Loading...
1991-28694-Minutes for Meeting September 11,1991 Recorded 9/26/199191-28094 0107 1566 MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS September 11, 1991 Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order at 10 a.m. Board members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Nancy Pope Schlangen. Also present were Rick Isham, County Counsel; Bruce White, Assistant County Counsel; Susie Penhollow, County Clerk; and George Read, Planning Director. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Consent agenda items before the Board were: #1, approval of Amendment #1 to the 1991-93 Mental Health Intergovernmental Agreement #09-001; #2, signature of Order 91-117 establishing road name of Farview Drive; #3, signature of Personal Services Contract with Deschutes Auction Services for County Auction on September 14, 1991; #4, signature of Order 91-119 Transferring Cash within Various Funds of the Deschutes County Budget; #5, chair signature of liquor license for Redmond Moose Lodge and Liquor License renewals for LaSiesta Cafe #2, Sunriver Country Store, Sunriver Marketplace, Jackpot Food Mart, Thousand Trails Inc., Sunsets at Orion Greens, Fast Market, and two for Inn of the 7th Mountain; #6, signature of city plat for Aspen Heights Phase 2 for Pat Gisler; #7, signature of MP -91-24 creating two parcels of 1 and 3.7 acres in an R-1 zone for Rehbein; and #8 signature of MJP-90-2 creating two 41 acre lots in an EFU-40 zone. THROOP: I'll move approval of the eight consent agenda items. SCHLANGEN: Commissions amendment. I will second that with change in the Mental Health Intergovernmental Agreement from 56 to 46 beds. Throop and Maudlin agreed to this �:'ieidly VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 2. PUBLIC HEARING: MOODY EOUESTRIAN ARENA Before the Board was a public hearing concerning the conditions placed in the Hearings Officer's decision on the Moody conditional use application for an equestrian arena for the breeding, boarding and training of horses in the MUA-10 zone. CHED PAGE 1 MINUTES: 9/11/91 lY : r. r �..,_. co Before the Board was a public hearing concerning the conditions placed in the Hearings Officer's decision on the Moody conditional use application for an equestrian arena for the breeding, boarding and training of horses in the MUA-10 zone. CHED PAGE 1 MINUTES: 9/11/91 0107 1567 George Read reported that this application was essentially denied by the Hearings Officer, however the terms of denial were unclear. The Hearings Officer's conclusion was that the application could not be approved in the form submitted, however he felt the exclusion of this type of facility as a conditional use in the MUA-10 zone was possibly an oversight on the part of the County since it was a conditional use in the EFU zone. Therefore, the Hearings Officer allowed the applicant 120 days to seek a legislative amendment to the ordinance to allow boarding, breeding and training of horses in the MUA-10 zone. Legal Counsel and staff felt this was an inappropriate condition. Even if a legislative amendment were made, a new application would still be required since the rules in effect at the time of application were the ones by which the application had to be considered. Since the Hearings Officer found that the application could not be approved under the rules currently in effect, the application should have been denied. A denial would not preclude the applicant from filing for a legislative amendment and filing an appropriate application should the amendment be approved. He clarified that this public hearing was to consider testimony limited to this issue alone, not the merits of the application. Commissioner Throop asked specifically why the statute precluded the hearings officer from giving a conditional decision. He felt it was an ingenious why to resolve the issue. Bruce White said the Hearings Officer's decision stated that the application could not be approved under the County's current ordinances. All the Hearings Officer was authorized to do was say "yes" or "no" on the applications before him. He didn't have the authority to hold an application in abeyance and condition it on some process over which he had no authority. Under the basic concepts of administrative law, if the applicant could not meet his burden, then the only choice before the Hearings Officer was to deny the application. The Hearings Officer had no authority nor was he given authority in the County's procedures ordinance to determine anything other than "does this annlication meet the criteria or does it not." There was LUBA case law which said that if the approval criteria could not be met, there was no condition which could be placed on the application that would be permissible. He could not substitute a condition for meeting the burden of proof and, in this case, the applicant had not met the burden of proof because there was no use in the zone which permitted the activity the applicant was proposing. State law required that every decision be made with findings and decisions showing that the standards had been met. In this case, the decision clearly showed that the standards had not been met, and there was nothing in law to allow the Hearings Officer to say "they haven't been met but I'll give them another try." PAGE 2 MINUTES: 9/11/91 010'7 1568 George Read said if this decision were allowed to stand, and the application applied for and received the ordinance amendment and the County tried to process this application again, it would not hold up under appeal which would not serve the application nor the opponents. Even if an amendment to the ordinance was requested and approved, a new application would still have to be filed. Bruce White also referred to the Hearings Officer's condition giving the applicant only 120 in which to apply for an amendment, when, in reality, the applicant could file for an amendment at any time. