Loading...
1986-18398-Minutes for Meeting December 18,1985 Recorded 9/17/19864 ted' DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES: COMMIS IONERS DECEMB R 18, 1985 VOL 548 3: ,1 4.r 41:w int"; Lo The meeting was called to order by Chairman Larry Tuttle for the purpose of holding three public hearings. Commissioner Maudlin and Commissioner Prante were also in attendance. Continuation of Public Hearing for Industrial Rezoning/ LaPine Industrial Site. Chairman Tuttle explained that this was to amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for industrial rezoning in the LaPine area for two approximately 90 acre parcels, rezoning from RR10 to rural industrial lands. Chairman Tuttle opened the hearing, and acknowledged that in the interim they have received a letter from James E. Curtis, Regional Manager of the Oregon Economic Development Department, to be submitted to the record. Chairman Tuttle read aloud the letter. Also, Chairman Tuttle noted for the record that he had received a telephone call the day before from Mr. Devlin at Canada Waferboard Ltd. reiterating Mr. Curtis' letter, indicating their continuing interest in the LaPine industrial site. The second letter they received was from 1000 Friends of Oregon raising some specific objections to the rezoning from RR10. Staff has reviewed the letter, as findings are developed for the rezone, they will be able to develop a specific response to that. They also met with Mr. James Ross, Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development, the day before this hearing to try to identify the status of Deschutes County's plan acknowledgement and the limited acknowledgement that the County would expect on the 30th and 31st of January, 1986. Given that time frame as set out in the review and as a result of that meeting, Chairman Tuttle recommended to the Board that they take a straw vote today as to the rezone and to the elements that need to be included in the findings, but allow staff the period of time from now until the Board of Commissioners meeting on January 8, 1986, to make certain that the County is developing findings and can take care of some of the concerns raised in the letter from 1000 Friends of Oregon. Commissioner Maudlin and Commissioner Prante concurred with this recommendation. The decision on the zone change will not be final until the ordinance is prepared. There was some discussion on the date and whether or not such a move would delay the zone change. It was agreed to delay the hearing until 10:00 AM on December 24th. Commissioner Prante stated that she wanted to go on record as being in support of the zone change. It was agreed to continue the hearing for the specific purpose of considering the specific objection raised in the letter of December 13, 1985 DECEMBER 18, 1985 MEETING MINUTES: PAGE 1 PW VOL /fIAGE 549 from 1000 Friends of Oregon. If Commissioner Prante can be reached by telephone in California she will also participate in the hearing via telephone. Chairman Tuttle called for a motion to that effect. MOTION: PRANTE so moved. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: TUTTLE: AYE. PRANTE: AYE. MAUDLIN: AYE. Continuation of Public Hearing on Ordinance Amending Ordinance PL -15 to allow smaller lot sizes in Rural Service Center Zones. Chairman Tuttle explained that this hearing had been continued from last week to allow written testimony to be submitted. There had been no additional written comments submitted to date. There were two issues (1) using 20,000 square foot lots in RSC zones rather than the definition of half acre lots, and (2) delete the requirement that those RSC zones be part of a sewer district, inasmuch as they were individually going to be reviewed for compliance with DEQ subsurface sewage disposal. Chairman Tuttle entertained a motion to approve the zone change to RSC zones to allow 20,000 square foot lots and delete the requirement for inclusion in a sanitary sewer district. Chairman Tuttle opened the public hearing, stating that every- thing that he had just stated should be included in the public hearing. MOTION: PRANTE so moved. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: TUTTLE: AYE. PRANTE: AYE. MAUDLIN: AYE. Staff will develop findings and the Board will consider the ordinance when it is available. Continuation of Public Hearing with Regard to Solid Waste Management Ordinance. Chairman Tuttle re -opened the public hearing. The first issue was that the Board had a request to present verbal testimony. Chairman Tuttle stated that he believed they had concluded the last portion of the hearing with the understanding that they would not accept additional verbal testimony. If they allow verbal testimony today, they will have to delay dealing with the ordinance today. Counselor Karen Green stated that there may be a problem with re -opening the hearing to verbal testimony when at the previous testimony other parties had been informed that the DECEMBER 18, 1985 MEETING MINUTES: PAGE 2 hearing was being closed except for written testimony. The attorney who requested the opportunity to speak stated that they only received the revision of the ordinance yesterday afternoon. Secondly, he misunderstood at the meeting last week that they would not be able to address the Commission in other than written form at this time. He stated that he had prepared his comments for presentation verbally in draft form and offered to submit that to the record in writing. He is concerned that there is an issue that needs to be addressed which speaks to the exemptions which were offered or included as discussed next week. He wanted the opportunity to bring those points to the Commission's attention. Chairman Tuttle