Loading...
1993-02229-Minutes for Meeting December 16,1992 Recorded 1/6/199393-02229 MINUTES 0120--0456 DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSi•-._� r ,r December 16, 1992 Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m Board members in attendance were: Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and-N'ancy Pope Schlangen. Also present were: Rick Isham, County Counsel; Karen Green, Community Development Director; Dave Leslie, Planner; Brad Chalfant, Property Manager; Stacy Warren, Planner; Bruce White, Assistant County Counsel; and George Read, Planning Director. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Consent agenda items before the Board were: #1, signature of Resolution 92-092 declaring intention to transfer real property to Bend Metro Park and Recreation District; #2, signature of City of Bend Plat for River Ridge Two Condominiums to Mt. Bachelor Village Stage C; #3, reappointment of Ernest DeCorte to the Deschutes County Budget Committee; #4, appointment of Don Pennington to the McArdle Road District Board of Directors; and #5, signature of MJP-91- 21 creating three farm parcels in an EFU-20 zone off Canal Blvd. for Thomas Bemis. SCHLANGEN: Move approval of items 1 through 5 on the consent agenda. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: Voted no on yes on items 2 through 5 and item 1. 2. DECISION ON RYAN APPEAL OF HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION ON A-92-18 Before the Board was a decision on the Ryan Appeal of the Hearings Officer's decision on A-92-18 which would require the applicant to make road improvements to Reed Lane. George Read showed the Board a map of the area of Reed Lane involved in this decision and clarified that it was not part of the road system being improved by the County or the City. The road had been improved by Fred Meyer next to their store, however they had not put in sidewalks. Commissioner Throop said both the City of Bend, who would eventually be annexing this area of the County, and the County Public Works Department had indicated they felt the PAGE 1 MINUTES: 12-16-92 0120-045'7 improvements were necessary. He felt there was an agreement with the City that when properties were developed, the owners needed to be responsible for frontage improvements. This area of the city would eventually be very heavily developed to urban density. Therefore, he felt the Hearings Officer's frontage improvement requirements should be sustained. Commissioner Schlangen said she agreed with Commissioner Throop. Chairman Maudlin said he had a problem asking the property owner to make improvements which they had not be told originally. When Fred Meyer came to the area, they were not required to put in sidewalks. The concerned property was near where the road would dead end. He felt that if this street would have been a through street which connected to the Bend Parkway, it would have been a different matter. George Read clarified that Fred Meyer would be required to make additional improvements when vacant property on the corner was developed. Chairman Maudlin felt that perhaps the County should give Mr. Ryan the same option. Therefore, when the property was sold and developed, the purchasers would be required to put in the sidewalks. George Read said the County did operate in that manner at one point and made the sidewalks a requirement in the building permit, however the City did not follow suit which created a lot of controversy. THROOP: I'll move that the requirements of the Hearings Officer be sustained. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: NO 3. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE 92-_067 TO FINALIZE ESEE FOR SM SITE 305/306 Before the Board was a public hearing on Ordinance 92-067 which would amend PL -20, the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, to finalize the ESEE for surface mining site 305/306. Dave Leslie said if this ordinance was adopted it would complete the ESEE for surface mining site 305/306. The County had not adopted the ESEE for this site with language indicating a starting and ending date for re-entering the site. There was language in the ESEE which would limit the reentry to a one-year time period with an additional six months for stockpiling. This ordinance would allow the PAGE 2 MINUTES: 12-16-92 0120-"0458 operator/owner, R. L. Coats to reenter the site when the one- year time period would commence. He said this was a preexisting site and therefore the ESEE conditions might not apply to this site depending on where and when mining occurred on this site in the past under the State Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) exemption or permit. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing. Bill Inman, 64194 Tumalo Rim Dr., Bend, testified that he was a homeowner in this area, and they bought the property knowing there was a surface mining pit at that location. He just had some questions. He asked how the land would be restored. Chairman Maudlin said the restoration plan was developed by DOGAMI. Mr. Inman asked if hours of operation had been established. Chairman Maudlin said the hours of operation were set by ordinance and they were 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Mr . Inman asked if there would be blasting involved. Chairman Maudlin said since this was a preexisting site, if there had been blasting in the past, it would also be allowed during the one-year period. Commissioner Throop said this was a legally grandfathered site. Mr. Inman asked if the homeowners could be notified prior to any blasting, since they were concerned about their water supply. Mr. Leslie said he was not aware that the ESEE included notification of blasting. He mentioned again that since this was a preexisting site, the neighbors needed to be careful in reading the ESEE since it did not pertain to operations