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing. He asked if any of the Commissioners had had any prehearing contacts on this issue. The Board members indicated they had not. Chairman Maudlin asked if there was anyone who wished to challenge the ability of any member of the Commission to hear this matter. There were no challenges. Myer Avedovich, 315 NW Greenwood, Bend, attorney for the applicants, testified that he could see both sides of this narrow issue, but was concerned that this much effort was being spent on a technical interpretation rather than on resolving the issue. He said his clients had not decided whether to spend the money to ask for a legislative amendment. He felt that requesting a legislative amendment was the function of the government not the individual citizen. He had discussed some other options which currently existed within the MUA-10 zone which might work for his clients. He said that the Hearing Officers, on a regular basis, did condition their approvals. If those conditions were not met, the approvals were denied. He read Mr. Fitch's decision to state that if his clients did get a legislative amendment approved, they would still have to come back with another application with another $500 filing fee. His clients were not currently using their property in any manner which was a violation of the County's current zoning ordinance. His clients had been cited in the past and did not wish to be cited again. They had not and would not apply for a temporary permit of any kind. Any activity they felt was questionable, they would move to other locations in the County "most of which are in MUA-10 zones and nobody seems to care." His clients could not attend this hearing because they had an out-of-state trip planned. Commissioner Throop was curious why Mr. Avedovich felt a legislative amendment should be applied for by the government versus an individual, since the citizens of the County through County government had already made the decision about which activities would be allowed in the MUA zone. He asked why it wouldn't be the role of the individual property owner who wanted to see that list expanded to apply for the amendment. Myer Avedovich felt it was the function of the government to PAGE 3 MINUTES: 9/11/91 010'7 1569 make sure that their ordinances were correct and up-to-date, and he had been told by staff that in this case, it was an oversight that this activity was left out of the ordinance. Commissioner Throop pointed out that he had not heard staff say that this was an oversight and a mistake. He felt that if the Moody's did make application for a legislative text amendment, it would be very controversial with a number of citizens on both sides of the issue. He felt it was a "very live issue," and not a "slam dunk." Mr. Avedovich said he was told "point blank" by the staff that it was an oversight, and it was brought up at the hearing that it was simply an oversight. Commissioner Throop felt that the County's ordinances were pretty well up-to-date and that a commercial use in a residential zone was a "live issue." Chairman Maudlin said he did not read the Hearings Officer's decision to require that another application be filed and another fee paid if a legislative amendment were approved. Greg Hendrix, 716 NW Harriman, Bend, testified representing "the neighbors," who were in opposition to the application. He said they also felt the zone change was a "live issue" regardless of what any staff member might have said, and that they wanted to be heard on that issue. He felt another reason why the case couldn't be held open for 120 days, was because the County was required to make a decision within 120 days and the 120 -day extension would go beyond that. They completely agreed with Mr. White that the charge under the code was to either approve or deny the application. He agreed with Mr. Avedovich that conditions were regularly placed on conditional uses, however there were no regular extensions to allow the applicant to meet the standards. The conditional use part of the code listed the conditions which the Hearings Officer could apply for health, safety and welfare, but it did not list "zone change. " He felt the Hearings Officer went outside of his authority to require a zone change as one of the conditions. He thought the Hearings Officer's decision denied the application, which meant that the applicants would have to reapply if there was a legislative amendment or a change in the application. He was concerned that the mention of 120 days in the decision might be construed as granting the applicant a temporary permit to operate. We was thankful to hear from Mr. Avedovich that he and his clients were not reading the decision that way. They felt there were good arguments as to why this kind of activity was left out of the MUA-10 zone but agreed that this was not the appropriate time to argue those issues. They requested that the Board clarify the decision by stating that the application was denied. He asked for a show of hands of those people who had hired him and were in support of what he had stated. Approximately 10 people raised their hands. PAGE 4 MINUTES: 