Loading...
1999-119-Minutes for Meeting December 09,1998 Recorded 3/11/1999VOL: CJ1999 PAGE: 119 RECORDED DOCUMENT STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF DESCHUTES I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received and duly recorded in Deschutes County records: DATE AND TIME: DOCUMENT TYPE: Mar. 11, 1999; 3:26 p.m. Regular Meeting (CJ) NUMBER OF PAGES: 20 MARY SUE PENHOLLOW MICROFILMED DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK APR 0 1999 v �9. *01999-119 *Vol -Page 03/24/1999 16:28:22 MINUTES DESCHU �COMMISSIONERS dnesday, December ON 99 �`►r��j � � f'p� 16 Chair Nancy Pope Schlangen called the Board of County Comm' meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. County Commissioners present were Nancy Pope Schlangen, Robert L. Nipper, and Linda L. Swearingen. Also present was Kevin Harrison, Planner; Meaghan Houska, Communication Director; Heidi Kennedy, Planner; Brian Harrington, Planner; Damian Syrnyk, Planner; Barbara Rich, Planner; Dave Leslie, Planner; George Read, Community Development Director; and Bruce White, Assistant County Counsel. CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF 4-H/EXTENSION COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 1. APPROVAL OF WEEKLY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE VOUCHERS FOR 4-H/EXTENSION COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT Before the Governing Body was approval of weekly accounts payable vouchers for 4-H/Extension County Service District in the amount of $221.66. NIPPER: Move approval. SWEARINGEN: Second. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES NIPPER: YES SWEARINGEN: YES CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 2. APPROVAL OF WEEKLY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE VOUCHERS FOR 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT Before the Governing body was approval of the weekly accounts payable vouchers for 9-1-1 County Service District in the amount of $17,640.36. SWEARINGEN: Move approval. NIPPER: Second. MINUTES 1 DECEMBER 9, 1998 VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES NIPPER: YES SWEARINGEN: YES CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF BEND LIBRARY COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 3. APPROVAL OF WEEKLY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE VOUCHERS FOR BEND LIBRARY COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT Before the Governing Body was approval of the weekly accounts payable vouchers for Bend Library County Service District $7,335.42. NIPPER: I'll move approval. SWEARINGEN: Second. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES NIPPER: YES SWEARINGEN: YES CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF SUNRIVER LIBRARY COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 4. APPROVAL OF WEEKLY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE VOUCHERS FOR SUNRIVER LIBRARY COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT Before the Governing Body was approval of the weekly accounts payable vouchers for Sunriver Library County Service District in the amount of $1,287.00. SWEARINGEN: Move approval. NIPPER: Second. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES NIPPER: YES SWEARINGEN: YES RECONVENE AS DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 2 DECEMBER 9, 1998 5. CONSENT AGENDA: Consent agenda items before the Board of County Commissioners were: 1) signature of amended Intergovernmental Agreement between Deschutes and Jefferson County to Provide Community Correction Services; 2) signature of Order No.98-182, approving the transfer of a Solid Waste Collection Franchise from High Country Disposal to High Country Enterprises, LLC; 3) signature of Agreements for school sanitation inspections for Bend/La Pine School District, Redmond School District and Sisters School District; 4) signature of Resolution No. 98- 118, transferring appropriations within various funds of the 1998-99 Deschutes County Budget; 5) signature of Order No. 98- 118, transferring cash among various funds within the Deschutes County Budget for 1998-99; 6) signature of Resolution No. 98-120, appropriating new grant funds to the Deschutes County 1998-99 Budget; and 7) signature of Liquor License for Ponderosa Pizza. NIPPER: I'll move approval of consent agenda items. SWEARINGEN: Second. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES NIPPER: YES SWEARINGEN: YES 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE ON 7.93 -ACRE PARCEL OWNED BY ART CROCKER AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 98- 050 AND 98-051 Before the Board was a public hearing on a plan amendment and zone change on a 7.93 -acre parcel owned by Art Crocker and adoption of Ordinance No. 98-050 and 98-051. James Lewis, Associate Planner with the City of Bend, provided a staff report for the Board. This was a request for a zone change on approximately 7 -acres from urban low density residential to urban standard density residential. The Hearings Officer recommended approval to the Board. Chair Schlangen opened the public hearing. MINUTES 3 DECEMBER 9, 1998 Arthur Crocker, applicant, P. O. Box 5923, Bend 97708, stated he would be happy to answer any questions. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. NIPPER: I will move first and second reading of Ordinance No. 98-050, by title only. SWEARINGEN: Second. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES NIPPER: YES SWEARINGEN: YES Chair Schlangen performed the first and second reading of Ordinance No. 98-050, by title only. NIPPER: I'll move adoption of Ordinance No. 98-050. SWEARINGEN: Second. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES NIPPER: YES SWEARINGEN: YES NIPPER: I'll move first and second reading of Ordinance No. 98-051, by title only. SWEARINGEN: Second. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES NIPPER: YES SWEARINGEN: YES Chair Schlangen performed the first and second reading of Ordinance No. 98-051, by title only. NIPPER: I'll move adoption of Ordinance No. 98-051. SWEARINGEN: Second. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES NIPPER: YES SWEARINGEN: YES MINUTES 4 DECEMBER 9, 1998 7. PUBLIC HEARING ON ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO 98-062 AMENDING THE COUNTY CODE REGARDING RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ON INDIVIDUAL PARCELS Before the Board was a public hearing on adoption of Ordinance No. 98-062, amending the County Code regarding recreational vehicles on individual parcels. Dave Leslie stated this proposal was a legislative amendment to revise a current section of the zoning ordinance. The use of a Recreational Vehicle was for parcels which do not already contain a dwelling. A temporary use permit was not required if it was for less than 60 days - if 6 months there was a fee of $265 with a renewal of $40.00. Chair Schlangen opened the public hearing. There being no testimony, the public hearing was closed. SWEARINGEN: I would move for the first and second reading of Ordinance No. 98-062, by title only. NIPPER: Second. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES NIPPER: YES SWEARINGEN: YES Chair Schlangen performed the first and second reading of Ordinance No. 98-062, by title only. SWEARINGEN: I would adoption of Ordinance No. 98-062. NIPPER: Second. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES NIPPER: YES SWEARINGEN: YES MINUTES 5 DECEMBER 9, 1998 8. PUBLIC HEARING REVIEW OF HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION ON CONDITIONAL USE AND MINOR PARTITION FOR TWO 20 -ACRE PARCELS TO BE CREATED FROM A 40 -ACRE PARCEL FOR AMBER CRAIG AND STEVE SCOTT Before the Board was a public hearing for review of the Hearings Officer's decision on a Conditional Use Permit and Minor Partition for two 20 -acre parcels to be created from a 40 -acre parcel for Amber Craig and Steve Scott. Heidi Kennedy provided a staff report for the Board. She read the preliminary statement for the Board. The applicable criteria were posted on the overhead in the Hearings Room. Heidi stated there would be a staff report, the applicant would then be allowed to testify, the opponents would then have their turn to testify and the applicant may make rebuttal. Chair Schlangen asked if any board members had any prehearing contacts. All board members reported having no prehearing contacts. Chair Schlangen also asked if there were any challenges forthcoming from the audience regarding bias or prejudice to hear this issue. Heidi Kennedy reported the hearing had been held August 4, 1998. The Hearings Officer had denied this application. Both applicants have waived the time -line. Bruce White stated that since there were two non-farm dwelling applications, there would be reason to take the legal issues together. The Hearings Officer decided she could not proceed with these applications. The Hearings Office ran into a road block arising from a legal case. She determined that because of the minimum lot size prescribed by statute as interpreted by the Dorvinen case, she could not proceed further. Bruce stated this hearing may take a little longer because of the need to make a record due to the legal issues involved in these applications. Bruce White stated there was an issue of subsection 3 regarding periodic review. Deschutes County entered in periodic review in late 1980's. In 1993 the periodic review was accepted by LCDC. He stated there would be an issue here regarding new periodic review standards and we went through the old periodic review under the old period review standards. MINUTES 6 DECEMBER 9, 1998 Commissioner Swearingen stated we had allowed 20 -acre minimum in the past. She felt that if this had been a past practice, so why was the 20 -acre minimum a problem now? Bruce White stated Kevin Harrison would testify regarding this issue later. The Board needs to decided if this applied to us or not. Bruce White stated 215.263 set out, in sub 2, criteria for lot sizes for farm use. If you go to sub 3 it talked about minimum lot size for non-farm use. Sub 4 talks about non-farm