Loading...
1996-23028-Minutes for Meeting February 23,1996 Recorded 6/25/199696-23028 0154-2680 WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Friday, February 23, 1996' d? Chair Schlangen called the work session to order at 1:30 m. e g p- stated this was a work session for the Board and staff as th:, record was now closed. County Commissioners present were Nancy Pope Schlangen, Barry H. Slaughter and Robert L. Nipper. Also in attendance were Andy Crosby, Assistant County Counsel; Damian Syrnyk, Planner; Jean Fraley and Larry Erwin, representing Jim Fraley. Andy Crosby reported this was a Board/staff work session to deliberate on the Fraley land use decision that was remanded to the Board by LUBA. The case name was Suydam versus Deschutes County and Jim Fraley which was LUBA No. 94-249. Commissioner Schlangen stated she would like to look at the decision, look at the record and see if any of those areas were where the Board failed to determine if the business existed February 13th. She would like to see what was written in the decision and see where in the record we can support that or not support it. Andy Crosby asked if any of the Board members had questions regarding the issues they were dealing with today. Commissioner Nipper had questions regarding the testimony of Mr. Pruitt stating that Deschutes County had determine dates and all usage and all things related to this property. Commissioner Nipper stated he could not find that in the record anywhere. Andy Crosby stated he believed Mr. Pruitt was referring to the decision by the County in 1997. Commissioner Schlangen stated that in 1979 that whole area was rezoned and was that grandfathered? Damian Syrnyk felt Mr. Pruitt was making reference to a couple of different things. Damian stated the first zoning we had in the County came into effect on February 13, 1973. The first zoning that was applied was A-1 exclusive agricultural zone. Commissioner Nipper asked if that was in writing somewhere at the time stating that property was zoned A-1 with a nonconforming use variance. M NUTES 1 FEBRUARY 23, 1996 96 MJCROFiL p JUN 2 1996 0154-2581 Andy Crosby stated the original zoning ordinance did not permit the use that was in question. Commissioner Nipper asked what was allowed in that time in that zone. Damian stated the staff report included a copy of the original exclusive agricultural zone regulations from PL -5, the version of the ordinance. The uses permit outright included permitted farming, a house, also a double wide mobile. The conditional uses include things as defined as "public uses" such as dude or guest ranch, commercial riding stables, kennel or animal hospitals, guest house, the expansion or creation of cinder/gravel quarrying or mineral or mining pits and a double/single wide mobile home. Commissioner Nipper stated the initial use of that property on the record was a commercial usage as a truck repair. Andy Crosby stated neither of the parties were saying this was a permitted use at the time of the original zoning. The reason they are seeking the nonconforming use was because it had been an illegal use throughout that period under the zoning act, but because it had been started before the original zoning it was grandfathered in. Commissioner Schlangen stated LUBA felt the County failed to determine what use of the subject property existed on February 13, 1973. Andy Crosby stated it was because we did not have the evidence to conclusively show what the nature of the business was that was on the property or the date the use started. Damian reported the Assessor's record showed the commercial building was built in 1972. Andy stated there was a building in 1972 and in 1973 there were a variety of commercial uses allowed. We have a nonconforming illegal use in that zone. Other uses were permitted outright or were conditional uses. (Inaudible tape for an undetermined amount of time.) Commissioner Nipper felt that in this particular case the use was more limited now than it was when Bill Lee owned it. Andy recommended the Board look at the period of time from 1985 to 1987, when Grogan was running his mobile home repair, and look at the nature of that use. He felt the Board should compare the nature of that use with the truck repair use. MP4UTES 2 FEBRUARY 23, 1996 0154-2682 Commissioner Schlangen stated the Board needed to write a good decision so that it will not come back to the County. Commissioner Slaughter stated in his opinion there was no nonconforming use interruption for long enough to abandon the use. Damian stated that if the Board looked at what was going on February 13, 1973, was there enough in common with what has gone on since that time to be considered a continuing use. Andy Crosby reviewed the challenged decision from LUBA. He stated LUBA did not think the building being there in 1973 was adequate and being general about a variety of commercial enterprises was not adequate proof for a continuing use. The information in the decision has to be date specific, more than a building and you have to define the nature and extent of the use with great particularity. Andy felt they could phrase the findings adequately and cite to the best evidence in the record, but LUBA will send it back because the decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Andy reminded the Board they needed to make the decision based on their understanding of the record that they think will stand up before LUBA. Commissioner Slaughter requested staff write up responses to questions #1 and #2 and provide more information regarding question #3. Andy Crosby suggested, that if the Board was planning on approving the application, they could utilize the findings submitted by Larry Erwin. LUBA said it was not adequate but Andy could not cite to any other evidence. Andy stated the Board should make a motion for a verbal decision on Wednesday at the Board meeting. The Board could either move to adopt the findings and decision prepared by Mr. Erwin or request the staff to draft findings and decision. Andy felt the staff would not be able to improve on the findings and decision submitted by Mr. Erwin. Damian stated that at this point, LUBA said make your decision over. Once the Board has made a decision, it would be up to Mr. Suydam to either appeal the decision or leave it alone. MINUTES 3 FEBRUARY 23, 1996 ©154-2683 DATED this 23rd day of February, 1996, by the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners, ATTEST: Recording Secret ry MINUTES 4 FEBRUARY 23, 1996 Robt L. Nipper, C mmissioner