9/11/91 0107 1570 Cleme Reinhardt, 61755 Fargo Lane, Bend, testified that she didn't have a problem with this use in the MUA-10 zone. She read the other allowed uses in the MUA-10 zone (i.e. dude ranches, private rodeo livestock arena, recreational uses) and felt the use being requested would fit in this area also. This type of use happened all over the state and was not unique to Deschutes County. She felt this kind of facility was needed and felt that it was left out of the ordinance by mistake. She asked for a show of hands of people who supported the horse industry, and a couple of people raised their hands. She pointed out that at the other hearing, there was a lot of support for the horse industry. There being no one else who wished to testify, the public hearing was closed. SCHLANGEN: I do not feel that it meets the conditions that we now have and so I move denial of the Hearings Officer's decision. THROOP: I'll second the motion. Chairman Maudlin agreed with Mr. Avedovich that this use had probably been left out of the zone by oversight. However he felt the best chance for the applicant was for the Board to deny their application. Commissioner Throop said he also had mixed emotions regarding this case. He felt that a commercial use in a residential zone was a very live issue, was very controversial, and would affect every exception area in Deschutes County. He hoped that another application would be filed so the County would have the opportunity to confront and resolve this issue. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 3. IMPOUNDMENT OF VEHICLES Rick Isham said he had received a copy of the Portland impoundment ordinance which the City of Bend was considering. Loismae Benson said that she was speaking on behalf of the Deschutes County Justice Evaluation Coalition which was formed in January of 1991 and had 24 members. They received 200 forms in a survey of law enforcement, judiciary and private groups which were overwhelmingly in favor the Portland regulations for impoundment of vehicles. In 1990, 1,095 arrests were made in Deschutes County for driving under the influence of intoxicants and in the first half of 1991 there were 657 showing a sizeable increase of arrests. They wanted PAGE 5 MINUTES: 9/11/91 0107 1571 to give law enforcement more tools to deal with these arrests. The two regulations they were supporting were from the Portland area: (1) impounding vehicles upon arrest and (2) the forfeiture of a nuisance vehicle after the conviction of a person driving under the influence of intoxicants. Chairman Maudlin said he had met with people from the court system and the police about a year and a half ago regarding the immediate impoundment of vehicles of drunk drivers. They felt that if the vehicles were impounded immediately, it would, in effect, be finding the drivers guilty at the time of arrest. The judges were concerned that if the individual was eventually found not guilty, the County would have to pick up the tab for the impoundment. Ms. Benson said she felt it should be considered a conviction when they tested 0.8 on the breath analysis. Nancy Wolfe, MADD chair lady, said that the forfeiture confiscation law in Portland was designed for people who were driving while suspended (DWS) because of a prior driving under the influence of intoxicants (DLIII), therefore the driver had already been found guilty. Chairman Maudlin clarified that it would apply on the second offence and she said it could even be on the third offense if the offender chose diversion for their first offence. Ms. Wolfe said the Portland law was not directed at the first-time offenders. Their law also allowed forfeiture for involvement in prostitution. In Portland, they just opened their impoundment facility which was an old rock quarry which the national guard helped them clear. Their only cost was the fencing and the building structure which was paid for out of funds from forfeitures (however these funds also came from drug impoundment forfeitures). Since December of 1989, there had been 632 auto confiscated and forfeited in the City of Portland of which 43% were from drunk driving DWS. In the beginning, they didn't have a place to store the vehicles and ended up towing them all over town which cost a lot of money. They were making money on the forfeitures, but advised that the County not look at it as a source of revenue. In 1989 when she testified before the legislature, the ACLU was strongly opposed to confiscation legislation for the same reasons that Chairman Maudlin mentioned, however they dropped the few cases they filed. Commissioner Schlangen asked if these forfeitures were for felony offenses and Ms. Wolfe said yes. Commissioner Schlangen pointed out that the City of Portland had spent $70,000 from their general fund and asked Ms. Wolfe how they were "making money" on their program. Ms. Wolfe said the program was making money now because they had their own holding lot for the impoundments and didn't have to pay for storage. Commissioner Schlangen asked about the $36,000 in public notification costs. Ms. Wolfe said there was potential PAGE 6 MINUTES: 9/11/91 0107 1.5 72 for reducing those costs through the legislature, however at the present time the notification was through publication in the newspaper which was very expensive. The Motor Vehicles Department had received approval to do their notification by mail. She said it was the City's responsibility to notify all of the lien holders on the vehicle. The staff needed to handle the City's program