dwellings. Farm parcels need to be left large enough so you can farm. This administrative rule as passed in 1986. The farm package was submitted in December of 1992, and it was reviewed as part of our periodic review in 1993. There may be argument that the Dorvinen case did not look at the context of these changes that were made in the 1993 Legislature. You need that minimum lot size for the non-farm dwelling that was splitting of so you would need 160 -acres under that scenario. Bruce White wanted to make sure that the rules and goals, which have changed over time, were entered into the record. He also wanted to make sure the November 8, 1993, package was entered into the record. Bruce stated there would be some alternatives offered to the Board as to what they might do. Bruce discussed what the legislature might have meant by minimum lot size. They did not acknowledge minimum lot sizes after January 1, 1987. Commissioner Swearingen asked why this became an issue now and not sooner. Bruce White stated maybe we should take another shot at this. Kevin Harrison reviewed the County's past practices with EFU Zones. He stated the 20 -acre minimum lot size was used as standard procedure. The EFU Zone is described in the County Code. In 1992 the Board adopted a series of ordinances that rewrote the comprehensive plan section dealing with agricultural lands and the EFU zone. There were certain lot sizes for farms, non-farm and all other divisions. In the fall of 1992 these ordinances were included in the periodic review. In response to legislation of HB 3661 in 1994, Ordinance 94-026 was adopted. Each time there was an MINUTES 7 DECEMBER 9, 1998 amendment they would show what was added or deleted. In 1995 there was a significant rewrite - Ordinance No 95-007. There has been a minimum lot size ordinance on our books since 1992. There were probably 4 to 5 of these divisions each year. Prior to Dorvinen LCDC was not concerned with these kinds of divisions. Commissioner Swearingen asked if LCDC had opportunities to comment on the 4 to 5 decisions. Kevin stated they had copies of these decisions. Bruce White stated that at some point there was a case of Smith vs Clackamas County. This case said you could not site a dwelling on the non-farm parcel unless you found the parcel to be unsuitable. Bruce asked if the Smith fix was incorporated into our ordinances. Kevin Harrison stated we allowed for a division of a farm property to break off, an isolated, unproductive piece of ground. Kevin stated we were really tied to language in statute and rule. He stated this house had to be located on land generally unsuited for crops or farm animals. George Read reported he was Planning Director when this was done. He stated the record was huge on this issue. George stated Deschutes County had spent more time in front of LCDC than any other county. In 1987 Deschutes County received a Period Review Order. Then in 1990 there was a response from DLCD saying what we needed to do to get through periodic review. George stated we had a 20, 40 and 80 -acre zones. We did that to address part of the periodic review requirements. We adopted the standards to address the periodic review. In the Periodic Review Order, on page 4, we said we deferred the cumulative effects from Goal 3. The farm package came later. In 1993 LCDC reviewed our farm package. There were specifics discussed with LCDC. The 20 -acre lot size was there to address the stability of the overall land use pattern of the area. The LCDC complemented our non-farm package when the County met with them at the Riverhouse. The County went beyond the state statutes at that time. Commissioner Swearingen found it hard to believe that if this was an issue, that it would take 5 years for LCDC to address. George Read reported the Hearings Officers stated we were under the old periodic review so we could not address this. MINUTES 8 DECEMBER 9, 1998 He stated there were two things that affect Deschutes County. Senate Bill 97 was one of them. Senate Bill 97 references to the old periodic review. The old periodic review was contained in the ORS 197.628 through 636. Bruce White asked if we fell under the automatic conversion to new Period Review because of the timing. George Read stated we did not. It basically said the tasks that were being reviewed and processed by DLCD at that time under the old Periodic Review, stay under the old Periodic Review. Bruce White asked if there was an automatic trigger to being converted. George Read stated we may have been converted to new periodic review or we may have been under the old periodic review. George read a letter from James Knight, Manager of Community Assistance and Review Division of DLCD, regarding Senate Bill 97 and it said we were converted to the new periodic review. George felt we were reviewed under the new periodic review rather than the old. George Read stated he had responded to the letter he mentioned earlier and then we were converted to new Periodic Review. He pointed out the date of the final review of the final