The URL can be used to link to this page

1992-15546-Minutes for Meeting April 29,1992 Recorded 5/13/1992'02 15546 0118-0377 MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS April 29, 1992 Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order at 10 a.m G $.2r�d members in attendance were: Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Nancy Pope Schlangen. Also present were: Rick Isham, County Counsel; Paul Blikstad, Planner; Larry Rice, Public Works Director; and Brad Chalfant, Property Manager. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Consent agenda items before the Board were: #1, postponed; #2, approval of amendment to Four Rivers Vector Control District 1992 Annual Plan to allow limited testing of BTI application by ultralight aircraft; #3, signature of Order 92- 039 naming unnamed access road Sum View Drive; #4, signature of subdivision plat for Ironwood Court Subdivision west of Teakwood and Palmwood Court for David Wray, Jr.; and #5, signature of MP -91-40 dividing a 2.8 -acre parcel into two lots in a Highway Commercial zone on the corner of Badger and Parrell Roads. SCHLANGEN: Move signature of Items 2-5. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 2. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCES 92-036 AND 92-037 TO ADD PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO STRUCTURES EXCEPTED FROM THE BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS Before the Board was a public hearing on the adoption of Ordinances 92-036 and 92-037 amending the Deschutes County Code to add public schools to the list of structures excepted from the building height limitations. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing and asked for a staff report. Paul Blikstad said these two ordinance would amend Section 18.120.040 of Title 18 and Section 19.920.030 of Title 19 to add public schools to the height exceptions for structures in zones. Both of these requests went before the Bend Urban Area Planning Commission and the Deschutes County Planning Commission earlier this month, and both unanimously recommended that public schools be added to the building height exceptions sections. st, Y ' Cr=t c.. PAGE 1 MINUTES: 4-29-92 ;;nE,r 0118-03'78 Chairman Maudlin asked for testimony from the public. No one wished to testify, so the public hearing was closed. MAUDLIN: Entertain a motion for first and second readings of these two ordinances by title only. THROOP: So moved. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chairman Maudlin performed the first and second readings of Ordinance 92-036 by title only. SCHLANGEN: Move adoption. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chairman Maudlin performed the first and second readings of Ordinance 92-037 by title only. SCHLANGEN: Move adoption. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 3. RESOLUTION 92-024 ADOPTING FINAL REGIONAL STRATEGY DOCUMENTS FOR ROUND 3 Before the Board was signature of Resolutions 92-024A and 92- 024E adopting a final Regional Strategy Document for submission to the Oregon Economic Development Department for funding consideration under the Regional Strategies Program in the 1991-983 Biennium. Commissioner Throop said Regional Strategy Round 3 was considerably tighter in terms of the requirements which the state imposed and the time lines. He felt the County made a wise decision when it contracted the administration of the process to Mike Burton at COIL. PAGE 2 MINUTES: 4-29-92 0118-0379 Mike Burton said he was acting on behalf of the Deschutes Regional Strategy Committee to present the final recommendation from the committee to the Commission for adoption. The last time he made a presentation before the Board, the Committee recommended a list of eight projects which totaled about $805,000 to forward to state as part of the preliminary regional strategy document targeting the high technology industry. The state responding giving a "green light" on four of those projects: the Oregon Innovation Center in Redmond; a small private incubator in Sisters; the Advanced Technology Manufacturing Training Center proposed by CCC to be located in Redmond; and a link between CCC and OIT to deliver the best manufacturing practices and management techniques to high technology businesses. Those projects totaled $520,000. However, in the final development process, two of the projects came back substantially higher than the committee had recommended. The Oregon Innovation Center increased its request from $334,800 to $455,000 and the Advanced Technology Manufacturing Training Center increased its request from $85,000 to $100,000 for a total regional strategy request of $655,000. The total cost of the four projects was $4.3 million with $3.7 million of matching money which "was a real solid leverage figure." The committee considered whether to allow these increases. The Advanced Technology Manufacturing Training Center was not able to limit it activities to just high technology businesses, because they were not sure where all of their funding would come from. So there was a good chance that the State would find this project ineligible for funding under the program as a high technology project. The Committee recommended dropping this project from this region's #3 priority to its #4 priority, while allowing the increases in budgets. Without this project, the total request would be $555,000 which was not much higher than the $520,000 target. It was the committee's recommendation that the Commission adopt that level of funding and the priority order as changed. THROOP: I'll move that the Deschutes County Commission strongly and warmly embrace the regional strategy committee recommendation. SCHLANGEN: Second. Mike Burton said the State mandated in their response to the preliminary strategy that Deschutes County "would form a region with Klamath County." Klamath County was not willing to do that, so it was possible that Deschutes County would be penalized for not forming a multi -county region. He recommended that the County adopt a resolution welcoming a two -county region or a single county region to demonstrate a good faith effort on behalf of Deschutes County. PAGE 3 MINUTES: 4-29-92 4. 5. 6. 0118-0380 THROOP: Why don't we adopt, in concept, both resolutions with the same number, submit them both, and the State can take its choice. Friendly amendment? SCHLANGEN: Okay. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: Excused REQUEST FROM CYSC TO HIRE AT STEP D CYSC had asked that the Board approve the hiring of an Office Assistant III at Step D. CYSC had been informed that this request was denied. GATE PERMIT AT TETHEROW CROSSING SUBDIVISION Before the Board was signature of a letter to Steve Chordas, President of the Tetherow Crossing Property Owners' Association denying their request for a gate permit on NW Yucca Avenue in Tetherow Crossing. Both County Legal Counsel and the Public Works Director recommended denial of the permit since the request did not meet the requirements of Resolution 90-081 which governed gate permits in Deschutes County. SCHLANGEN: I move denial. THROOP: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES REQUEST FOR SOLID WASTE FEE WAIVER FOR BLM AND ODOT Before the Board was a request from the BLM to waive the fees for disposal of materials gathered during their cleanup along the Crooked River on May 5. Larry Rice also mentioned that ODOT brought material to the landfill from their "adopt a road" program where volunteers collected debris alongside state roads. He felt it was fitting that the Board also waive fees for state and county recognized organizations that participate in the "adopt a road" program. THROOP: I'll move fee waivers. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 4 MINUTES: 4-29-92 7. 9. 0118-0x81 HEMSTREET EASEMENT CASE Before the Board was a request from Rick Isham that the Board approve proceeding with the defense of this case. Chairman Maudlin said the HemstreetIs were pursuing their easement case, even though an agreement had been worked out. He didn't feel the County had any other option than to respond to the letter from the Hemstreet's attorney that they were in error. THROOP: I'll move the position that's espoused by the Board Chair which is to pursue this legal action. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES TAX REFUND ORDER 92-043 Before the Board was signature of Order 92-043 authorizing the refund of $1,383.73 in taxes pursuant to Board of Equalization orders. SCHLANGEN: Move refund Order 92-043. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES ACCOUNTS PAYABLE VOUCHERS Before the Board was approval of accounts payable vouchers in the amount of $135,073.76 and $149,460.02, plus tax overpayment refunds from the unsegregated account in the amount of $689.65. SCHLANGEN: Move approval upon review. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 10. MP -90-69 Before the Board was signature of a minor partition MP -90-69 dividing a 20 -acre parcel into two 10 -acre lots in an MUA-10 zone on Cascade Estates Drive. PAGE 5 MINUTES: 4-29-92 THROOP: I'll move signature of the MP. 0118-0382 SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 11. PLAT FOR EAGLE CREST XI Before the Board was signature of a plat for Eagle Crest XI, creating three townhouse lots within the existing Eagle Crest Resort. SCHLANGEN: Move signature. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 12. LIQUOR LICENSE FOR MT. BACHELOR Before the Board was chair signature of a liquor license renewal for Mt. Bachelor, Main Lodge. THROOP: I'll move chair signature. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 13. INDEMNITY AGREEMENT FOR ALPENGLO VELO CYCLING CLUB Before the Board was signature of an Indemnity Agreement for the Alpenglo Velo Cycling Club for a bicycling race to be held on May 23-25, 1992. SCHLANGEN: I move signature. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 6 MINUTES: 4-29-92 0118-0383 14. PUBLIC HEARING ON BIGLOR APPEAL Before the Board was a public hearing on the appeal of the Hearings Officer's approval of a conditional use for two nonfarm dwellings on two 20 -acre parcels created by dividing a 270 -acre parcel in an EFU zone adjacent to Byram Road, Bear Creek Road, and Highway 20 East of Bend. Chairman Maudlin asked for a staff report. Paul Blikstad gave a staff report indicating that this application went before the Hearings Officer on March 17, 1992, and his written decision was issued approving the applications on April 3, 1992. The appeal by the Deschutes County Committee for the Protection of Open Space was submitted on April 10th. He went over the criteria for reviewing this land use application. Chairman Maudlin asked if any member of the Board had had any prehearing contacts. All Board members said they had not. Chairman Maudlin asked if anyone wished to challenge any member of the Board to hear this appeal. There was none. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing and asked for testimony from the appellants (The Committee for the Protection of Open Space). Gladys Biglor, 62139 Cody Road, Bend, testified that she had three main points to make on the appeal. The first concerned soil, soil classification and unsuitability requirements. The second point was case law developed concerning EFU lands. The third was a "walk through the parcel" using slides exhibits. She asked that all the information in files CU -92-6 and MP -92- 5 be made a part of the record of this appeal hearing record A-92-5. Ms. Biglor referred to a map showing the property involved and the surrounding area with a soils overlay in color. There were three types of soils predominantly in this area: 406 in green, 410 in blue, and 481 was everything else. She talked with Ron Myrum from Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and found that the prime farm land soils were the 406 and 410. 481 was considered a complex of other soils types and was considered marginal and draughty. Rock outcropping in the 481 soils could be as high as 25%. On the 40 -acre parcel in question (marked in yellow on the same map) , the percentage of rock was far less than 25%, and she would attempt to prove that in the slide show. The red hatched area showed EFU lands. The areas with no markings were RR -10 and MUA-10 lands. Soil type 481 had the productive soil in between the rocky areas, and SCS recommended reseeding the area with draught tolerant species when using this type of soil for range land. The Hearings Officer's decision indicated this proposal was compatible with PAGE 7 MINUTES: 4-29-92 0118-0384 Section 18.16.050(e) of title 18, however they felt there were conflicts with all five points. They felt the soil types, the productive potential, the need for open space, and the adverse affect on the farm community were not adequately addressed. She read a letter into the record from Mr. W. J. LeBlue, 61802 Ten Bar Ranch Road, who had lived in this area since 1929. Mr. LeBlue said this had all been open range land once. He currently leased the Welborne property for cattle grazing. He opposed residential development in this area and said his farming operation had been negatively affected by development. He had a cow prematurely drop a calf which later died due to harassment by dogs. Ms. Biglor said they did not feel the proposed use was compatible with existing land uses in this area. She felt the Hearings Officer made an error in his decision on Page 3 when he spoke about retention of class 1-4 soils which was a west -side rule, the east side classification was class 1-6 soils. The Hearings Officer admitted that there was a failure on the part of the County to meet statewide planning Goal 3. The Hearings Of f icer' s solution was to place two covenants on the divided properties; one being that no more division would take place on the parent property, and two, no complaints regarding