included one officer and one and one-half clerical in the City Auditors office and, at the impound facility, there was a site manager (24 -hours so three positions) and three clerical. However, she felt this was much cheaper than feeding and housing inmates. The most current police report indicated that the fatalities in the City of Portland were down 24% from this time a year ago. There were undoubtedly other influences involved with this reduction. MADD had purchased passive alcohol sensors and video cameras to give officers another tool to use. Michael Dugan, Deschutes County District Attorney, said there was a serious drunk driving problem in Deschutes County. The statistics and convictions were going up which didn't seem to be impacting the DUII offender. One reason was that there wasn't sufficient jail capacity to sentence DUII offenders to the time in jail that they should be. He commended the Commissioners for putting a bond measure on the ballot to build a new jail facility which was expandable. He said 200- 300 felony DWS were arrested in Deschutes each year which could result in the forfeiture of 200-300 cars per year. About 40% of all DUII offenders who were arrested were second, third, or fourth DUII offenders. Typically, the felony DWS person did not have insurance and were a danger to everyone. The State of Oregon sentencing guidelines rated the felony DWS at the lowest level of seriousness, and the maximum conviction penalty would be 18 month of probation and a maximum of 30 days in jail as a condition of that probation. Since Deschutes County had a budget crisis, it was important who would be sharing the costs of the forfeiture program. If the District Attorney were given that responsibility, something else would have to fall by the wayside, i.e. shoplifters, bad check writers, etc. However, they wholeheartedly supported the program but felt there needed to be a system in place that would be beneficial for the County, Legal Counsel, and the District Attorney's Office. Dennis Maloney, Director of the Department of Community Corrections, said they were supportive of the program. He was concerned that tying the forfeiture to the DWS would restrict the number of people he felt should be losing their cars. The courts had been extremely cooperative in adding, as a condition of probation, just about anything that his people would propose. He suggested meeting with the courts and the justice evaluation coalition to propose that a standard condition of probation for misdemeanant probation and bench PAGE 7 MINUTES: 9/11/91 0107 1573 probation be the confiscation of the car at the time of apprehension if there were intoxicants involved in the crime (.08). The County had the authority to impose sanctions for a technical violation if the court gave the County that authority. Chairman Maudlin said that Judge Perkins had been using this method already. Since he "can't impound the people, he's been impounding the cars." He felt that what Mr. Maloney was proposing was already legal since there was already a law that said on the second offence, the County could take the car. He felt that a County ordinance wasn't going to do any good if they couldn't get the judges to use it. Bob Slawson, a member of the Deschutes Retired Educators Association, said their association was on record favoring the provisions Ms. Benson presented. He felt it was more important to impound cars of drunken drivers that to prosecute shop lifters, if there wasn't enough money to do both. John Sherman, 3012 NE Rockchuck Drive, Bend, said he saw an article regarding the number of people in Deschutes County that had been killed, and he was surprised by the large proportion of people killed by drunk drivers. He felt something had to be done to save the lives of the citizens. Stanley Owen, #8 Goldfinch Lane, Sunriver, said he was a member of the Justice Coalition but was speaking on behalf of the Sunriver Police Department and the Board of Directors of the Central Oregon Alcohol and Drug Council who both strongly supported this ordinance. Chairman Maudlin pointed out that every member of the Commission was in favor of doing something about the drunk driving problem, but had been held back by the inability to deal with the first-time offender. He felt that all of the parties needed to get together and come up with an ordinance which would be enforceable in Deschutes County. Commissioner Schlangen thanked Ms. Benson and the members of her committee who worked very hard on bringing this proposal to the Commission. She felt there was a way the ordinance could be written so that it would be enforceable. Commissioner Throop felt there were still a number of issues that needed to be resolved, but he felt there was a very strong consensus throughout the County that this was an important move that the County needed to make for the public safety. He suggested putting together a working group to identify the issues and put together something to resolve these issues without "breaking the bank." PAGE 8 MINUTES: 9/11/91 0107 1574 Jim Carlton, City of Redmond Police Chief, and Dave Malkin, City of Bend Police Chief, said they were interested in the passage of an ordinance by the County. They felt it should be done County -wide for consistency. Jim Carlton said the Portland ordinance had withstood the test of legal challenges. He felt the ordinance was needed because the drunken driver was the most dangerous criminal in Deschutes County. They killed and injured more people than anyone else, and they needed a car to