓ Reach an agreement with the property owner on the amount of just compensation; ✓ Amend or repeal the regulation; v" Issue a binding waiver of enforcement of the regulation owner that runs with the land. ✓ Take no action on the diminution in value claim. 22 22 Sr Procedural Elements Continued 71/11 \ If a land use regulation "continues to apply" to a parcel for more than 90 days after the Property Owner's written demand for compensation, then the Owner has a statutory cause of action in Pima County Superior Court. 23 23 Some Problematic Land Use Conditions I � �J .- Additional Buffer-yard p- Decreases in Floor Area Ratio ("FAR") Building Height Reductions Increased Setbacks Limiting Hours of Operation All of these reduce an owner's ability to `ruse" or "possess" land and may diminish value. 24 24 Problematic Approvals General Plan amendments. Rezonings ✓ Upzoning ✓ Downzoning ✓ Overlay Zoning ✓ Annexation Translational Zoning Development Plans Plats Conditional Use Permits 25 25 • O Why are General Plan Amendments a potential problem? Land Use Regulation is government enactment that regulates the use or division of land or an interest in land. Some General Plan amendments may be considered land use regulation if they are "requirements" rather than guiding principals for planning and zoning. p. If a General Plan amendment: 1) Limits a property owner's ability to use, possess, divide or sell his land and, 2) It Arguably reduces land value then the amendment may be a compensable diminution in value under Prop. 207. 26 26 o r-J Even Up-Zoning Has Consequences The change from less to more dense/intense development is unlikely to diminish land value immediately. A- The initial act of up-zoning will generally increase property value, but it will also set a new benchmark value for later development plan and plat approvals. •� Consequently, exaction conditions placed on subsequent development approval may constitute a diminution taking under Prop 207. 27 27 Zoning , the Down Side , . )1) / ea`�''�. � �-Downzoning 1!), n "/7 ► '. wOverlayZoning (L--/ , Annexation Translational Zoning 28 28 • o Rezoning / Down -zoning Down-zoning on the other hand will create immediate diminution concerns! Without some form of pre-development agreement, down-zoning is exactly the diminution in value that Prop. 207 aims to protect against. 29 29 . 0 Rezoning / Overlay Zoning Overlay zoning creates imminent diminution in value concerns. Ar. Possibly the most dangerous of all future zoning changes. % Generally an overlay applies new restrictions to land because of the land s unique character such as environmental or historically significant land or buildings. ✓ Overlay zoning generally reduces the ability to use, possess or dispose of land and now may result in Prop. 207 diminution in value claims. 30 30 Annexation Translational Zoning Traditionally, the Town has "translated" from county to the most similar existing Town zoning. ✓ Any reduction in uses or restrictions on development due to setbacks, expensive conditions, height restrictions etc., may be a compensable diminution in value under Prop. 207. 31 31 Development Plans & Plats AA. Historically it has been the Town's practice to condition approval of Development Plans and Plats. Now additional conditions may result in Prop. 207 diminution in value claims which TOV will be required to disprove. 6„z__ 6x,<_ az_e) ape_ 32 • O Conditional Use Permits The issue is the discretionary nature of Conditional use Permits ("CUP"). Will denying a CUP for "compatibility" result in a Prop. 207 claim? ➢ Will adding expensive conditions beyond the express OVZCR language result in Prop. 207 claims? l'Y�� mss- Yom- ' 33 � �x 33 • 41 :: Less Problematic Approvals �� Building Permits ➢ Covered by Prop. 207 ➢ Grading Permits Health and Safety exception. ➢ Grading Exceptions Both involve property ➢ Variances owners requesting the exercise of TOV discretion. 34 34 1;3, 0"" 611.4 - A Possible Prop. 207 Scenario? A developer goes through the development process without a hitch. One of the Development Plan conditions is that the buffer-yard be doubled from 20ft to 40ft for compatibility with the neighbors. r The Developer later claims under Prop 207 that he went along with the "coercive" condition because he saw no other way to approval. TOV must now choose to pay, waive or fight if the developer pursues a claim. 