on the preexisting site. He felt there was no notification requirement. The County's documents which spoke about reclamation were probably not effective on this site. He had not seen all of the DOGAMI file to see what constituted their full reclamation plan, and it was DOGAMI's responsibility to oversee the final reclamation on this site, as long as future activities fell within the area covered by the preexisting site map. Mr. Coats had indicated to him that his activity would be within the preexisting site map. Mr. Coats had indicated he had one small area left in the northwest portion of the site which was within the area on the preexisting site map with DOGAMI. Rick Isham asked about the discharge of water on the site and whether it would require a DEQ permit. Mr. Leslie said there were DEQ regulations on the discharge of water, however he did not know all of the specific details. Mr. Inman asked about dust control. Chairman Maudlin said there were DEQ regulation regarding dust and noise. Mr. Inman expressed concern that this site was becoming a garbage dump since there was access to the site by the public. Chairman Maudlin said the County could not require that private property owners fence their property, however illegal dumping should be reported to the County Public Works Department. PAGE 3 MINUTES: 12-16-92 0120-0459 Dan Brose, 64234 Tumalo Rim, Bend, testified that he had the closest home to the DOGAMI permitted area. He questioned how the dates for operation were being determined. Chairman Maudlin said that the County would allow processing for one year after the processing started. He said Mr. Coats would probably not be using the site until he had a job near the proposed site. He said Mr. Coats had a right to mine the site because it was a preexisting site, and the County did not have the right to tell him when he had to start mining the site. Mr. Leslie said the issue before the Board was to complete the paper trail on the ESEE analysis, and he felt the Board could choose to set a calendar date for a particular 365 -day period. However, setting that particular 365 -day period would have no more legal effect on the owner's ability to pursue mining activities after that date than what was currently being recommended. If the operator/owner was to let the DOGAMI permit lapse or began mining in an area which had not been previously covered under the DOGAMI exemption or permit, then the date and all other ESEE conditions would have a legal, binding effect on the operation. Mr. Brose asked for a clarification as to whether Mr. Coats could still mine after the one-year date set by the County. Karen Green said there had been a lot of testimony during the hearing process about whether sites were or were not preexisting sites. A procedure was set up to make that determination which had not yet been completed. Therefore the County was making an assumption on many sites, including this one, that they were preexisting sites and that some of what the County was attempting to do concerning regulation through the ESEE might not be applicable if it were in fact a preexisting site. She thought that on these two sites, Mr. Coats had testified that it was his intention to begin work in April of 1990 and that he would complete his work and reclaim the site within one year, which was why that time frame was placed in the ESEE. However, the County understood that it was Mr. Coats' choice to follow that time frame, and that the County would be unable to enforce it unless it was determined not to be a preexisting site some time in the future. Therefore, the ESEE was "to some extent advisory." Dave Leslie said that the entire ESEE, including the time provision, was entirely advisory unless the circumstances which he previously discussed occurred. He felt the two reasons to complete the ESEE were: (1) so there wouldn't be any blanks; and (2) in case the owner should let his DOGAMI permit lapse or should move into an area which had previously not been mined, in which case the ESEE would be legally binding. Commissioner Throop said the County was presuming that this was a grandfathered site, which limited the County's ability to regulate the site. The primary regulation would be through DOGAMI. He felt it was important for the neighborhood to form a relationship with the owner/operator, rather than PAGE 4 MINUTES: 12-16-92 0120-0450 depending on any regulation from the County. Bruce White clarified that the DOGAMI exemption and preexisting site status covered the previously permitted site. Should the owner/operator operate outside the boundary of the previously permitted site, then he would come under County regulation which was why this ordinance was being pursued. Mr. Brose asked how it would be determined that this was a preexisting site. Mr. White said there was a verification process established in the ordinance. Mr. Brose said that the area designated for mining on the map was out of the area zoned for surface mining, and asked if that was appropriate. Mr. Leslie said this was a nonconforming mining site which was grandfathered and had operated prior to the adoption of the 1990 ordinance. Therefore Mr. Coats had legal grandfather rights for the site if the map accurately portrayed the exemption or permit area prior to 1979. Mr. Isham asked whether this map existing prior to 1979. Mr. Leslie said it had not since the state had not yet requested that Mr. Coats "prove up" what areas were mined when the reclamation act was first adopted and went into effect in the 1970s. Prior to 1972 there were no state requirements at all in this area. He said the small area on the western corner of the site could fall within the definition of a nonconforming site. The Board had left a buffer zoned MUA-10 to the east of the subdivision, and it appeared that a small portion of that buffer area was within the permitted area