farming practices which surrounded them would be allowed from the owners of the two twenty acre parcels. They felt these covenants had little legal binding, i.e. LUBA found that an individual's signed waiver of his/her right to sue adjacent operations for damages arising out of those operations, was not alone sufficient to show that the person's proposed dwelling would not seriously interfere with practices on adjacent lands. She cited the cases Champion International v. Douglas County, LUBA 132 dated 1987, and Washington County Farm Bureau v. Washington County LUBA 90-154 in 1991, to represent cases where covenants placed on the land were not legally binding. In Cherry Lane v. Board of Commissioners in 1987, the Court of Appeals said that EFU zones were designated to preserve the limited amount of agricultural land to the maximum extent possible with a clear intent that nonfarm dwellings be the exception and that approval for them be difficult to obtain. In Smith v. Clackamas County, 1990, the Court of Appeal dealt with the unsuitability requirements of large blocks of land. The ORS 215.283-3-d governed that issue, and the finding was that unsuitability had to be measured against the entire commonly owned tract rather than only the part on which the proposed dwelling would be located. In this instance then, the unsuitability requirements would have to be placed on the entire 280 acre parent parcel, and there were fingers of 406 and 410 soils which went into the parent parcel. ORS 215.263-4 required that Counties approve proposals for non- farm dwellings before approving the land division, thus it was necessary to determine the nature of the proposed use before approving a land division in the EFU zone. Once the entire parcel was disqualified from farm deferral, it could not be PAGE 8 MINUTES: 4-29-92 0118-0385 restored. She then went through a slide presentation, predominantly of surrounding properties showing farm uses (primarily raising animals) and soils around rock outcroppings being used for grazing. The committee hoped that the subject area could be preserved for open space and left in a natural state. Commissioner Throop asked if the committee would be focusing on other issues or just this 40 -acre partition. Gladys Biglor said the committee had not solidified its views yet, but some of the committee members were concerned about county -wide open space issues. Wayne Macaskill, 62215 Byram, testified that he currently had 3-1/2 acres adjacent to the 40 -acre site, and had held a grazing lease on this site. He previously owned a larger parcel next to the subject site. Commissioner Throop asked if Mr. Macaskill had partitioned his property before he sold it. He said it was already partitioned when he bought it. He had owned one tract which had three tax lots, and he had disposed of all but 3-1/2 acres. He presented some pictures of his property and said there was no difference between his property and the county property except the water. Water was available to the County property, since there were listings in the paper for COI water for sale. He had 30 calves on the property over the winter, and they fed from rock outcropping to rock outcropping. Commissioner Throop asked him why it was okay for him to divide his tract into three separate ownerships while it was not okay for other land divisions in the area. Mr. Macaskill said his property was sold as EFU 10 -acre minimum farm parcels. He didn't think there would be any opposition to the County's partition if the parcels would be zoned EFU, but he understood they would be designated nonfarm. Commissioner Throop said the parcels would retain EFU zoning. Mr. Macaskill was concerned with the request for nonfarm dwellings, i.e. could there be a mobile home park? John Roberts, 22520 Carolyn Ct. , testified that he lived about 1/2 mile from the subject property. He submitted an aerial photo taken for COI and a letter from Ron Nelson from COI indicating that COI could deliver water to the subject property. He felt water was available if someone wanted to farm this parcel. Linda Gallard, Deer Trail Road, testified that she lived on five acres adjacent to the County property and had livestock on her MUA zoned property. She put the map together that Gladys Biglor referred to in her testimony. Her main concern was that the County property remain in a farm status, and that the nonfarm dwellings not be allowed. PAGE 9 MINUTES: 4-29-92 01.8-0386 Commissioner Throop said a nonfarm dwelling was an allowed conditional use in an EFU farm zone if certain standards were met. Linda Gallard said they didn't feel those standards had been met. Chairman Maudlin asked for testimony for the applicant. John Simpson, from Bend Metro Park and Recreation District, said he was actually testifying as a volunteer. The parks district's position on this issue was already on the record. He said Shevlin Park was now 70 years old and showed the foresight of the individuals who put that property together and preserved it for future generations. Within 10 years, Shevlin Park's value would increase considerably. He felt the 700 acres which the County was helping to put together with an exchange of property was the only opportunity the current generation was going to have to create a park like Shevlin for future generations. The value would not be seen for 35 years or so, but this kind of opportunity might never happen again. He hoped the community could look at the broad picture concerning this exchange of properties, since the benefit for future generations would be great if this 700 -acre property could be brought together for park purposes. Commissioner Throop asked how the park district was set for parks in the long term perspective considering the exceptional growth which was expected for this area. Mr. Simpson said the park district hit their optimal level about eight years ago. Over the last ten years, they added 16 new developed parcels to the park inventory for a total 33. However, from this time forward, unless their tax base was passed, all the district would be able to do would be to work with other agencies in the area to preserve land until the funding situation improved. Since the County did not have a park operation, Bend Metro Parks expected to expand its boundaries by aggressive annexation. This would allow for the development of large parcels like the one being discussed today. Rick Isham asked if the large park parcel which Mr. Simpson was referring to as possibly another Shevlin park wasn't within about one mile of the subject property of this application. Mr. Simpson said yes, and that the assembly of this 700 acre piece of property would have a regionally significant impact for that neighborhood. The property would be held and maintained in a natural condition and there would not even be farm animals on it. Rick Isham asked if that property would be considered open space. Mr. Simpson said it always