Loading...
2000-79-Minutes for Meeting February 09,2000 Recorded 2/22/2000VOL: CJ2000 PAGE: 79 RECORDED DOCUMENT STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF DESCHUTES *02000-79 * Vol -Page Printed: 03/01/2000 16:13:30 DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE (This certificate constitutes a part of the original instrument in accordance with ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.) I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received and duly recorded in Deschutes County records: DATE AND TIME: DOCUMENT TYPE: Feb. 22, 2000; 10:59 a.m. Regular Meeting (CJ) NUMBER OF PAGES: 25 ,V� 0'.. 0,-� MARY SUE PENHOLLOW DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK r�E;� ;r. CU MA - 2 2000 CJ,�l✓�'i-79 jj� � ilii U Board of Commissionero 11 (TN 1 SUI-PEN1 LL0?'130 N.W. Harriman, Bend, Oregon 97701-1947 COUY CLERK (541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 388-4752 www.co.deschutes.or us Linda L. Swearingen Tom DeWolf Dennis R. Luke MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2000 Chair Linda Swearingen opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. Commissioners present were Linda L. Swearingen, Dennis R. Luke and Tom DeWolf. Also attending were Bruce White, Legal Counsel; Paul Blikstad, Community Development; Dave Anderson and Adriel McIntosh, Commissioners' Office; Dan Peddycord, Health Department; Jim Bonnarens, Property Management; and Michael Maier, County Administrator. Also present were Greg Brown and Sue Brewster, Sheriffs Office; Barney Lerten, Bulletin Newspaper; Bob Shotwell, KICE Radio; two reporters from Z-21 TV, Ray Lakey and Several Other Citizens. CITIZEN INPUT There was none. 2. PRESENTATION OF A PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH JUSTICE COURTS IN DESCHUTES COUNTY, AND SIGNATURE OF ORDER NO. 2000- 023, INITIATING THE FORMATION OF JUSTICE COURTS Sheriff Greg Brown briefly explained the proposal and gave background on justice courts. He also addressed some questions that Commissioner DeWolf had presented to him. One of the first questions asked by Commissioner DeWolf was who acts as Chair; Sheriff Brown explained that none was really established, but that he ended up doing much of the leading. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 1 of 15 Includes Continuation of Kiesow/Watkins Hearing Wednesday, February 9, 2000 Quality Services Performed with Pride Commissioner Luke asked if those who have been cited have a choice as to which court will serve. Sheriff Brown answered that citizens can ask that their citation be moved from justice court to circuit court. Sheriff Brown then went into further detail as to the background of justice courts and explained how it would operate and the cases it would cover. He referred to the proposal in depth (Exhibit A). Commissioner DeWolf had asked for further explanation on how the money is split. Sheriff Brown answered that when looking at formulas, it can be confusing. He stated that the County would get a higher amount with this change. He further explained that there is good historical detail for the estimates. Sheriff Brown also stressed that one of the best things is citizen accessibility. There will be three court locations in the beginning: La Pine, Sisters and Redmond/Terrebonne. The judge is to be an independent, elected official recommended and appointed to run the court. The Order will require that the judge must be in the community a certain number of days per month, including evenings. He explained that there couldn't be a justice court in Bend, per law, as it is the County seat. This could change in the future. Usage and demand will determine how many locations will be needed in the future. He also stated that the revenue stays at home. Commissioner Luke stated that the judge in Tillamook actually is the pro tem judge for their circuit court. When a pro tem judge is needed, she is called on to fill this need. Sue Brewster of the Sheriffs Office said that if the individual's principal place of business is in Bend and the individual also lives in Bend, that person is not eligible to use the justice court. Sheriff Brown then gave his recommendations and the proposed timeline for establishment of the court locations. Commissioner DeWolf asked if the same record system would be used. Sheriff Brown answered that this would be a part of that system, which includes everything except the City of Bend, which has a stand-alone system. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 2 of 15 Includes Continuation of Kiesow/Watkins Hearing Wednesday, February 9, 2000 A brief discussion ensued regarding the La Pine location. Since the Sheriffs Office and Community Development, as well as the Health Department, want to expand their presence in La Pine, consideration will be given as to the facilities that are developed there so it will encompass all the necessary County functions. Sheriff Brown stated that the County owns property there, but it has a reversionary clause if that location is abandoned it reverts to the La Pine Fire Department. Chair Swearingen responded that this needs to be addressed so that location is not lost. Sheriff Brown said that the Sheriffs Office runs its municipal court under contract with the City of Sisters; that would continue. He also stated that court would be held in Terrebonne, as there is space available; however, records will be held in Redmond. Commissioner DeWolf asked if the budget figures are close enough to work, in order to avoid any future impact on the general fund. Sheriff Brown answered that they were conservative in their