on the state map in the Board's packet, and therefore surface mining would be permitted. Mr. Brose asked whether there was any part of the ESEE which was nonadvisory? Commissioner Throop said the ESEE was only advisory as long as Mr. Coats remained within the same area which had been previously mined. Mr. Brose said that if the dates were just advisory, he would be more comfortable having a specific starting date so that if Mr. Coats' permits lapsed, he would be bound to that date. Commissioner Schlangen said Mr. Coats would not use the site until he had a need for the material, so there was no point in the County setting the start date. Jody Fleury, 64174 Tumalo Rim, Bend, 97701, asked what constituted opening the site, since stockpiled material had been taken out in the last year. Mr. Leslie said he felt the definition for surface mining spoke to extraction, acreage and amount, therefore he didn't feel that removing stockpiled material would constitute reentry. Commissioner Throop asked R. L. Coats what his reaction was to the homeowner's suggestion that the County place a specific starting date in the ordinance. Mr. Coats said he would prefer the language in the ESEE analysis as it was currently drafted, since he did not know when he would have a job which PAGE 5 MINUTES: 12-16-92 4. 0120-0461 would need this resource. If the neighbor wanted, he would be willing to meet with them on the timing. If he were to mine the site right away, he would have to stockpile it until he had a market for it. Therefore he would need more time to stockpile and sell the rock. However he would be glad to do the crushing and reclamation, except for the stockpile area, right away. He said he would work with the neighbors on the reclamation plan. Chairman Maudlin closed the public hearing. MAUDLIN: I would entertain a motion for first and second reading by title only of Ordinance 92-067. THROOP: I'll make the motion. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chairman Maudlin performed the first and second readings of Ordinance 92-067 by title only. SCHLANGEN: Move adoption. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES PUBLIC HEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FARM DWELLING Before the Board was a public hearing for review of a Hearings Officer's decision on a conditional use permit for a farm dwelling for R.L. Coats on a 1,715.9 acre parcel zoned EFU- 320. Stacy Warren said that this application was subject to the County's agreement with ARLU-DeCo which required automatic review by the Board. Staff recommended approval of this application, and the Hearings Officer recommended approval. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing and asked for testimony. There being no one who wished to testify, the public hearing was closed. THROOP: I'll move concurrence with the Hearings Officer's recommendation. PAGE 6 MINUTES: 12-16-92 5. 0120-0462 SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES RESOLUTION 92-095 DECLARING INTENTION TO TRANSFER PROPERTY TO HABITAT FOR HUMANITY Before the Board was signature of Resolution 92-095 declaring the County's intention to transfer real property to the Bend Area Habitat for Humanity. Chairman Maudlin said the property being proposed for transfer was a small lot on the corner of Bond Street and Florida Avenue. Brad Chalfant said this resolution would schedule a public hearing on the proposed transfer for January 6, 1993. Commissioner Schlangen pointed out that Habitat built houses for low income people and that the construction was a cooperative effort of volunteers, habitat staff, and the families who would be living in the constructed homes. The capital came from gifts and donations. She was very pleased that the County had an opportunity to help the Habitat program by donating this parcel of property. Ms. Everton, project director for Habitat for Humanity, gave a report concerning how Habitat for Humanity operated. She stressed that the programs' greatest challenge was securing land which was why the transfer of this parcel was so important. Commissioner Throop indicated that he also felt that this was an outstanding use for a County -owned parcel in the urban growth boundary which was properly zoned for this type of use. Aaron Lafky, a neighbor to this property, expressed several concerns about the use of this particular parcel by Habitat for Humanity. Commissioner Throop pointed out that Bend Metro Park and Recreation had openly expressed their disinterest in this parcel. Mr. Lafky was advised that the appropriate time for expressing his concerns and those of his neighborhood association was at the public hearing on January 6, 1993, which was being held expressly for that purpose. SCHLANGEN: I'll move Resolution 92-095. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 7 MINUTES: 12-16-92 0120-0463 6. RESOLUTION 92-097 APPOINTING INITIAL BOARD FOR FALL RIVER ESTATES SPECIAL ROAD DISTRICT Before the Board was signature of Resolution 92-097 which would appoint Erwin "Bud" Regan, Dwane Helbig and Evan D. Pruitt as the initial Board of Directors for the newly formed Fall River Estates Special Road District. SCHLANGEN: I move signature of Resolution 92-097. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 7. DISCUSSION WHETHER TO CALL UP HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION Before the Board was discussion whether or not to call up a Hearings Officer's decision On December 10, 1992, the Hearings Officer made a findings and decision regarding an application by the Yorks. The Yorks had an existing home in a flood way and wished to replace that home with another. At the hearing, staff focused on the issues in the exception's chapter where under item (c) there were very specific natural casualties or event which had to occur in order for a dwelling to be replaced, i.e. fire . Item (d) indicated that a nonconforming use could be altered when certain criteria were met. It was staff's position that the replacement of this dwelling was not a result of a natural casualty and therefore could fall within the interpretation of an alteration of a nonconforming use. Chairman Maudlin asked if the house was destroyed by a flood, if they would be allowed to rebuild at the same site. Mr. Leslie said they would. The Hearings Officer determined that because there had not been a flood or other event, the appropriate language was under (c), while staff's position was that (c) was a subsection of all types of alterations specific to when a natural casualty occurred. Staff felt the language under (d) could still be considered, and that the applicant met the criteria necessary for a favorable decision. He felt the Board had two options: (1) to call up the Hearings Officer's decision; or (2) direct staff to go to the Planning Commission and come back to the Board with a revision of the language in the Flood Plain chapter to delete paragraph (a), and adding some language to (g) which would include substantial improvement and replacement. That would not open up the flood way to substantial development because in most instances it was not possible for an engineer to certify that placing a physical structure in the flood way would not cause PAGE 8 MINUTES: 12-16-92 0120-0464 any increase in the base flow which was the test in such cases. Chairman Maudlin asked whether the Yorks would be able to meet that standard. Mr. Leslie said an engineer had already certified that replacing the structure would decrease the base flow since the home would be elevated on a new, engineered foundation. Bruce White said this was a nonconforming use, and nonconforming uses were not favored under the law. He felt the Hearings Officer made the right decision in this case. He did not feel that this situation should be considered an "alteration" but should be considered a "replacement." He felt it would be more advisable from a legal standpoint to change the ordinance. Dave Leslie said staff would propose that the Planning Commission consider an ordinance revision on January 13, 1993, and come back to the Board of Commissioners on January 20th with a recommendation. Commissioner Throop pointed out that there were only about three dwellings in the County which were in the flood way of a river or stream, and he felt the right policy for the County was not to allow dwellings in the flood way. Mr. Leslie said the language could be modified to exclude new structures, but to allow for additions/replacements to existing structures when an engineer's certification could be provided that there would be no increase in the adverse impact. Commissioner Throop liked that suggestion better. Dave Leslie pointed out that it would take a little longer for the ordinance to be changed than it would for the Board to call up the decision, however he said he would work with the Yorks to make the necessary applications including a temporary use permit. The Board agreed to submit this issue to the Planning Commission for a revision in the ordinance language. Dave Leslie said going this way would require that the York's file a conditional use permit. Chairman Maudlin said he would like to have the costs of that application absorbed by the County. THROOP: I'll go ahead and move fee waiver. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 9 MINUTES: 12-16-92 0120-0465 8. ORDINANCE 92-073 SETTING COUNTY HOURS OF OPERATION Before the Board was signature of Ordinance 92-073 amending Ordinance 92-054 amending the Deschutes County Code concerning usual business days and hours of operation. Rick Isham said there were a number of different days and hours of operation which County departments would be open during the holidays, therefore this ordinance was necessary. The Board agreed to the language of the ordinance except they wanted to delete the Assessor's office from the ordinance. SCHLANGEN: I'll move first and second reading by title only. THROOP: I'll second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chairman Maudlin performed the first and second readings of Ordinance 92-073 by title only. THROOP: Move adoption. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 9. PACIFIC POWER AND LIGHT TRANSMISSION LINE FINDINGS AND DECISION Before the Board was signature of the Findings and Decision on the application of PacifiCorp for a conditional use permit for a 69/115 KV electric transmission line along south Highway 97 in the Bend Urban Area (CU -92-61, A-92-15). Commissioner Throop said he felt the document prepared by Bruce White for the Board's review accurately implemented the Board's decision. THROOP: I would move adoption. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 10 MINUTES: 12-16-92 0120-0466 10. J BAR J APPLICATION FINDINGS AND DECISION Before the Board was signature of the Findings and Decision on the application of J Bar J Youth Services for a Conditional Use Permit for an equestrian activities facility in an MUA-10 zone (CU -92-40, A-92-11). Bruce White said the Hearings Officer's decision was unclear in that it allowed for permanent arena fencing and then required that the entire site be put up and taken down within 20 -days. Therefore he suggested putting into the decision a condition allowing permanent arena fencing which was part of the J Bar J proposal and was in the Hearings Officer's decision. The Board agreed to allow the permanent arena fencing. Bruce White pointed out condition #4 on page 15 concerning parking for RVs serving as overnight lodging for participants not being adjacent to property lines. Commissioner Throop had expressed concern over the impacts of these parking areas. Condition #5 proposed that a site plan be submitted. The Hearings Officer's decision required a revised site plan to be resubmitted and approved by the