Loading...
1993-05591-Minutes for Meeting January 13,1993 Recorded 2/18/199393-05591 on "R,29 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES SO DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OFCOMMISSIONERS ' January 13, 99 Chair Throop called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. 91ard members in attendance were Tom Throop, Nancy Pope Schlangen, and Barry Slaughter. Also present were: Bruce White, Assistant Legal Counsel; George Read, Planning Director; Dale Van Valkenburg, Planner; and Patsy Hovick, Planner. PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW OF THREE HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CU -92-158 Before the Board was a public hearing to consider the recommendation of the Deschutes County Hearings Officer and her findings and recommendations on three conditional use permits for dwellings within the EFU zone. Chair Throop stated that the Hearings Officer recommended approval of all three applications. Dale Van Valkenburg presented the staff report. The first application, CU -92-158 by Keippie and Ladona May, was a conditional use for a farm dwelling on a 10 -acre parcel located at 10165 N.W. 27th Street, Terrebonne, Oregon. This was an application for a farm -related dwelling on less than a minimum lot size, and at the time of application, the property was zoned EFU-40 and was currently located within the Terrebone sub zone. Staff originally recommended denial of the application prior to the public hearing. At the hearing,the applicant's attorney, Paul Speck, submitted a supplemental burden of proof statement addressing the concerns raised in the staff report. The staff then requested an additional week to review the supplemental material. No oral or written testimony was received in opposition to the proposal. On November 12, 1992, staff recommended approval after reviewing the additional material. Dale stated the lot was substandard in an EFU-40 zone, and was 10 acres with 6 acres irrigated. It had been developed over the past five years as a horse breeding and training operation with six horses on the property. The plans were to expand to 10-12 horses after the building of the house. The property also has a pole barn, corral, fences, and a small arena. Commissioner Schlangen asked if this would involve training, boarding and breeding of horses? Dale said they were not boarding and that they were breeding and training their own horses. During the winter, the work on the farm totaled 20-30 hours per week and 40-50 in the summer. It was not currently making a profit. The applicants had demonstrated the ability of the operation to produce at least $12,600 per year in gross income and would qualify for a Tier Three dwelling under the new standards for the Terrebonne subzone. He said the Hearings Officer found the property suitable for the proposed use and approved it subject to six conditions of approval, number six of which was that if the applicants didn't have the 10 horses in place within one year aft1p ikwelling was �:7 0 .20-IC30 sited, that a performance bond would be required for the cost of the additional animals. Commissioner Schlangen asked about the ten horses within the one year and how this would be enforced. Dale said it was not clear in the approval how that was to occur. Commissioner Schlangen stated that a policy would be needed. Chair Throop questioned whether a performance bond would be required if the horses were in place prior to the issuance of the building permit. Dale stated that the performance bond would not be necessary in that case. Paul Speck, attorney for the applicants, stated that his client did not have a problem with the number of horses required. However, he was concerned about the bond and the possibility that the County would call on the bond without going through the normal procedure. Chair Throop asked Bruce White what his interpretation was in the event the applicant did not have the required number of horses on the site at the time they applied for the building permit. He asked if the County needed some kind of follow-up mechanism. Bruce White said there were three court cases discussing these types of approvals, the first being Miles vs. Clackamas County. He questioned whether a bond could apply or substitute for whether or not the property was in farm use. He said it was clear that the entire farm use need not be on the property prior to the issuance of a land use decision. He said he was not entirely satisfied as to whether a bond was an appropriate security mechanism. Mr. Speck said he felt the Hearings Officer was attempting to guarantee that the production level of the land would stay at an intensive use rather than declining, but that the enforcement mechanism to guarantee this would be the permit. Chair Throop stated that the performance bond would be present only until the 10 horses were on site. Mr. Speck stated that if that were the case, then it would be effective. Mr. May said there were six horses on the property at the present time and they planned to purchase four more. If they were unable to do so before obtaining the building permits, Mr. May indicated the bond would be acceptable. Dale Van Valkenburg stated that a $10,000 bond was the hearing's officer's recommendation based on the value of the horses. Steve Payer, 18470 Pinehurst Road, Bend, Oregon, said an option might be a situation where someone could say they owned five mares, all pregnant, therefore they would have ten horses on site. Chair Throop asked for further testimony. Bruce White asked if the Board wished to leave the bond option in. Commissioner Schlangen MINUTES PAGE 2 1-13-93 0120~-I 11 stated she was comfortable with any of the three options. Chair Throop closed the public hearing. SCHLANGEN: I move approval of the Hearings Officer's findings. The matter of numbers of animals or letter of credit will be left to the two attorneys to come up with the satisfactory finding. Chair Throop asked Bruce White if it were appropriate to adopt the motion subject to review of the outcome of this condition --the agreement between the two attorneys. Bruce said that it would be best to leave the record open just for that. Paul Speck commented that the record did not need to be left open; it would only be necessary to instruct the two attorneys to develop appropriate language regarding that an enforcement mechanism be developed for final review by the Board. SCHLANGEN: I move approval upon those conditions. SLAUGHTER: Second. THROOP: We have a motion and a second to approve the decision as recommended by the Hearings Officer, including conditions one through six. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES CU -92-161 Dale Van Valkenburg presented the staff report for CU -92-161, an application by Michael and Jodi Kelly for a nonfarm dwelling on a 6.6 -acre parcel in what was formerly an EFU-20 zone and is now the EFU Tumalo, Redmond, Bend subzone. The property is located at 19490 Dusty Loop Road, Tax Lot 16-11-01-500. The staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit. Dale said the property was too small to be a viable farm unit and that it would not interfere with surrounding farm uses nor alter the stability of the land use pattern. The Hearings Officer approved this application subject to conditions of approval. Dale recommended that the Hearings Officer's decision be adopted. The public hearing was opened. Being no public testimony, the public hearing was closed. SCHLANGEN: I'll make a motion that we accept the Hearings Officer's decision to approve the conditional use including those subject conditions 1-10. MINUTES PAGE 3 1-13-93 SLAUGHTER: Second. ®a 2 1 ,2 VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES CU -92-173 Patsy Hovick presented the staff report for CU -92-173, an application by Renee Paulson for a farm dwelling on a 20 -acre parcel in an EFU-20 zone. Patsy stated that the Hearing Officer recommended approval of the application. She stated the applicants had submitted a farm management plan to raise llamas on the property which has 10 acres of water. The applicant proposed to put part of the land in pasture and raise llamas on the remaining portion. The plan was submitted to the Oregon State University for comment. Oregon State concluded it was a viable farm plan. The Hearings Officer found that because it met the criteria, the conditions of approval would include implementation of the farm management plan. This would require the applicant to place six llamas on the property with supporting infrastructure before a building permit would be issued. Commissioner Schlangen stated that it was clear regarding the six llamas and fencing before the permit, however, she expressed concern with enforcement regarding the Planning Department's verification. She questioned whether the Planning Department would verify the presence of the six llamas and fencing or if they would be required to verify that the rest of the plan was implemented. Patsy stated that planning staff responsibility was to inspect the site and to determine if the infrastructure was in place. She said the Findings and Decision on page 6 and 7, requirements A through F, would have to be met prior to the issuance of the building permit. Chair Throop opened the public hearing. Renee Paulson of 2700 N.E. Studio Road, #3, Bend, Oregon 97702 and Tom Mitchell came forward. Renee stated there were six llamas currently on the property at a value of approximately $60,000. She said she checked on them three to four times per day. She cannot get insurance on the animals, therefore, if she lost an animal from a dog, she would lose $10,000. She also had a sick baby llama which needed bottle feeding at another ranch and that she payed for its care as it cannot be on this property for fear it may trigger a dog attach. Tom Mitchell stated they drove basic infrastructures were there water, and 5 tons of grass hay. with flood irrigation during the Mitchell said they had $10,000 MINUTES PAGE 4 1-13-93 10 miles each way. He said the which consisted of a pen, shelter, The property had been irrigated past approximately 100 years. Mr. of fencing materials but had been 040 stopped by the snow. He said they would be doing perimeter fencing as well as inside area fencing. Bruce White asked if there were conditions that they wished to see changed. Mr. Mitchell said they wanted to start the house while they were building the fence since the house would take four months to complete. Tom Mitchell said they could show ownership of 16 llamas and that they needed a house on the property so that they could be near the llamas. Chair Throop stated he did not see any way he could approve it without the conditions. Bruce stated that less fencing could possibly be allowed and asked about perimeter fences. Mr. Mitchell again stated he would like to build a house and fences at the same time. Patsy Hovick said the reason for the manner in which the conditions were written was that fencing had to be around the llamas present, and that the condition could possibly be changed to say that there had to be enough fencing to support the six llamas. Mr. Mitchell said that amount of fencing was already present. He said that the flood irrigation system was also in place and that they had a total of 20 acres cleared. There was also shelter for their six llamas. Therefore, the only issue was the fence. He said one acre of fencing would support three llamas. Patsy Hovick asked if there were complications from changing the decision. Bruce White responded that there would not be complications because the Board could issue a decision adopting the Hearings Officer's decision except as amended. After discussion, they agreed to wording on fencing of two acres of the property. Mr. Mitchell stated they intended to fence the entire property in the future. Commissioner Slaughter suggested a deadline of January 31, 1995. Being no further public testimony, the public hearing was closed. SCHLANGEN: I will make a motion to accept the Hearings Officer's decision to approve this conditional use with the only amendment to C, page 6, to install two acres of fencing before the permitting and to have the perimeter fence installed by January 31, 1995. SLAUGHTER: Second. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES MINUTES PAGE 5 1-13-93 DATED this_�V , day of of Commissioners of Deschutes C ATTEST: Recording Secretary MINUTES PAGE 6 1-13-93 0 20-1034 , 1993, by the Board ty, 0 gon. Tom( Thrbop, VChair //l lktv� ( 91�,(— -0-"�J, Nancy Pope rhlangen, Commissi � e 4 B. H. S- &�4- laughter, Commissioner