asked if these points could be considered on an amendment basis. Ms. Green responded that they have already been submitted by Neil Bryant, Counsel for the Inn of the Seventh Mountain, about a week ago. Ms. Green was prepared to summarize for the Board at this time all of the comments that were received after the last meeting, including those and any response she made to those comments. This would give the Board the opportunity to review what has been done with the newest draft of the ordinance. Ms. Green proceeded to summarize written comments received. She had received written comments from two members of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee: Ron Stroble and Mark Bowers. She also received written comments from Neil Bryant, representing the Inn of the Seventh Mountain; and from Michael Mills, whose comments were received this morning; and Terry O'Sullivan, representing the franchisees. Most of the written comments that were received had were "housekeeping" changes; changes in the readability of various provisions of the ordinance. The majority of those had been incorporated into the draft, however, those do not make any substantive changes. A number of substantive changes had been suggested, and a couple had been included in the current draft. Ms. Green had submitted a memo to the Board yesterday outlining one of the major substan- tive changes from draft number two to draft number three. One of them was to incorporate into the draft the exemption for the hauling by residential property owners of tennant's garbage, which was the amendment which was submitted last Tuesday night by Commissioner Maudlin. That is incorporated. The current draft reflects no change in the current lack of requirement of curbside recycling by exempted haulers, such as mobile home park owners. DEQ does not have a formal position on this issue, however, their informal position is that they would like to see the local jurisdictions require curbside recycling in addition to commercial haulers, but that is not in their rules in any written form. DECEMBER 18, 1985 MEETING MINUTES: PAGE 3 VOL <9P#,WE 551 Ms. Green also noted the addition of an emergency clause to make the effective date January 1, 1986. There was one additional substantive change which Ms. Green added at the request of the members of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, a provision which allows the Board in its discretion to require an audit of franchisee's books to support an applica- tion for a rate adjustment or to review their submissions on their gross receipts upon which the franchise fee is based and that that audit, if requested by the Board or ordered by the Board, would be at the franchisee's expense, not at the Board's expense. Ms. Green noted that there were other substantive changes suggested, principally by Neil Bryant. Those essentially are the three proposed amendments which were submitted in writing this morning by Mr. Klug. They are basically three proposed amendments: (1) to state in the Purpose and Policy of the ordinance that one of the Board's policies in developing this ordinance is to provide the opportunity for individuals and businesses to haul their own garbage; (2) to extend the exempt- ions for self -hauling to commercial landlords who rent to commercial tennants, not limiting it just to residential property but also to commercial property; and (3) an amendment to the specific requirements for a collection franchise that if a person is going to request a franchise for an area in which there has been no service previously, because there had been no development there, that is a basis upon which someone could apply for a new franchise. Previously, and in the current draft ordinance, that issue is presented in the request for expansion of a franchise area. If there is a new subdivision developed but no one is serving it, how should that be addressed-- should they allow the nearest franchiser to expand their service, or allow another hauler the opportunity to come in and serve that new area. Those basically were the other substantive changes that were not incorporated into the ordinance because it was her sense from the Board in previous discussions that that was not the direction the Board wanted to go. At this time, the meeting was interupted because of a bond closing. Chairman Tuttle subsequently reconvened the public hearing. With regard to the issue relating to a contingency where an area was not covered in the franchise area map, Ms. Green stated that Mr. Klug had pointed out that she earlier had not correctly stated the entirety of the exemption he had requested. His exemption specifically had to do with destination resorts, and if adopted, would exempt the collection of solid waste by a manage- ment agent or operator of the destination resort. The current exemption would likely not cover destination resorts because the DECEMBER 18, 1985 MEETING MINUTES: PAGE 4 WL t � ?a�;E 55? property is not owned by the management company. This proposed exemption would cover the management companies or non -owner operators. At this time, the Board took a five minute break, allowing parties to ask questions of Ms. Green. Ms. Green stated that with regard to Section 904 and Section 906, two parties had raised issues that she felt could be resolved by leaving Section 906 as written to cover the contingency of a new area released from Forest lands or other lands that are not presently in a franchised area by the map. This provision would allow a franchisee to expand their franchise into that area. The concern expressed about the wording of Section 904 is that if a new subdivision were to be developed within an already defined franchise area