County, but didn't say whether that should be part of the regular approval site plan process or not. He felt it should be a requirement, however he didn't know whether the ranch had been informed of that. He asked whether the Board wanted the J Bar J Ranch to have to come back through a formal process which would require that they apply for a site plan approval permit. Commissioner Schlangen felt they should have to go through the process to make sure it was done right the first time and Chairman Maudlin agreed. Mr. White said they were proposing to start using this site in the summer of 1994. Under operation limits, the ranch was proposing to have a musical event on each Friday evening, and he put in language allowing the music only until 9:30 p.m. Under 6(e) he put in language regarding Commissioner Throop's concern that this event not use any more RVs for housing than necessary. In the record, it was reported that in 1992 there were 15 RVs at the event with 7 people using them for overnight accommodations. Since there needed to be some security people staying on the site, he put in language that there be a maximum of 15 people staying overnight in RVs. He suggested alternative language of "those necessary for taking care of the animals." Commissioner Throop said he like that alternative language better. Bruce White said that under (f) he wasn't sure whether the Board had any concerns about defining the scope and number of concessionaires, so he put in some language for discussion. The Board agreed with his suggested language. PAGE 11 MINUTES: 12-16-92 0120--0467 Mr. White had added a condition (j) concerning fencing off the two streets which came in through other subdivisions which might lead to the property. The Board agreed with that condition. He said a condition would also be added to require that they get an access permit. Commissioner Throop suggested that the Board approve signature of these findings and decisions upon review of the agreed upon changes. THROOP: I'll make the motion that we adopt this findings and decisions which implements the decision made earlier. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 11. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE VOUCHERS Before the Board was approval of two batches of accounts payable vouchers in the amounts of $299,262.37 and $222,864.00. SCHLANGEN: Move approval upon review. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 12. COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS WORK TEAM/COMMUNITY SERVICE CRITERIA Before the Board was approval of Community Corrections Work Team/Community Service Priorities and Decision Making Criteria as outlined in the memorandum from Dennis Maloney, Community Corrections Director dated December 15, 1992. Commissioner Throop felt the memorandum "implemented perfectly the conceptual discussion that the CDD management team had with the Board." THROOP: I would move that this be adopted as Board policy for the work team program. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 12 MINUTES: 12-16-92 0120-0468 13. RESOLUTION 92-099 CONCERNING LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR CATERPILLAR 14G MOTOR GRADER Before the Board was signature of a Lease Purchase Agreement for the purchase of a Caterpillar 14G Motor Grader for three payments in the amount of $65,851.95. The Board had already authorized the purchase of this piece of equipment. The interest rate savings by going with First Interstate Bank was about $500. THROOP: I'll move signature. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Rick Isham asked that the Board also approve Resolution 92-099 pertaining to this Lease Purchase Agreement. SCHLANGEN: Move adoption of Resolution 92-099. THROOP: I second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 14. COLVIN ESTATES PHASE 3 Before the Board was signature of City of Bend subdivision plat for Colvin Estates Phase 3 off Baggett Lane. SCHLANGEN: Move signature. THROOP: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 15. BUILDING CODES BOARD OF APPEALS Before the Board was reappointment of Marshall Ricker and T. M. Pete to the Building Codes Board of Appeals. THROOP: Move reappointment. SCHLANGEN: Second. PAGE 13 MINUTES: 12-16-92 16. 17. 0120+0469 VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES RESOLUTION 92-098 ESTABLISHING JAIL CONSTRUCTION FUND NO.2 Before the Board was signature of Resolution 92-098 establishing Jail Construction Fund No. 2. This was a special fund to account for interest and to pay jail construction expenses from the $7 million general obligation bonds issued December 1, 1992. THROOP: I'll move signature. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES TAX REFUND ORDER 92-140 Before the Board was signature of tax refund Order 92-140. SCHLANGEN: Move Order 92-140. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES CLASSIFICATION OF HORSES IN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Commissioner Throop wanted to discussed the way horses were handled in the County's Comprehensive Plan and ordinances. He said there was a local chapter of the Horse Council of Oregon which was operating in Deschutes County. He and Commissioner Schlangen had both had contacts with this group about their concerns. He felt that when the County adopted the Comprehensive Plan and implementing ordinances, horses were largely ignored. He pointed out that horses were the County's number two agricultural commodity. The local group had state and local objectives. There was a code enforcement question which was bringing their issues to the forefront at this time. On the state level, they were trying to get a bill passed which would move the "boarding, breeding and training of horses from being a conditional use to being a permitted use" in the EFU zone. There philosophy was that a horse was an agricultural commodity and