35 35 Prop . 207 Consequences The nature of a Prop. 207 Claim p- Anew land use regulation is either "Adopted or Applied" to the land since your ownership; and ir The new regulation reduces your ability to use divide, sell, or possess the land; and p- Your perception is that there is an associated decrease in the fair market value of your land. 36 36 Prop . 207 Consequences Continued . . . 110:1,Fip ➢ The burden is on the Town to prove to you or the court (if necessary) : 1) That the regulation falls under a Prop. 207 exception; or 2) That any decrease in value is unrelated to the regulation; or 3) That there is no fair market value decrease. 37 37 Prop . 207 Consequences Continued . . . 'ir ➢ Land Use Regulation will likely become more static because: ➢ Significant land use regulation often reduces a property owners ability to use, divide, sell or possess his land. � Project-specific regulation through proposed conditions on development plans or plats may reduce a property owners ability to use, divide, sell or possess his land. 38 38 Prop . Consequences Continued Financial Implications Additional Staff Time Additional consultant expenses to support health & safety regulation Appraisals / Appraiser Time Expense of litigation even if TOV prevails on a claim Court costs (including attorney's fees) along with the diminution in value if the owner prevails. With lesser or no AMRRP Coverage 39 39 Reduced Risk Retention Pool Coverage ! > Prop 207 claims are NOT covered by the Pool. (No "takings" claims are covered.) ➢ Other Land use claims and defense are paid 80/20. ✓ 20% paid by the Town. vi 80% paid by the Pool. (Per AMRRP Coverage documents and confirmed with pool officials) 40 40 Recommendations : 44.4.4 P&Z Director and Legal need to: ✓ Conduct Study Sessions with DRB, P&Z Commission BOA and HPC; ✓ Train P&Z, Building Safety and Public Works staff; v Review Town Code and OVZCR to look for problematic language and report back to Council; Note: Process regulations (as opposed to substantive land use regulations) are unlikely to lead to valid Prop. 207 claims. 41 41 v Land Use Review Recommendations ➢ If reviewing development plans or plats, any additional conditions should be based on : ✓ Specific Code Provisions, or s( Evident health and safety concerns. 42 42 to Process Recommendations Legal Department needs to finalize a waiver form and claims process, based on the League of Cities and Towns proposals; and present to Council for review and adoption . ➢ Legal, P&Z and Annexation staff need to develop a new translational zoning process and guidelines for future annexations and report back to Council . 43 ‘ i Prop . 207 Claims Recommendation Form a Claim Review Committee comprised of the Town Attorney, the Zoning Director, and an Appraiser. p- The Committee will meet ASAP within the 90-day claim period and make a report and recommendation to Council on each claim. Council will determine how each claim will ultimately be handled. v The review committee assess proposed regulation and report to Council regarding the Prop. 207 risk. 44 44 19-1 Community Outreach , i_ • For New development, Planning and Zoning staff should perform a comprehensive review of proposed CC&R's. • For existing development, Planning and Zoning staff should encourage and assist in the adoption of CC&R's TOV representatives should meet with HOA's to explain the importance of HOA's in preserving the quality of existing neighborhood character through CC&R's. These Meetings would be a forum to discuss with neighbors HOA formation and adoption of CC&R's to protect neighborhood character over time. 45 45 It is not all bad news ! ! D iliolor)141114‘11111‘iii-or.. 1fit^ d 46 46 \ 0// Oro Valley is generally in 1/4 ;� shape to cope with Prop . 207 ! Oro Valley already has extensive land use regulations in place. •- These regulations are grandfathered under Prop. 207. Much of the property in TOV is protected by CC&R's Unlike older and/or more urbanized municipalities, Oro Valley doesn't have significant slum/blighted areas in need of redevelopment. p- Aside from any future annexations, the Town is near build- out and hard zoning is already in place. 47 47