delineated by a map that any person could come in and apply for a franchise for that new subdivision. That was not the intention. That can be corrected by a minor language change to limit the ability of a person to apply for that type of area only if it is not already in a franchised area. A change in Subsection 3.B. on the bottom of page 14 and the top of page 15 to make necessary corrections was suggested to limit it only if it is not already in an already franchised area. That would satisfy the franchisees that their franchises would not have pieces of it carved out because of the development of a new subdivision. Expanding the requirement of curbside recycling to mobile home parks and similar entities which under this draft would be exempt from any provisions of this ordinance can be accomplished simply by some interlineation to sections if the Board wishes to include that requirement. Commissioner Maudlin stated that this could be added at a later date, and it was not necessary to bring that item up at this time. It was the concensus of the Board to consider this at a future time, especially since those parties interested in the mobile home issues were not present at this time. One final issue was the recommendation related to the destination resorts. There are two separate recommendations; one is to exempt commercial landlords and one is to exempt destination resorts. The destination resort exemption had come from Mr. Klug this morning, and Mr. Bryant had previously submitted a proposed exemption for commercial landlords, such as people who own a small business park or something similar, where they presently haul solid waste for their tennants. These amendments do not appear in the present draft; they are proposed amendments before the Board today. Commissioner Maudlin noted that currently, the exemption that allows the owner of a residential building to haul trash for their tennants does not extend to the owners of a commercial building. He recommended that commercial use be restricted to DECEMBER 18, 1985 MEETING MINUTES: PAGE 5 franchise haulers. As to destination resorts, handle that on the basis of residential property, and specifically leave out the area of subcontracting because they get into the same situation with having no basic control. Commissioner Maudlin stated the intent of the ordinance to be that if individual residential owners wanted to haul their own trash, that would be allowed, but they would not be able to form a homeowners association and contract that service out to an individual. The exemption is keyed to ownership. They are assuming that typically destination resorts include both some private ownership and some outside ownership. Owners can haul their tennant's garbage, but indiv- idual homeowners cannot band together to form an association and contract to haul garbage. If they are not currently exempt under this draft, and they are not a franchisee, they may apply for a franchise, and must do so if they are going to haul someone else's garbage. Chairman Tuttle noted that the letters would be made part of the record and asked for the Board for any other clarifications they would like to have made at this time. Ms. Green stated that her understanding of the Board's direction to her is that to the degree that this draft does not express the Board's desire not to permit pieces of an existing franchise to be carved out due to new development, she will make corrections to Section 904 and 906. Chairman Tuttle stated that he understood the Board's concensus to be that the single change that needs to be made would be in 904. Ms. Green stated that in looking at it again it may be necessary to make one small change in 906 as well. At this time, the Board took a five-minute break allowing counsel to make those changes and read them into the record upon recon- vention. Ms. Green stated that after reviewing Sections 904 and 906 again and talking with Mr. O'Sullivan it appears that the only change needs to be in Section 906. They would leave Section 904 as it reads and it would permit current franchisees to apply to continue their franchise, it would also permit persons who are not exempt but are already currently providing service to apply for a franchise, such as the Inn of the Seventh Mountain. Section 906, which describes the expansion of a service area, would contain one change: in subsection 3, at the end of the sentence, delete the words "receiving collection service", and substitute the words "within any other franchisee's service area". The effect of that is that the franchisee could not expand its service area into another exist franchisee's service area. Chairman Tuttle called for any other additions, clarifications or corrections. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing. DECEMBER 18, 1985 MEETING MINUTES: PAGE 6 I Chairman Tuttle then called for consideration of Ordinance 85-037, with change just noted by counsel. MOTION: PRANTE moved to have the first and second readings by title only. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: TUTTLE: AYE. PRANTE: AYE. MAUDLIN: AYE. Chairman Tuttle so read. MOTION: PRANTE moved to adopt Ordinance 85-037. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: TUTTLE: AYE. PRANTE: AYE. MAUDLIN: AYE. At this time, Chairman Tuttle continued the meeting until 9:00 AM the following day for review of Requests for Proposals submitted in relationship to the grant application for Seat Belt Programs. Being no further business, the meeting was recessed. D S TES UNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS LAURENCE A. UTTLE, Chairman :;4SBZRISTOIW RANTE, Commissioner DLIN, C mmissioner BOCC:ss 86-102 DECEMBER 18, 1985 MEETING MINUTES: PAGE 7