livestock. The State Department of Revenue had interpreted horse boarding breeding and training as commercial rather than agricultural, because it was a PAGE 14 MINUTES: 12-16-92 0120-04'70 conditional use rather than a permitted use. The Department of Revenue indicated that if it became a permitted use, it would be considered a farm activity and would not automatically disqualify operations from special use assessment. Chairman Maudlin didn't feel horses should be considered as livestock since they were not being raised for food. Commissioner Schlangen pointed out that there was horse meat in some dog foods. Commissioner Throop said the local group had identified three primary problems. First, in the MUA-10 zone, the boarding, breeding and training of horses was not a permitted or a conditional use, and there were currently a number of such operations in that zone. They were preparing a legislative text amendment application to the County to make boarding, breeding and training of horses in the MUA-10 zone a conditional use. Second, there were no standards in the Comprehensive Plan or in the implementing ordinances on what constituted an equestrian event which would require a permit. Third, there were approximately 20 such operations in the MUA- 10 zone and probably twice that many in the EFU zone. In the EFU zone, the boarding, breeding and training of horses required a conditional use permit in state statute and in the County's zoning ordinance. He felt all of those operations were operating without conditional use permits. They were under the assumption that they had a permitted, farm use. A neighbor had complained about one operation in the EFU zone operated by the Ushers. On November 19, 1992, a code enforcement violation was filed by the County's Code Enforcement Officer since they didn't have conditional use permit. Most of the horses that the Ushers had were their own, but they were also breeding, boarding and training other people's horses. The Ushers had to respond to that citation within 30 days or it would go forward to Circuit Court. He felt the problem was that there were no standards or criteria for what constituted the boarding, breeding and training operation, so even if they applied for a conditional use permit, the County wouldn't know what the standards were. Rick Isham said another issue was that a building which was open for public use had to meet commercial building standards, while all of these facilities were built as farm buildings without permits. They were not engineered and would not meet any standards, which he felt was a bigger issue. Commissioner Throop said the immediate question of what constituted an operation that would require a conditional use permit, "hadn't really been established." He personally felt it was not in the County's best interest to allow the Circuit Court to make that determination. He therefore suggested that PAGE 15 MINUTES: 12-16-92 0120-04'1 the County postpone code enforcement proceedings against boarding, breeding and training operations in EFU zones, and then ask the Planning Commission to "take that question on and put together the standards" and draw the line on when you would need to apply for a conditional use permit. Chairman Maudlin asked how that would resolve the problem Rick Isham just raised. Commissioner Throop said the building code would determine what they would have to do if they had buildings which were going to be public areas. Commissioner Schlangen felt a committee should be formed of non -horse people to put some criteria together for the Planning Commission to consider and then for the issue to go through the entire process. However she didn't know how to address the current citation. Commissioner Throop again suggested suspending code enforcement activities on these kinds of cases, and then asking the County staff and Planning Commission to take on the issue. He said there had been only one complainant on one operation in the EFU zone. The Ushers had been in continuous operation since 1982. He asked Karen Green for her comments to his proposal. Karen Green said she felt the Board had the option to direct staff not to pursue certain code violation complaints. Her concern was consistency since the County had taken code enforcement action on the Moodys and at least a couple of others. She also felt the issue raised by Rick Isham was a significant issue, since there was potential liability should the County elect not to pursue complaints about the public entering into buildings which didn't have building permits. She felt the Board had the option of directing staff not to pursue the zoning violations at this time, but to go ahead and pursue code enforcement on the building code violations. Commissioner Throop said when he suggested temporarily suspending code enforcement activities, he was only referring to those violations in the EFU zone where the boarding, breeding and training of horses was a conditional use. In the MUA-10 zone, those uses were prohibited, therefore he felt the code enforcement proceedings should continue on those violations. Commissioner Schlangen felt that if code enforcement was suspended on some violations, there should be a time limit placed on it. Commissioner Throop said that the Planning Commission had expressed interest in taking on this issue. George Read suggested that the County wait to see what the legislature did before proceeding. He said the policy had to "dovetail with state law" and the state law contradicted itself. It said farm uses were permitted, including livestock operations, and yet the boarding, breeding and training of horses was a conditional use. PAGE 16 MINUTES: 12-16-92 0120-04'72 Rich Isham said specific language would take precedent over the general, so the specific applied and there was no conflict in the state law. Bruce White said he thought the Moody case clarified