order by the Commission took place on June 10, 1993. There was a footnote on this order saying the Commission actions on the County standards for farm dwellings and minimum lot sizes under Goal 3, was postponed to a later date. There was a new order dated November 5, 1996, which clearly indicated the County was converted to new Periodic Review. George stated the order said, "the County's provisions for farm dwellings and minimum lot sizes can be deemed to comply with Goal 3 if the County applies the currently applicable statutes and rules." George felt that we complied with the minimum lot size. He didn't see how you could read the minimum lot size and not include non-farm minimum lot sizes. He stated the staff had reviewed this and the finding was we complied with minimum lot sizes. Chair Schlangen opened the public hearing. Bob Lovlien, representing Steve Scott, testified. He stated that in this case there was a 20 -acre non-farm minimum lot size. He felt that Dorvinen could not be used to bootstrap an MINUTES 9 DECEMBER 9, 1998 argument that those minimum lot sizes that had been acknowledged by the LCDC were no longer valid. He felt the County staff had set out that 215.780(2) exception applied. He felt that Senate Bill 98 had tried to fill in the hole. He felt Dorvinen did not apply and the County should come under subsection 2. Brent Lake, Regional Field Representative for the Department of land Conservation & Development for Deschutes County, stated they would like to make their presentation and then answer questions. Ron Eber, Agricultural Land Specialist for the Department of Land Conservation and Development, was present because he had reviewed the agricultural land package that Deschutes County submitted. He stated he had worked closely with County staff on analyzing and preparing the findings for the Commission that were upheld in court and ended up acknowledging the tier one minimums. Ron Eber requested the Board to uphold the Hearings Officer's decision. He felt the Hearings Officer had gotten it right. He testified that parcels less than the tier one minimums and under Oregon were not divided under Oregon law as determined in the Dorvinen decision. The 20 -acre minimum was not applicable and was not exempt form that decision. The 20 -acre minimum was not reviewed by LCDC or determined to apply with the applicable standards under 215.780(2) or any of the provisions under 215.780(3). It was initially a post acknowledgment plan amendment in 1992, long before there was House Bill 3661. He stated it was part of the County's Periodic Review package. He felt it had been dealt with earlier in the Periodic Review process, by a remand order that said parts of the package were okay, and then deferred over the farm dwelling and minimum lot size issues, but that was with regard to the tier 1, 2, and 3 minimum lot size package that was submitted. He stated there was an important distinction because the provisions in 215.780 were developed to require a direct review by LCDC of any proposed minimums less than the 80 -acres that was setforth in the statute in 215.780(1). That was one of the reasons that a post acknowledgment plan amendment process was not included in there. MINUTES 10 DECEMBER 9, 1998 Ron Eber further stated that nowhere in the LCDC orders or findings was there discussion of the 20 -acre minimum lot size or any assessment for compliance with the applicable standards under 215.780(2) or Goal 3. He state they reviewed the tier 1, 2, and 3 packages and found compliance with the tier 1 minimums. The 20 -acre minimum that the County put in place was a good decision on the County's part. There was no need for LCDC to review, discuss it or deal with it under Periodic Review or in a post acknowledgment plan amendment. Ron Eber stated they believed the Dorvinen case was decided correctly. He stated the farm dwellings were put into statute in 1973, in Senate Bill 101. It was clear that the provision was intended for a farmer to divide off 3 or 4 or 5 acres, a small amount of rock or unsuitable land from the farm, as a safety valve. He felt that taking a non -conforming parcel and further dividing it, was inconsistent wit the statutory scheme. Ron Eber testified that he had read transcripts and listened to tapes and there was no discussion of the 20 -acre non-farm dwelling minimum lot size. He had no doubt that at some point the Commission became aware of how Deschutes County was moving and dealing with non-farm dwellings, but it was not in the context of the review of the farm package, in Periodic Review. Commissioner Swearingen asked why the County had not been contacted regarding the 20 to 25 individual cases that had been approved. She felt that if this had been a concern, they would have been in contact with the County. Ron Eber stated prior to the Dorvinen decision whether or not you could divide a non -conforming parcels, less than the minimum, was an unknown. He stated that after the Dorvinen case, the law became clear and that was why there were involved in this