would be open space. Brad Chalfant, speaking for the applicant (Deschutes County, said for the most part, the matters the appellants raised at this hearing were not the matters raised in the appeal. He PAGE 10 MINUTES: 4-29-92 0118-038'7 wanted to first address those new issues brought up today. Concerning the three types of soil being present on the County property, he said in fact there were four types of soil, and she had forgotten to mention "gosney stony loam" which had a 7S rating regardless of irrigation. He felt Ms. Biglor misconstrued the affect of the small pocket parcelization of the soil types and its affect on any agriculture. She referred to maximizing open space which was not a standard for this conditional use application. She raised questions concerning dogs on the LeBlue property, when the LeBlue property was immediately across from and much closer to established subdivisions than it was to the parcel in question. She referred to a mistake on the part of the Hearings Officer noting that class six soils were to be preserved. He pointed out that the County property had "at best" class six soil in small pockets if irrigated. There was no soil class given to the entire parcel however, it was predominantly class seven and above, i.e. 65% gosney rock outcrop - DesKamp Association, 15% was DesKamp Loamy Sand with 3% slope, 15% was DesKamp Loamy Sand with 3-8% slope. He said he received this information from Mr. Myrum at the Soil Conservation Service. Ms. Biglor referred to the deed covenants required by the Hearings Officer noting that a waiver of the right to sue for nuisance was not an effective protection for farm activities. He point out that the case law referred to by Ms. Biglor made the point that those waivers in and of themselves, without other protection, were not sufficient protection. However the record would indicate there were sufficient other protections, i.e. large buffer areas. She referred to the potential nuisance from Mr. Nichols' property, while the County lots were not immediately adjacent to Mr. Nichols' property so there was some buffering, plus Mr. Nichols was not engaged in the type of farm practices which typically created nuisances, i.e. large field burning, extensive cultivation of crops creating dust, stock yard smells. Generally, the agriculture in the area was limited to small-scale grazing. She referred to the goal of state law to preserve large blocks of rural lands. The purpose of this goal was to preserve agricultural lands in large tracts, however this property was not agricultural land since it was unsuitable for agriculture. Ms. Biglor sited the Smith case concerning general and suitability of the entire property rather than a single isolated area. He agreed, however, the entire parcel was not easily used for agricultural purposes. Concerning cattle ranches within two mile, he felt these ranches would receive no impact from two nonfarm dwellings on this property. Rick Isham asked Mr. Chalfant to explain the physical difference between a farm dwelling and nonfarm dwelling. Mr. Chalfant said there wasn't any difference in appearance, however there was a tax issue. It was a question of whether PAGE 11 MINUTES: 4-29-92 0118-0388 the property would be subsidized through property tax deferral as a farm operation. There were a lot of hobby farms in Deschutes County which were not significantly contributing to the agricultural base but were receiving a large tax subsidy. The reason the County chose to apply for nonfarm dwellings was not to place a mobile home park on the property. It was County policy not to subsidize hobby farming which was primarily what was seen in this area. Ms. Biglor referred to the Titus property being on class six soils, however the County property was only class six if it was irrigated. He felt the Faulkner ranch was not comparable to the County property. The County was not proposing to put anything on this property which was inconsistent with the existing residential area, but was "only trying to avoid the hypocrisy of the tax laws that give a subsidy to hobby farming." Mr. Roberts had referred to the availability of COI water, however because of the isolated pockets of reasonable soils, the delivery of water to these pockets was very difficult and would take multiple irrigation systems. Mr. Chalfant continued with his testimony which is attached. He submitted six photographs of the alleged farm use on this property. The property was damaged from grazing and could not currently support further grazing. There was a letter from the OSU Extension Agent which supported this position. Chairman Maudlin expressed concern regarding the Hearings Officer's condition that the remaining parent parcel not be allowed further parcelization. He felt that would make the remaining County -owned parcel worthless. Brad Chalfant said he didn't feel that doing this partition would reduce the value of the property. Any further partitioning of this property would be a series partition which was prohibited unless you went through the subdivision process. Commissioner Throop said he would like to see the property remain as a public tract of land and be preserved as a park reserve. Chairman Maudlin said the record would be left open for written testimony through Wednesday, May 6, and had to be received by 5:00 p.m. on that date. The decision would be made on Wednesday, May 13 at 11:30 p.m. Ms. Gallard wanted to make some changes to the map. Rick Isham expressed concern that if this exhibit were changed, it might have a different character and would not be feasible as a reference for the testimony previously given. Chairman Maudlin said the exhibit had to remain with the County, however Ms. Gallard could come to the County and make additions. Chairman Maudlin closed the public hearing. PAGE 12 MINUTES: 4-29-92 DATED this day of Commissioners of Deschutes County Ore n. iqe Tom hroop, AT S Recording Secretary PAGE 13 MINUTES: 4-29-92 0118-0389 1992, by the Board of Nancy Po Schgangeh, CommissiAhner 4Wckaudlin, C airman 0118-0390 Appellants appeal was a shot gun approach, and Appellant contends that the Hearings Officer misconstrued the applicable law, made inadequate findings and made a decision not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. This contention is applied by appellant to each of eleven criteria cited by appellant. Appellant's appeal lacks reasonable specificity which greatly complicates any attempt to respond to appellant. I will address each of appellants contentions and explain why the application meets the stated criteria or why the criteria does not apply. I. The first assignment of error pertains to the compatibility of the proposed conditional use with farm uses as required by ORS 215.283(2), Deschutes County Code 18.16.010, ORS 215.203(2), and consistent with the intent and purposes set forth in ORS 215.243. A. Deschutes County Code 18.16.010 is not a specific standard or criteria, but rather is a general statement of the purpose and considerations of Exclusive Farm Use zoning. By meeting the specific criteria set forth in state law and the implementing ordinances for the zone, these considerations are met. Since non-farm dwelling is an identified conditional use within the zoning ordinance it is presumptively consistent with general goals. 