do that. Dave Malkin elaborated on how the Portland ordinance worked. He said that just because a vehicle was seized did not mean that the vehicle was forfeited --first it was reviewed by legal counsel. Chairman Maudlin asked that County Counsel review the Portland Ordinance and work with the cites in Deschutes County to come up with a similar ordinance to bring back to the Board in 60- 90 days. 4. LAPINE PARR AND RECREATION DISTRICT BOARD MEMBER ELECTION Susie Penhollow said that in March of 1991 there was an election for Board members on the LaPine Park and Recreation District. According to law, an abstract had to be sent to the District and then the District would accept the results of the election 'within a 30 -day time period. After receipt of acceptance of the election results from the Board, she would furnish a certificate of election to those who were elected. In August, she was contacted by Tom French from the LaPine Park Board to swear in the new Board members. At that time, she did not realized that she hadn't received a certificate of election from the district. After reviewing the statue, she referred the question to Legal Counsel before proceeding. Rick Isham said that if the Park District records indicated that they had accepted the results of the election within 30 - days after the Clerk mailed them the abstract, then that step had been completed, however he did not know for sure if they had. There was no time limit on when the Clerk had to issue the certificate of an election. So if the District would notify the County Clerk in writing of the election results, then the Clerk could issue the certificate. The question was raised as to whether the District could conduct business since there were only two qualified acting members of the district which was less than a quorum of the five -member board. He felt they needed at least three members to conduct business. There was a provision in state law that when less than a quorum of a district board existed, the Board of County Commissioners could appoint a person to that board so that they would have a quorum to conduct business even if it were on a 2-1 vote. The district could then do their necessary communications with the County Clerk concerning their election. He believed that Tom French and Gordon Wanek were PAGE 9 MINUTES: 9/11/91 010'7 1575 duly elected and qualified members of the district board. Two of the members who were elected on the March 26 election (Pat Rongey and Sandra Marks) received the highest number of votes and desired to serve but had not taken their oath of office. There was another vacancy (position #5) for which no candidate filed, however the largest number of write-ins were for Louie Dalsoglio. Mr. Dalsoglio indicated he did not want to serve on the district board, and therefore the district board appointed Patrick Kennedy to the position 5 vacancy. Other people (Claudeane Ferrel and Linda Crew) had expressed interest in being appointed to the district Board by the County Commissioners if they decided to do so. Commissioner Schlangen asked if the County Commissioners decided to appoint someone to the district board, if it would have to be one of the people who had won the election. Rick Isham said the Board could appoint anyone they wanted to the third position. Sandra Marks received the highest number of votes for position number three while Pat Rongey received the highest number of votes for position number 4. Sandra Marks, 16366 Sparks Drive, LaPine, said she replaced Carol Shotwell on the Park District Board before she was elected, so she had been involved with the district since January. When the Board was originally formed a year ago, Susie Penhollow came down and officially swore in the elected officers. She said the officers were never informed that there was supposed to be anything in writing accepting or denying an election. Once the officers were sworn in, the District Board thought that was the standard procedure for accepting the election. When they received the most recent election results, they read them into the record on August 13, 1991, and made arrangements with Susie Penhollow to swear in the new officers. Ms. Marks said they hadn't received the results of the election prior to this time. Susie Penhollow said they had been mailed within 10 days after the election (approximately first week in April). Ms. Marks felt there had been confusion about the official address of the district. Commissioner Throop mentioned that they also needed to have their current address registered with the Secretary of State. Ms. Marks continued that when they discussed the swearing in with Susie Penhollow, they were not informed there was further paper work to do. Rick Isham clarified that the first election was conducted by the Board of County Commissioners who canvassed the votes and declared the results. Once the district was formed, it was up to the district to conduct the election. Ms. Marks said this was their first election and they were unaware of the all procedures involved in an election. Ms. Marks said the District Board was requesting that the County Commission appoint a third member to their Board so they would have a quorum and could proceed to complete the election properly. The District Board requested PAGE 10 MINUTES: 9/11/91 010'7 1576 that the third member be Pat Kennedy who had worked with the public and the baseball people. Commissioner Throop said that historically when the County Commission appointed members to a Board, they had tried to get a sense of who