decision at this time. Commissioner Swearingen stated that his opinion differed from her opinion which was that Dorvinen did not apply to this. She stated she would be somewhat persuaded if there was any documentation in the record stating that this was a concern, but there was none. MINUTES 11 DECEMBER 9, 1998 Ron Eber reported the final sign off on the Goal 3 portions of the County's Periodic Review was on November 5, 1993. He stated Senate Bill 97 did not convert things still remaining in old Periodic Review to new Periodic Review until December 31, 1993. The Goal 3 portion of Deschutes County's Period Review work was done, but anything that was remaining was converted to new Periodic Review. Commissioner Schlangen stated Deschutes County continued and amended the farm parcels and that was acknowledged by LDCD after House Bill 3661. Ron Eber stated that there may have been additional changes, but the review of minimum lot size was all completed on November 5, 1993. Commissioner Schlangen stated that it was after 3661 that we were acknowledged on our farm parcels. Commissioner Nipper stated that was his recollection as well. Ron Eber stated the order that was signed off on the tier one minimums and the farm package was dated November 5, 1993, which the Commission did by a conference call. Commissioner Swearingen stated that there had been 30 to 35 opportunities for LCDC to say that is does not have an effect, and then to use a real stretch of a case to say we do not like it, was frustrating. Ron Eber stated he did not think the Dorvinen case was a stretch. He felt it clearly applied to all the counties outside the Willamette Valley, since Willamette Valley counties were not allowed to create non -parcels for non-farm dwellings. Commissioner Swearingen stated there was probably good reason for that since most of the land there was actually farmable. She felt Deschutes County was a totally different situation. She stated that one of the frustrations at the local level was that rules that make sense in Western Oregon did not apply in Central Oregon. We were not under the same circumstances. Ron Eber clarified that Willamette Valley counties cannot subdivide the land or create parcels for non-farm dwellings. MINUTES 12 DECEMBER 9, 1998 He felt the Dorvinen case stood for the proposition that if you have a parcel less than the minimum lot size in your county, it cannot be divided. Ron Eber further stated that 215.780 which authorized the non-farm dwelling partitions outside the Willamette Valley, has said that you cannot divide a parcel that is less than the minimum, and that was the law of Oregon right now. Commissioner Swearingen stated that was their opinion compared the County's. Brent Lake stated the point was they did not disagree with the County's minimum lot size, but they totally disagreed with the County about the fact that Dorvinen does apply. Commissioner Swearingen asked what sort of legislative fix would be necessary to allow Deschutes County to have a 20 -acre minimum. Ron Eber felt a bill that would authorize parcels that are less than the minimums in 215.780 would be the simple fix that may be proposed. Commissioner Nipper asked about Senate Bill 97 not being applicable. Ron Eber stated his understanding from discussions with the Attorney General's office was that it was not applicable to this situation. He stated he could get a letter from the Attorney General's office to explain that point. Commissioner Swearingen ask if there was new legislation introduced to make this outright legal and clear of an ambiguity, would LCDC be support. Ron Eber felt that they would be open to it. He stated they would probably want to see some standards like a 20 -acre minimum to impose a limit to the number that were actually divided, but it would depend on what the fix was. Bruce White stated that it seemed that Lane County was excepted from this because lot sizes that had gone through a particular review. He asked why they were trying to protect MINUTES 13 DECEMBER 9, 1998 Lane County and not Deschutes County that going through an extensive review at the very same time. He wondered if Deschutes County fell through the cracks and why we were not protected. Ron Eber stated it was because Lane County had gone through a recent review by the LCDC Commission. On the other hand Deschutes County was in the pipeline under Periodic Review, had not completed that review and no one knew where Deschutes County was going to end up. Bruce White asked why Periodic Review as singled out. He felt that any county that had gone through the process should be protected. He wondered if the reference to new Periodic Review was intentional, and why leave a hole between Lane County that came before Deschutes County and other counties that came after us. Ron Eber stated that it was intention to choose new Periodic Review as opposed to old Periodic Review when the provisions were drafted. They wanted to make sure that there was a direct review the Commission of the smaller minimum lot sizes. Bruce White