1 -4/29/92 0118--0391 B. ORS 215.283(2) is cited by appellant on numerous occasions but does not apply, as applicant seeks authorization for non-farm dwellings pursuant to ORS 215.283(3). Appellant cites the wrong standard. C. ORS 215.283(3) constitutes a 2 prong test. First we look at compatibility of Proposed Conditional Use with accepted farm practices on adjacent farm lands and second to look at consistency of the proposed use with the intent and purpose of agricultural as outlined in ORS 215.243. 1. To establish compatibility, Sweeton v. Clackamas County, requires that we identify farm use in the area. The standard for reviewis to look at farm parcels which actually abut the proposed Conditional Use, however, applicant has gone a step beyond, as there are no farm uses which actually abut the proposed use. a. In this case we have identified all properties in which a portion lies within 1/2 mile of the proposed conditional use, to determine farm practices. 1. '/2 mile was chosen because of the heavy residential concentration and small parcel size in the area along with the heavy Juniper growth that is predominant in 2-4/29/92 0118-0392 the area. The heavy Juniper growth can be expected to restrict noise, dust, light or chemical drift within the area. Additionally, the small parcel size which predominates, means that any offensive farm activity will likely run into opposition other than from the applicants property. Impact on existing residences is likely to be far greater than on the proposed uses. 2. There are 86 separate tax lots within '/2 mile of the proposed conditional use. Fifteen of those are on tax deferred status. Those properties are identified on the tax maps which I offer as Exhibits. 3. Also offered is a review of an analysis of those 15 farm deferred properties - This review shows that the farm deferred properties in the area are predominately hobby farms. A few head of cattle were seen along with several horses and a couple of dozen sheep. While most of these properties had some irrigated pasture, none had any sign of row crops. Additionally, several of the parcels 3-4/29/92 0118-0393 were not in production, nor had they been in production for a number of years. Grazing of a few livestock appears to be the predominant use. - Most of these "agricultural areas" are bordered on several sides by residential area. Soil maps attached to the application illustrate why there are no row crops. 4. The types of accepted agricultural practices found on these hobby farms is not likely to create conflict with neighbors, whether from adjoining subdivisions or the proposed conditional use. - Because there are no row crops, its unlikely that aerial crop dusting will take place, nor is it likely that there will be extensive tilling of soil. - Small scale grazing of pets or livestock lacks the intensity to create significant conflicts. - Thus noise, light, odor, and dust are unlikely to be generated in any significant amounts from the identified farm uses. - Heavy Juniper in the area is likely to limit or reduce any noise, light, odor or dust nuisance. 4-4/29/92 0118-0394 5. Thus, the proposed conditional use will be compatible with the existing hobby farming which occurs in the area. b. To establish consistency of the proposed use with the intent and purpose of the State's Agricultural land policy, we look at the four elements of ORS 215.243. ORS 215.243(1) addresses preservation of open land used for agricultural purposes. The subject parcel is not in farm use, nor is the parcel generally suitable for farm use, whether looking at the portion subject to the proposed conditional use, or whether looking at the entire parcel as required by Smith v. Clackamas County. ORS 215243(2) addresses the preservation of large blocks of agricultural land as a means to maintain the State's agricultural land as a means to maintain the agricultural economy. The subject parcel is not currently contributing to the State's agricultural economy, and is generally unsuitable for farm use. ORS 215.243(3) addresses potential increases in the costs of public services, conflicts between farm and urban uses and preservation of natural beauty. The subject parcel is located within an area 5-4/29/92 0118-0395 that is predominantly residential rather than farm use, will not require new or improved roads, nor create new conflicts with existing or future farm uses. The proposed use is consistent with the existing land use pattern in the area, and will not significantly impact the beauty of an area that is predominantly rural residential. ORS 215.243(4) addresses incentives given for holding lands in farm use zones. The proposed use is a listed conditional use within the EFU-20 zone, and as a non-farm use, owners of the proposed parcels will forego future special farm assessment. II. With respect to Appellant's 2nd assignment of error, the assignment of error lacks sufficient specificity to permit a response. If appellant is referring to Deschutes County Code 18.16.040(A)(d), that standard is argued in Appellant's 6th assignment of error and will be discussed in due course. III. Appellant's 3rd assignment of error again lacks sufficient specificity, but it appears that Appellant may be referring to Deschutes County Code 18.16.040(A)(b). This standard requires that conditional use not force a significant change or otherwise seriously interfere with accepted farm practices on adjacent lands devoted to commercial farm use, or significantly increase the cost of such accepted practices. 