the community would prefer. He asked how broad-based the support was for Pat Kennedy. Ms. Marks said the reason they chose him was because there was a broad spectrum of support with the baseball group, the park and the kids which would help level off some of the current opposition to the Park Board. Chairman Maudlin asked if the newly elected members had been sworn in by the District. Ms. Marks said they had been sworn in on Monday. Chairman Maudlin asked Legal Counsel if, under the circumstances, the County Commission still needed to select a District Board member. Rick Isham said that no certification of election had ever been issued and the newly elected members couldn't been sworn into office until the certificate was issued. Chairman Maudlin felt that Sandra Marks should be appointed to the third board position since she had received the highest number of votes for that position. Then the Park and Recreation Board would have enough members to conduct business. SCHLANGEN: I move that Sandra Marks be appointed to position #3 on the LaPine Park and Recreation District Board of Directors. THROOP: I'll second. Under discussion, Claudeane Ferrel, expressed her desire to be selected as the third member of the Board. She felt that the Park Board members were out of touch with the community and that putting Sandra Marks on the Board would not improve the situation. There had been considerable frustration in the community regarding a "contract" between the Park Board and the Little League program. Commissioner Throop said the Commission would normally take the wishes of the voters into consideration when making an appointment of this kind and that Sandra Marks had received the most votes for that position. Commissioner Schlangen expressed concern about whether Ms. Ferrel would be able to work positively with the current Park Board members. Gordon Wanek, 50825 Huntington Road, LaPine and a current Park Board member, felt that the "contract" had nothing to do with PAGE 11 MINUTES: 9/11/91 5. 6. 7. 0.07 1577 the election. He felt the representatives elected by the community should be honored. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES BUILDING PERMIT FEE WAIVER FOR VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT Before the Board was a request from the Four Rivers Vector Control District that their building fees be waived. They came to CDD in October of 1990 to apply for a permit and learned that a site plan review would be required. They didn't come back to apply for the permit and site plan approval until the end of November. The Board of Commissioners approved a waiver of their building fees. Site plan approval was granted in January of 1991, but no work was done on the permit because of the time of year (the district could only build in the fall). The permit expired in June of 1991. They reapplied in August of 1991. The new building permit would cost between $400-$500. THROOP: I'll move that one-half of the fees be waived. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES The Commissioners agreed that the waiver would set no precedent and that the other half of the fees would be absorbed by Community Development. WEEKLY WARRANT VOUCHERS Before the Board were weekly bills in the amount of $216,989.02. THROOP: Move approval subject to review. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES CITY SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR MAGILLS LANDING Before the Board was signature of a City Subdivision Plat for Magills Landing on Lakeside Place in Bend. PAGE 12 MINUTES: 9/11/91 0107 1578 THROOP: I'll move signature. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 8. SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION FUND CONTRACTS Before the Board was signature of Special Transportation fund Contracts with COCOA, RAP, All Outdoors, Bend Dial -a -ride, and the Opportunity Foundation. THROOP: I'll move approval of signature. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 9. AUTHORIZATION FOR SIGNATURE OF FINANCIAL SEGREGATION AGREEMENT Before the Board was authorization for signature of a Financial Segregation Agreement for Kenneth Ullman. Chairman Maudlin continued the meeting until 2:30 p.m. Chairman Maudlin reconvened the meeting at 2:40 p.m. George Read explained to the Board that the banks would not make loans on large acreage while the County Comprehensive Plan prohibited partitioning or subdivision the property. Therefore the Community Development Department had started doing "financial segregation agreements" to help the public get loans. In this case, 2.93 acres was being segregated from the larger parcel for purposes of the loan only. The property owners understood that this "segregation" did not create two legal lots of record and that they could not sell, transfer, convey, or grant any interest in the real property to any other person. If the bank foreclosed, the property owner would not be able to sell the larger parcel to someone who wanted to have a dwelling, unless he purchased enough adjoining property to meet the minimum acreage requirement and then requested a lot line adjustment. This occasionally created problems when the people who had purchased the property did not understand the ramifications of a financial segregation. THROOP: I'll move approval of this Financial Segregation Agreement. PAGE 13 MINUTES: 9/11/91 0107 1579 SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Tom h oop Co- fission r Nancy Po a la. en, Commissioner Dick Maudlin, Chairman BOCC:alb PAGE 14 MINUTES: 9/11/91