stated he was having trouble reconciling why they would need Sub 2 and Sub 3, and felt the scope of those two was a real issue. Ron Eber felt Sub 2 was to be perspective, after the effective date of 3661. The intent of the Sub 3 provision was to recognize certain things that occurred before. Bruce White asked if any County had come through a Sub 2 process since it started? Ron Eber reported that Yamhill and Douglas County had come forward and been reviewed. He stated Yamhill had been converted over to new Periodic Review and gone through and Douglas County had gone through the process. Bruce White asked if they were both under the 80 -acre minimum. Ron Eber stated that in portions of Yamhill County they had 20 and 40, but they were very limited. He could not remember about Douglas County. He stated in certain areas of the County, they had less than 80 -acre minimums. MINUTES 14 DECEMBER 9, 1998 Bruce White asked if those two counties were reviewed for non- farm minimum lot sizes as well as farm minimum lot sizes. Ron Eber stated that did not. He stated they did not to his recollection propose any minimum for non-farm parcels. There was further discussion about the review of Douglas and Yamhill County's review. George Read stated what was unique in Deschutes County was these parcels were generally unsuitable for a 20 -acre minimum lot size. George asked if we could divide farm land but can't divide non-farm land. Commissioner Nipper discussed protecting farm land. He felt they were interested in protecting open space, not farm land. Commissioner Schlangen stated the Hearings Officer did not address non-farm dwellings. George Read asked why the commission waited until one day to address our minimum lot sizes. Howard Paine, ARLU DeCo, testified in support of the Hearings Officer's decision. He suggested the Board support her decisions and deny these applications. Heidi Kennedy stated there were new rules and criteria adopted in June. Immediately after notice, we received responses. They have been trying to resolve these issues. Heidi pointed out the piece of property located on the map. Kevin Harrison reported the rules require that you look at all EFU zoned property within one mile of the subject property. Heidi reported the highway acted as a barrier, and the distance to farming areas was quite a bit. There would be no traffic conflicts. There would be the highway close by for the homeowners. The home location was at least 50 feet from any boundary of the property. She had prepared an appendix to submit. She reported there were 29 privately owned tax lots in the study area that have one or more dwellings on them. MINUTES 15 DECEMBER 9, 1998 There were 46 privately owned tax lot in the whole study area that were zoned EFU. She stated we have 17 of them that were built between 1910-78, 15 built between 1979-83, and then 3 were built from 1993 on. There were 70% of the properties with homes on them. Commissioner Swearingen stated that to actually make that farmable land, because there was no water, it would cost more than the land is worth to bring the water. Heidi Kennedy stated the soils were made up of 9511 soils that were not high value even if they had water. Class 6 soils make them unsuitable for farming. She reported that this was basically juniper woodland with poor soil. At best, it would be dry rangeland. Commissioner Nipper felt it was an overt attempt to maintain open space. Bruce White asked if there were class 7 or 8 on the property. Heidi stated there were. Bruce asked how much of the property was class 7 or higher. Heidi reported that 10001; of the property was class 6 or higher. Amber Craig, applicant, testified. She reported that she agreed with the staff report. She stated there was 51; good soil. She stated she had put a garden in this year and planted 10 lbs. of potatoes. She figured they would get 200 lbs. of potatoes. They actually got 5 bags of potatoes about the size of the small red potatoes. They carrots that were planted turned out to be baby carrots even though they weren't suppose to be. She submitted pictures of the areas where they wished to place the home site. The location of the homesite was all rock and juniper. Commissioner Schlangen asked if there was access off of Hwy. 20. Amber Craig stated she would be granted an access. Amber Craig discussed the location of the first and second homesite to be located on this piece of property. She stated they met all the setback standards. They had agreed to meet MINUTES 16 DECEMBER 9, 1998 all of the fire protection standards. She stated there were a few irrigated homesites. She felt with the elevation changes on this property, it would impossible to farm it and run a tractor over it. Brent Lake stated he was objecting to the partition. He felt one dwelling on this parcel was enough. He stated this was in an exclusive farm use zone. J. Daniels asked about an application fee refund. Paul Blikstad reported Steve Scott's parcel was slightly less than 40 -acres. The Steve Scott parcel was relatively flat. The