6-4/29/92 0118-0'96 As previously presented, all farm deferred properties within one half mile of the proposed use were identified. The standard only requires that we look farm operations, of which there do not appear to be any within 1/2 mile. However, even if we look at the broadest definition of farm parcel, the proposed conditional use will have no effect on the practices or costs of production. There are several reasons for this lack of interference. First of all, the accepted farm methods are low intensity and not likely to present a nuisance to residences. The established practices in the area do not include aerial crop dusting, large scale field burning, extensive field tilling or large concentrations of extremely noisy or aromatic livestock. Secondly, the configuration of the parcels and required set backs will provide significant buffer areas. Certainly the buffer areas would be larger than is common in the area. Third, the heavy Juniper cover will provide additional buffer between any agricultural practice and the proposed use. Finally, the general land use pattern is residential, with existing residences closer to theorized nuisance than the proposed conditional use would be. If there were an existing problem, we would have heard about it, but we have not. Any theorized nuisance in the future will affect other residences long before it affects the proposed use. It is ironic that the opposition to this proposed use comes 7-4/29/92 0118-03917 from those who live in nearby residences, rather than from concerned farmers that see this proposed use as a threat to their profitable operation. The proposed conditional use is consistent with agricultural practices in the area. IV. Appellant's 4th assignment of error was answered in response to Appellant's 3rd assignment of error. V. Appellant's 5th assignment of error concerns the stability of the overall land use pattern of the area. Appellants reference to ORS 215.283(2) is nonsensical as the cited section merely contains a list of acceptable conditional uses. This particular conditional use is listed at ORS 215.283(3). With respect to the overall land use pattern, Appellant previously acknowledged before the hearings officer that the general area is heavily parcelized. The residential nature of this area is beyond dispute and is well illustrated by reference to the tax maps submitted with this application. As previously discussed, a review of tax lots within 1/2 mile of the proposed use revealed that only 15 of 86 tax lots are on farm deferral. That means that less than 18% of the tax lots within 1/2 mile of the proposed use can reasonably be considered agricultural. 66 of the 86 tax lots had a residence on it, or notably 77% of the area is residential. 8-4/29/92 01-18-0398 Having selected an area for consideration, identified and examined the types of uses existing within the area, we then must consider whether the proposed use will alter the stability of the existing land use pattern. As the identified area is predominantly rural residential with a small percentage of hobby farming it is unlikely that the allowance of two non-farm parcels will have any affect on the existing pattern. As previously discussed, it is unlikely that the proposed uses would in anyway interfere with existing agricultural practices. Indeed, with less than 18% of the properties having any agricultural activity, and nearly 77% of the lots occupied by a residence, the area can not be characterized as Resource Land. Therefore the two proposed residences cannot tip the balance from resource to non -resource land use. It is also important to note that the granting of the two proposed dwellings in unlikely to set a precedent for other similarly situated parcels in the area. The reason for this stems from two facts. First, there are no similarly situated parcels. All other parcels in the area are either at their minimum lot size or -have an established agricultural activity which would prevent creation of a non-farm dwelling as a conditional use. The only exception to this statement is the COIC parcel at 17 13 32 1200, which could not be partitioned as the resulting parcels would be smaller than the minimum lot size. Because of the particular soil types and the location of an old surface mine on tax lot 1200, it is clear that tax lot 1200 9-4/29/92 018-0399 is not a similarly situated parcel. Finally, the Hearing Officer directed that deed language be included to prevent the remaining parcel from being further partitioned. Thus, there would be no cumulative impact. VI. Appellant's 6th assignment of error concerns the general unsuitability of the parcel for farm production. Appellant erroneously cites ORS 215.283(2) as a standard. Again, 215.283(2) is irrelevant to non-farm dwellings. Additionally, Appellant erroneously cites Deschutes County Code 18.16.040(A)(d) which applies to generally unsuitable standard to the specific site. The more stringent standard, and the one adopted by LUBA in the Smith case is reflected in Deschutes County Code 18.16.050(E) (a) (4) which applies the test to the entire parcel. The property is unsuitable for farm use for the following reasons: A. The 270 acre parcel lacks uniform viable soils. The best soils found within the 270 acre parcel are rated no better than 6-S when irrigation is lacking. Soils rated 6-S by the US Soil Conservation Service are deemed marginal at best. Approximately 5% of the soils rate 7-S, which is not considered productive. The remaining 65% of the soil is referred to as Gosney Rock Outcrop - DesKamp Association, and does not even rate, regardless of 10-4/29/92 0118-0400 irrigation availability. While the best 30% (DesKamp Loamy Sand) can be considered marginal, it is not located in a single uniform concentration, but rather it is broken into small pockets, intermingled with unusable soils. The US Soil Conservation Maps, attached to the application serve to illustrate this pattern. B. The parcel lacks appurtenant water rights with which to irrigate the soils. The depth of available subsurface water precludes irrigation for commercial purposes because of cost. Well logs obtained from the Watermaster show that the water table is between 650 and 700 feet. Said logs were previously entered into the record. Furthermore, the widely dispersed pattern of marginal soils (DesKamp Loamy Sand) would preclude irrigating a single large area. Thus, to attempt to utilize the full 30% of soils considered marginal would require multiple irrigation systems. C. The 270 acre tract is not a single consolidated parcel, but rather is broken into three smaller parcels by a state highway and a county road. To fence this property would require 42% more fencing than a single tract not broken by roads. Additionally, the difficulty and hazard involved in moving livestock or equipment back and forth across a state highway and county road is significant. 11 -4/29/92 0118-0401 D. The parcel lacks adequate grass to graze livestock, as was attested to by the OSU Extension Service. Furthermore, the property contains a heavy cover of juniper which would need to be cleared for any large scale agricultural operation. This would add to the difficulty and cost of attempting to bring this parcel into farm production. Note that an adjoining neighbor has leased the 40 -acre parcel from the applicant under the terms of a grazing lease. As previously disclosed and explained, the lessee is not utilizing the parcel for grazing, but occasionally moves his horses off his own 3 -acre property and utilizes a small portion of the leased property as a temporary paddock. Photos which I offer, demonstrate the lack of forage. The tax-deferred status is automatic on EFU lands and is not an indication of actual agricultural use. E. Finally, the subject parcel is bounded by multiple residential subdivisions. Bringing the subject property into commercial farm production would result in conflicts with the neighbors. Neighbors would be fenced out of