that the property owners own horses were a farm use, but that other people's horses would not. George Read said that to the extent that people breed horses to obtain a product which they would sell, he disagreed with Mr. White since that was a customary farm use. He didn't feel that Deschutes County could solve this issue by taking it to the Planning Commission, because the County was not the final word when it covered in state statute. He also felt the bigger problem was the safety of the buildings. The complaints he had heard were about the public's involvement in activities in these large buildings. Commissioner Throop said his biggest concern was that if the County went forward with the code enforcement violation before the legislature dealt with the issue, the Circuit Court would end up "crafting a solution for us," and he didn't want to see that. George Read suggested looking at the specific case involved. Commissioner Throop said that the facility involved was constructed in 1982 and was in the Redmond area. Rick Isham said many of these riding arenas started out under one ownership or management operation and later were sold and operated differently. The on -again and off -again nature of the operation often brought conflicts with the neighbors. Commissioner Throop said this particular family had two choices: to go ahead and apply for a conditional use permit or to continue operation without applying for a permit. If they decided the latter, the County could either suspend code enforcement proceedings and solve the problem or take them to Circuit Court. Given those alternatives, they would probably apply for a conditional use permit, however the County had no standards and criteria to address their conditional use permit. George Read said there were general standards and criteria for all uses and conditions uses. He had not seen an application for boarding, breeding and training come through under the criteria in the current ordinance. He felt those criteria were adequate to review this type of use. The question was how to determine whether boarding, breeding and training was a permitted or conditional use. Once it was determined to be a conditional use, the criteria were there. The problem was it was a nonfarm use, and they would be disqualified from their farm tax deferral when they applied for it. Commissioner Throop said they were already disqualified from tax deferral. He felt it was a huge problem which needed to be addressed before the County tried to implement code enforcement proceedings. When he spoke with Karen Green the previous day, he mentioned that the horse council was considering picking a "good case" to run through PAGE 17 MINUTES: 12-16-92 0120-04'73 the system and set the standards. Ms. Green responded that the best way to do it was to have staff and the Planning Commission establish the standards and guidelines first, so there would be a predictable process before the application came to the County. The applicant would then know in advance what they had to address. Chairman Maudlin asked if anyone had ever applied for and received a conditional use permit for the breeding, boarding and training of horses? George Read said that the County had processed some applications. Chairman Maudlin asked what was wrong with the existing process? Commissioner Throop said he had been consistently told there was no process in place. George Read said the issue that had not been addressed was "what is the difference between a boarding, breeding and training, because breeding is in there, and a farm use." He felt that was a debatable issue. Commissioner Throop said that should be decided legislatively by the County rather than judicially by the Court. He did not feel that the legislature would change the language since 1000 Fiends had indicated they were adamantly opposed to it, therefore he felt it was the County's responsibility. Chairman Maudlin said there was a process in existence which had been used, so he didn't see any reason to suspend code enforcement. Commissioner Throop suggested suspending the code enforcement proceedings on this case until Mr. Read could outline the standards for the Ushers and explain how to apply for a conditional use permit. Then when they applied, the complaint could be withdrawn. Mr. Read said that if they walked into the CDD counter today, "that's what they'd be told to do." Chairman Maudlin agreed that if the people came in and applied for a conditional use, the code enforcement action would be withdrawn. Commissioner Throop said "we can't tell them when you gotta apply and when you can't; we've not made that decision." Bruce White said there were general standards in place at this time, so if they came in and applied today, their application could be processed. Commissioner Throop disagreed that the County had taken this issue on before, and he asked Mr. Read to prove him wrong. Mr. Read said this discussion was the first he had heard of this issue. No staff or applicants had asked him any questions about it. The issue of where to draw the line was brought up during the Moody case, and he felt it was a close call. Chairman Maudlin asked whether the people Commissioner Throop had been talking with were aware that they were supposed to get a conditional use permit for their operations? Commissioner Throop said no, they had always presumed they had a "farm operation." Chairman Maudlin felt that if any applications had been processed in the past, they could be done the same way in the future. Commissioner Throop said he PAGE 18 MINUTES: 12-16-92 0120-0474 didn't think any had been processed, and he felt the County had a responsibility to communicate to these people what was expected of them. George Read said concerning this particular situation, he would suggest that they apply for a conditional use permit rather than the County suspending code