trees have been removed but not the brush. He stated the property has loamy sand soils which were class 6 unirrigated and class 3 irrigated. The water was sold off in 1993. He felt the property was generally unsuitable for farm use. Steve Scott, applicant, testified. There was a 100 -foot right-of-way across the top of this piece of property. There were 8 -acres of water. There were two irrigation ditches running across this parcel. He stated there are isolated parcels which can be farmed but this parcel was not one of them. The homesites were rocky outcroppings. He stated he could add 23 -acres to this parcel and beat the system. He did not intend to have a house on 40 -acres. He thought he chose a piece of property that was not controversial. He felt it was ironic that LCDC and Arlu DeCo letters were brought forward at the same time. He felt these two were in bed together. He was testifying as a property owner. He stated he was going to have to drill a well or bring Avion Water to the property. He wanted to sell the second parcel to help pay for this process. LCDC does not like non-farm dwellings. If this stands, Deschutes County will be living with an 80 -acre minimum. LCDC let these 20 -acre partitions happen until 1979, but now they decide not to let this go through. He felt there was adequate open space. He sold 40 -acres to another gentleman that was caught in the same position. He felt LCDC should be held accountable and responsible. He felt the County and he would be a team to f ight this. He knew that Arlu DeCo would appeal the Board's decision. MINUTES 17 DECEMBER 9, 1998 Ron Effington stated he also has an application to partition a 40 -acre parcel. His parcel was next to Big Sky Park. He bought this piece of property because he could build on 20 - acres and sell off the other piece. He has a piece of property with 1-2 inches of top soil. He spent $22,000 on excavation for his homesite . He requested the Board to do the best they could to help him. Commissioner Swearingen stated that LCDC changed the rules in the middle of everything with no regard for the individuals involved. She felt it was a real problem with LCDC. Commissioner Nipper stated this was a decision that would impact the County way into the future. Commissioner Nipper felt Mr. Lake and Mr. Eber say they wanted to preserve about farm land, but they really want to preserve open space. He stated we had the approval and praise from LCDC regarding farm land and non-farm land. He felt Senate Bill 97 was written specifically to address that gap. Swearingen stated that she hoped that LCDC listened to the tape and if they were responsible to an electorate, they would have a different point of view. Nipper felt LCDC had no accountability to the public. Commissioner Schlangen stated she had worked many years on the farm and non-farm criteria. She stated the County had been the best County in trying to meet standards. Bruce White asked if there was a need to keep the record open for additional testimony. Chair Schlangen stated they would keep the record open through Monday, December 14, 1998, at 5 p.m. The Work Session will be on December 16, 1998, with the decision to be made on Monday, December 21, 1998, at 10 A.M. 9. SIGNATURE OF LETTER TO AWBREY BUTTE USERS Before the Board was signature of a letter to Awbrey Butte users. SWEARINGEN: Move approval. NIPPER: Second. MINUTES 18 DECEMBER 9, 1998 VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES NIPPER: YES SWEARINGEN: YES 10. APPROVAL OF WEEKLY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE VOUCHERS Before the Board was approval of the weekly accounts payable vouchers in the amount of $505,672.79. NIPPER: So move, subject to review. SWEARINGEN: Second. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES NIPPER: YES SWEARINGEN: YES 11. SIGNATURE OF DECISION ON HIGH DESERT VILLAGE SITE PLAN APPEAL Before the Board was signature of a decision on the High Desert Village Site Plan appeal. Paul Blikstad reported the revised decision had been received from Liz Fancher. The suggested changes made by the Board of County Commissioners were included in this decision. SWEARINGEN: I move signature of the decision on High Desert Village Site Plan Appeal. NIPPER: Second. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES NIPPER: YES SWEARINGEN: YES 12. DECISION ON PROCEEDING TO HEAR APPEAL A-98-14 WITHOUT A TRANSCRIPT Decision on proceeding to hear appeal of A-98-14 without a transcript. Bruce White reported the Board was originally set up to hear this appeal on the record, but in the process of making the tapes, the tapes were accidently erased on this issue. MINUTES 19 DECEMBER 9, 1998 SWEARINGEN: Move approval to sign an order, subject to review, to hear this appeal de novo. NIPPER: Second. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: NIPPER: SWEARINGEN: YES YES YES DATED this 9th day of December, 1998, by the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Recording Sec etary inda L. Swearingen, Commissioner MINUTES 20 DECEMBER 9, 1998