the 270 acres, they would not be able to cross the property at will, they would have to restrain their dogs, they would have to endure whatever dust, noise and odors that might be created by a farm operation. VII. Appellant's 7th assignment of error concerns the Rural Development Policy #1 of the County Comprehensive Plan and is entirely irrelevant. This policy concerns 12-4/29/92 0118-04®2 the platting of subdivisions not the partitioning process. In 1979, the term "lot" was understood to mean as a platted lot in a subdivision. Multiple references in this policy and the next policy indicate that the intent is to control the subdivision process. Thus, the policy is not relevant to this proceeding. VIII. Appellant's 8th assignment of error concerns Housing Policies #5 of the County Comprehensive Plan and is also irrelevant. Housing Policy # 5 concerns the propagation of new subdivisions where existing subdivisions are under utilized. The policy specifically addresses subdivisions rather than the grant of a non-farm dwelling Conditional Uses. Thus, Housing Policy #5 is not an applicable criteria for this Conditional Use. IX. Appellant's 9th assignment of error concerns the creation of excessive demand on public facilities and services. Applicant established early on in this process the fact that the proposed use will not significantly add to demand on services or facilities such as roads or electric power. No new roads or power lines are required for the proposed use. Uncontroverted evidence established that area roads are at a fraction of their capacity and that the proposed use will not significantly add to the loads currently being carried. Additionally, it was noted that residential use is likely to cause far less impact upon local roads, power consumption and water consumption than a farm 13-4/29/92 0118-0403 operation. X. Appellant's 10th assignment of error concerns Natural Hazards Policy #4, as it pertains to the effects of drought on the proposed use. Natural Hazards Policy #4 is not a required standard for non-farm dwellings, and is thus irrelevant. However, the Deschutes County Watermaster has advised the applicant that the impact on scarce local water supplies from two residences is likely to be significantly less than the impact of a farm operation. Note that neither of the two proposed uses will include irrigation. Thus, on balance, the proposed use is preferable to a farm use. XI. Appellant's 11th assignment of error concerns Deschutes County Code 18.128.040(Q). This standard is irrelevant as it applies to Planned Developments rather than minor partitions or non-farm dwelling conditional uses. Thus this assignment of error fails. XII. Appellant's 12th and last assignment of error is merely a summary of Appellant's earlier assignments of error, and a contention that applicant failed to meet its burden of proof. Appellant does not specify how, or in what manner applicant failed. 14-4/29/92 0118-0404 It is this applicant's belief that all required burdens of proof have been met and by reference would incorporate applicant's original application and all testimony submitted to the Hearings Officer. prop0277.not 15-4/29/92 PROPERTIES WITHIN '/2 MILE 0118--04055 OF PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE Tax Lot ID No Name of Property Owner Farm Deferral Improve. 171331 1100 T MC ELRATH N Y RES' 1103 M & P REYNOLDS N Y RES 1102 K STEVENS N N --- 1900 C TORKELSON Y Y RES 1902 R OPLINGER, L& D BASHIAN N Y RES 1009 J MOORE N Y RES 1019 D POLLARD, H& J STAMPER N Y--- 1000 D RADTKE N Y RES 1013 W ROBERTS N Y RES 1012 G & M PAUL N Y RES 1003 E ROBINSON N Y RES 171331 1002 S & D HURLEY N Y --- 1008 L & J BARANY N N --- 1101 E ANDREAS N Y RES 1105 A LINK N N --- 1017 A LINK N Y RES 171332 1200 COID N N --- 900 S & M NEWMAN N Y RES 901 G & J NICHOLS Y N --- 902 S CHAMBERS Y N --- 903 L & J TITUS Y Y RES 600 R LUNNY N N --- 700 M LUNNY N Y RES 800 R LUNNY N Y RES 500 E & P METZEN N Y --- 400 D STRAWN N Y RES 300 R & J BENDER N Y RES 200 R CURRY N Y RES 101 J MCLAUCHLIN, R BURNSIDE Y Y --- 100 J & R MCLAUCHLIN T & C KENNEDY Y Y RES 1000 R BURNSIDE Y Y RES 171332B 100 G & J BOWERS N Y RES 1800 T GAFFNEY N Y RES 1900 B MULVIHILL, L TWEED N Y RES 2000 C ALMROTH N Y RES 2100 R & A DAVIS N Y RES 2200 W & L ANDERSON N Y RES 2300 L GARCIA N Y RES 2400 D & B DUGGINS N Y RES 2500 N BROWNE N Y RES 2600 N & S WALCH N Y RES 2700 J & E GLASS N Y RES 2800 F & L CLAVERIE N Y RES 2900 C & T RAGO Y Y RES 3000 W & J OLSON N Y RES 1 - PROPERTIES WITHIN " MILE OF PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE 0118-0406 Tax Lot ID No Name of Property Owner Farm Deferral Improve. 171332B 3100 W MACASKILL N Y RES 3200 WALLACE ACRES WATER CO. N 0 --- 3300 0 & W ZINKER N Y RES 3400 S & R BASHFORD N Y RES 3500 G & C PLAGMAN N Y RES 3600 J & C DAWN N Y RES 3601 L HALL N N --- 3700 L HALL N Y RES 3800 L & M DAVIS N Y RES 3900 G ROSHAK N Y RES 4000 D & B NEWELL N Y RES 4100 J & J ROBIRTS N Y RES 4200 D & P LOWERY N Y RES 200 W & T BRYANT N Y RES 300 F PEZAS N Y RES 400 S & P DECKER N Y RES 500 S & A HANSEN N Y RES 501 W & G NAYE N Y RES 600 J L PHILLIPS N Y RES 700 D & L MCINTIRE G & J CLOTHIER N Y RES 800 P & S HURST N Y RES 900 M BIBLER N Y RES 1000 Q & L GILLARD N Y RES 1100 J & L ROGERS N Y RES 1200 L & J BAR.ANY N Y RES 1300 L & S MCADAM N Y RES 1400 C MITCHELL N Y RES 1500 P ALDRICH N Y RES 1600 J CAMPBELL & R HOP N Y RES 1700 C MCNAMEE N Y RES 181305 100 J WELBOURN Y N --- 500 COID N 0 --- 400 M COLLIER & C MCCANDILISH Y Y --- 601 W CRAWFORD & R SHANNON Y N --- 600 D & C GRAY Y Y RES 800 B & P KERAMIDIS Y N --- 801 R & S SEATON Y N --- 802 B & P KERMANDIS Y Y RES 181306 100 B & S TUMA N N --- 101 B & S TUMA N Y RES 200 J & D FLAHERTY N Y RES 2 - PROPERTIES WITHIN I MILE OF PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE EFU LANDS WITHIN 1 MILE OF CII 92-6 PROP0275.NOT 3 - PROPERTIES WITHIN I MILE OF PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE RES FARM DEF NF # ACRES 18 13 04 800/802 X X 20 801 X 20 601 X 20 600 X X 20 400 X 23 100 X 38 500 COI 18 17 13 32 1000 X X 40 900 X X 4.2 901 X 15.74 902 X 10 903 X X 10 101 X 20 100 X X 20 1200 COI 34 18 13 6 100 X 9 101 X X 19 200 X X 9 17 13 31 1900 X 70 1902 X X 5 PROP0275.NOT 3 - PROPERTIES WITHIN I MILE OF PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE 0118-0408 FARM DEFERRED PROPERTIES APRIL 28, 1992 17 13 31 1900 - C TORKELSON According to the most recent Assessor's records, the land is assessed at $1:5,635 and Improvements at $43,110. Improvements include a small, older house and several small agriculture related out buildings and a cistern. The property was 111.78 acres with 16 acres of COI water rights, but has recently been partitioned into three lots. The property has yet to be reappraised. Livestock and row crops were not visible from Highway 20. Attached is a photocopy of the partition plat for the property previously known as 17 13 31 1900. 