enforcement. Commissioner Throop said that would required that they spend a couple of thousand dollars when the County couldn't definitively tell them whether they had to apply for a conditional use permit or not. Chairman Maudlin said if they came in to apply for a conditional use permit, the Planning Department would be able to tell them whether or not they needed to apply. Commissioner Throop said they wouldn't be able to tell them. George Read said there was a difference of opinion with Legal Counsel regarding the breeding of horses for commercial sale. He felt that should be considered the breeding of livestock and, therefore, a farm use. Commissioner Throop said the County had to tell the horse community either: (1) we're not going to resolve the problem for you, and you will have to come in with a test case and resolve the issue, or (2) the County could resolve the issue and tell them where the line was drawn before they had to apply. Bruce White pointed out that Legal Counsel had not been asked to consider where the line should be drawn. The only issue they had dealt with concerned the Moody case where the case was more clear. George Read said he felt the bigger issue should go to the Planning Commission, however he wanted to discuss this particular issue with Commissioner Throop. He knew of a couple of cases which were more complicated than the one Commissioner Throop was discussing which had involved buildings. He felt that drawing the line on when to suspend code enforcement on those kinds of situations would be very difficult. Commissioner Throop disagreed that the Ushers situation was a single case. Denise Moody inventoried the entire MUA-10 zone and she made a code enforcement complaint on every boarding, breeding and training operation in that zone. He said he would probably just tell the Ushers to "stiff the County" and not apply for a conditional use permit and take their chances at Circuit Court. George Read urged Commissioner Throop to have them come and talk with him. He felt that would be much simpler. Commissioner Throop said he felt the County was taking these people by surprise since they all felt they had a permitted farm use in an EFU zone. Chairman Maudlin and Commissioner Schlangen felt they should have to apply for a conditional use permit. 19. SUNRIVER VACANCY ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION Before the Board was appointment of Bruce Garber to the Sunriver position on the Deschutes County Planning Commission. PAGE 19 MINUTES: 12-16-92 0120--0475 George Read said there were two excellent applicants, however he would give the edge to Mr. Garber. THROOP: I'll move the appointment of Mr. Garber. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 20. EXECUTIVE SESSION - canceled PAGE 20 MINUTES: 12-16-92 DATED this day of &d e, Commissioners of Deschutes County, Orego . Tom Throop, / t ATTES Nanpy Pope(Sd Re -cording Secretary Dick Maudlin, PAGE 21 MINUTES: 12-16-92 0120-0476 1992, by the Board of s Department of Community Corrections -A Adult Division El AJA A AL 1128 N.W. Harriman • Bend, Oregon • 97701 • (503) 385-3246 I J OI iTKiI ��:� E DIUIB T 1 December 15, 1992 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Dennis M. Maloney, Director Roland Gangstee, Adult Division Manager o12a-o4�� FROM: Dennis Maloney, Director, Department of Community Corrections RE: Work Team/Community Service Priorities and Decision Making Criteria WORK TEAM/COMMUNITY SERVICE GOALS 1. To provide a sentencing alternative for the courts. 2. To provide a means of holding offenders accountable to the community. 3. To provide an intermediate sanctioning mechanism for addressing technical violations to parole/probation supervision. 4. To provide instruction regarding work skills. DECISION PRIORITIES 1. Revenue potential for program 2. Community benefit 3. Worker safety 4. Supervision requirements S. Equipment Requirements NARRATIVE: It has been previously decided by the Commission that the distinction between community service and work team would be determined as follows: 1. Community service would encompass work done for non-profit service agencies whose service population is at or below the poverty line and would require no staff supervision. 0120-0478 Memorandum: Work Team/Community Service Priorities and Decision Making Criteria December 15, 1992 Page 2 2. Work team projects are those that would generate revenue, require corrections staff supervision, and meet the other decision criteria listed above. Given that the program is almost completely dependent upon its own revenue to remain viable on behalf of the courts and the community securing revenue sources is an ongoing priority. The primary source of revenue has been wood sales, however, as more and more restrictions are placed on wood burning and available resources dwindle, the program has had to diversify its efforts. Subsequently, our three year working agreement with the USFS to perform work other than forrest product removal will serve to diversify our program opportunity and our revenue base. DECISION CRITERIA Therefore, Community Corrections will use the following decision making matrix when prioritizing work/community service projects: 1. Does the project generate revenue adequate to cover supervision and operational costs? 2. Is there identifiable community benefit from the work? 3. Has risk management approved the work required from a worker safety standpoint? 4. Is the project being requested by a non-profit, private or public agency? 5. Is there skill development potential for the workers? c: Roland Gangstee, Adult Field Services Manager Tom Johnson, Work Team/Community Service Coordinator PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LISTING 0120-0479-1 PUBLIC HEARING TOPIC: DATE: c % �� /`� Z- TIME: ,-7 NAME ADDRESS CITY ZIP 2.- Cl, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.