17 13 32 901 - G & J NICHOLS Land is assessed at $3,725, the parcel is 15.74 acres in size, with 11 acres of COI water rights. A small pond and two horses were seen in an irrigated pasture. No other livestock or row crops were visible. 17 13 32 902 - S CHAMBERS Land is assessed at $2,565, the parcel is 10.79 acres in size, with 10 acres of COI water rights. The property was not currently in irrigation, but a small irrigation pond with old fencing and what appeared to be an old corral was visible. No livestock or row crops were visible. 17 13 32 903 - L & J TITUS/S CHAMBERS Land is assessed at $7,825 and Improvements at $79,070. The parcel is 10.52 acres in size with 9 acres of COI water rights. The residence is 2 story and was built in 1990, and is served by Avion water. The only visible out building was a large grey prefabricated shed. The only livestock visible were 5 horses. No row crops were visible. 17 13 32 101 - R BURNSIDE Land is assessed at $1,640 and Improvements at $1,755. The parcel is 19.7 acres in size, with 6.7 acres being irrigated with 9 acres of COI water rights. No livestock or row crops were visible. 17 13 32 1000 - R BURNSIDE Land is assessed at $9,725 and Improvements at $238,560. The residence was built in 1980 and is assessed at $203,190. The residence is on a private well. The parcel is 40 acres in size with 23 acres actually irrigated with 26 acres of COI water rights. 1 - FARM DEFERRED PROPERTIES - 4/28/92 0118-0409 17 13 32 100 - T & C KENNEDY Land is assessed at $8,315 and Improvements at $59,635. The residence was built in 1969 and is assessed at $52,425. The parcel is 19.7 acres in size with 13 acres of COI water rights. Roughly 2 dozen sheep were seen on an irrigated pasture. No other livestock or row crops were visible. 17 13 32 B 2900 C & T RAGO Land is assessed at $25,400 and Improvements at $105,115. The residence was built in 1976 and is assessed at $99,920. The lot is 3.75 acres which includes 2.75 acres of irrigated pasture. One cow was visible on the property, but no other livestock or row crops were visible. 18 13 05 100 - J WELBOURNE Land is assessed at $7,915, with no improvements assessed. The parcel is 38.1 acres in size and the southeastern 1/3 is cleared and irrigated with 13 acres of COI water rights, the remaining 73 of parcel has never been cleared. Livestock and row crops were not visible on inspection. 18 13 05 400 - C MCCANDLISH Land is assessed at $2,455 and Improvements at $1,535. The parcel is 23.76 acres in size and has 10.2 acres of COI water rights. The parcel is not currently irrigated nor does it appear to have even been irrigated, or otherwise in production. The attractive wooden fence surrounding the parcel is not of a type typically used for farming. No livestock or row crops were visible. 18 13 05 601 - R SHANNON Land is assessed at $2,020, with no improvements assessed. The parcel is 18.92 acres in size and is not currently in irrigation or production. The property is overgrown with juniper and sage. No livestock or row crops were visible. 181305600-D&CGRAY Land is assessed at $11,920, with the only improvement listed as a residence assessed at $125,620. The house was built in'1990, and is served by a shared well. The parcel is 19.55 acres in size with 5 acres of COI water rights. A large grey metal shed has apparently been constructed since the last appraisal. A paved driveway skirts a small pond with approximately 3 acres irrigated. No livestock or row crops were visible. 18 13 05 801 - R&SSEATON Land is assessed at $4,400, with no improvements assessed. The parcel is 19.55 acres in size. The land is not currently irrigated or in production, though it has been cleared of Juniper and has 15.1 acres of COI water rights. No livestock or row crops were visible. 2 - FARM DEFERRED PROPERTIES - 4/28/92 0118--0410 181305800-B&PKERAMIDIS Land is assessed at $3,295, with no improvements assessed. The tract is 13.9 acres in size, but is broken into two separate and unconnected lots. The property has 14.9 acres of COI water rights. A small irrigation pond was visible and roughly two dozen sheep, and two horses were seen on an irrigated pasture on the eastern lot. 181305802-B&PKERAMIDIS Land is assessed at $8,485 and the only improvement assessed was a three story residence built in 1990, and assessed at $95,820. The residence is served by Avion water and has no irrigation water. The parcel is 4.76 acres. While this property and tax lot 18 13 05 800 are separate tax lots, they are clearly a single unit, as the minimum legal lot size is 20 acres. A visual inspection, review of Assessor's records and consultation with Central Oregon Irrigation District reveals that there are fifteen tax lots on farm deferral within one half mile of the conditional use proposed by CU 92-6. None of the identified properties show evidence of intensive agricultural operations, such as row crops or large numbers of livestock. Livestock seen include horses, cattle and sheep. Several of the parcels contained large expensive homes, not typical of commercial farm operations. Several other parcels were not currently engaged in farm use. PROP0276.NOT 3 - FARM DEFERRED PROPERTIES - 4/28/92 01.8-0413 F, r r r r r r r r r r r r r r O O O OD OO O O J J J J J J J J r r r r r r r r r r r r r N r W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W O O O O O O O W W W W W W W W U1 U7 Ul Ui UI UI U1 N N N N N N N r O O O O m m p. r r r r ko W �o r O O O O O O O N O O 0 O O O w N O r O r O O w O O r W N r O O O O x xx O LTJ t� t7 �i 0 ca f] H 7t7 wH A H O „Oz f2 z 0 tml wH (] Z z \ tyj m N P t7 t7 0 z r O% � w 0 x v, w H H z x �Z o z 0 0 z t� e� o0 0 i F< n r N D W JP r N N J U1 aD l0 r J N W W �p N .rp W O P %D .P W J 0 O W J � OD %D O N N U1 r O r O IN N 0 N Ln Ut O O O to 0 O UI N O U7 Ul Ul 0 U7 4A r r N r t0 N O 0 W J UI UI r U1 %O OD r to OD O14 Ut r On Ut J O ONW N N W r W O� UI J U1 O O Ul U1 U1 O U1 O r r r r r N W r .P r r r r r OD W OO O O O Ut J l0 U1 U1 %O J r J J J W J J J O1 Ul Ul N M UI OD r r O O r r N r r O% O to Ut W W ON to to O r N r N .0 O N O W O O W N N W Oi N 0 N J J U1 ►e z z ►e z z z ►e z ►4 z K z z k 0 H N Ul r Ob O \ O O O O O '0w O O O 0 0 � ro E tid ro z z z z tsi z z z z z z z z z z z Inz-A �m m—n "m r �o Nm coo V T v coo tv m H m CO ::tow N 0w 0 >z*>x Oro ciw .bN C O r (AH[ z0 Hz wz C c7dli HM m0 c tzi t7[A �Hytritvwrii t�C OH Oz 0 zc� ro M rl 0 HH yijs! r �b0 R) w O to HWzmw z rtii w �►Q z Htti toMP4 OCA �Q cn0 tli 0C: t1i 0 H O OD H W O H z to H H car H t1 H r EzM �:or Ot t1i0 z dt1 �dH � OOrHH intr-4 `vr roH r r 0 rH r z 0tizvn H 0 ;dH W H to ko � t1i W to .o O 0 7D H 40 O7 O%o O] ND000J wW r (]H O 0 d tzj t1i tj " t.o m O to t1i 0 0 t=i u Inz-A �m m—n "m r �o Nm coo V T v coo tv m H m CO PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LISTING PUBLIC HEARING TOPIC: IN O118-0414 DATE•`7 `TIME: l/ D ry:a /' 4. 5. Imo' ��`-� � l'i"t +�S• b d�-� . 6. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.