figures, and feel it will work based on what has occurred in other areas. He also said that the Board still controls this since it controls the budgeting process. Sheriff Brown further explained that they have a long-term goal of ten traffic deputies, two truck inspectors and four deputies who would rotate locations. Traffic problems appear to be an ongoing and growing problem in the local communities, and they hope to have a positive impact on this situation. County Administrator Michael Maier explained that there is a long-term benefit to the General Fund in the sense that it should relieve the circuit courts of some activity, which may delay the need for building more courtrooms. Commissioner DeWolf asked if the Order is passed, can it be altered in the future. Sue Brewster replied that it could be amended, and stressed that the Board has control of the budget. Sheriff Brown explained that there is a good cross-section of people from the County involved in this process. Commissioner Luke asked if the Charter passes, will this be affected; Sue Brewster replied that it stands alone. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 3 of 15 Includes Continuation of Kiesow/Watkins Hearing Wednesday, February 9, 2000 Mike Daly, a citizen and a contractor from Redmond, then spoke. He explained that he has the highest respect for the Sheriffs Office. He said, however, that he worked in law enforcement as a State Trooper in the 1970's and noted that the justice courts in those days were subject to law enforcement and the judges becoming too familiar, and this influenced decisions given in court. He stated that he hopes this new program will be more professional. Commissioner Luke answered that this is the reason why the Legislature wanted this judge to be a member of the Bar. Mr. Daly said that he didn't think traffic tickets should fund the courts. Commissioner Luke explained that the State Legislature wouldn't allow law enforcement to receive a portion of the ticket; it goes to court programs. Sheriff Brown stated that there was a problem in the 1970's, which is why the courts were phased out; that now the person must be an attorney and is subject to more control. He said there was also a problem with district courts in those days. Chair Swearingen stated that the Board could choose to not fund this if it goes astray. Commissioner Luke asked if a public hearing was necessary for this process. Michael Maier replied that there is a very narrow timeline. Commissioner DeWolf explained that there has been a lot of media attention in the newspapers and on the radio, and it has also been feature on the County website, and he didn't feel that a public hearing is necessary. DEWOLF: I move that Order No. 2000-023, Initiating the Formation of Justice Courts, be approved. SWEARINGEN: I second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. S WEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. 3. APPROVAL OF A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET REQUEST FOR A NEW ALLOCATION OF FUNDS ($35,100) TO OPEN AND OPERATE A HEALTH DEPARTMENT CLINIC IN REDMOND Dan Peddycord, Director of the Health Department, explained the request for a transfer of additional funds in the amount $35,100 to open and operate the Becky Johnson Community Center in Redmond. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 4 of 15 Includes Continuation of Kiesow/Watkins Hearing Wednesday, February 9, 2000 Commissioner DeWolf asked if any of the full time employees to be hired will be bilingual, in order to recognize the growing diversity in the area. Dan Peddycord replied that they will show a preference when hiring staff; and that the receptionist definitely will need to be bilingual. He stated that there has been a large shift in demographics over the past few years, with their clients increasing from 20% to 40% this year. Dan Peddycord further explained that they will be asking for $92,000 per year through the budget process, and anticipate growing off fee generation and not general funds. Chair Linda Swearingen stated that it seems unfair for La Pine residents to have to drive to Bend. She said that the County needs to provide them local service, and she looks forward to the County expanding health care there, along with other County services. DEWOLF: I move to direct the Finance Department to transfer funds in the amount of $35,100 of new outpatient funds to open and operate the Health Department in the Becky Johnson Center. LUKE: I second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. 4. SIGNATURE OF RESOLUTION NO. 2000-011, ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR LOST DOCUMENT SEARCHES CONDUCTED BY EMPLOYEES OF THE VICTIMS' ASSISTANCE PROGRAM This item was removed from the Agenda, to be addressed at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting on February 23, 2000. 5. APPROVAL OF WEEKLY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE VOUCHERS Before the Board was the Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers in the Amount of $535,489.15. DEWOLF: I move for approval of the Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers, subject to review. LUKE: I second. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 5 of 15 Includes Continuation of Kiesow/Watkins Hearing Wednesday, February 9, 2000 VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 6. APPROVAL OF WEEKLY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE VOUCHERS FOR THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT Before the Board was the Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $20,861.00. DEWOLF: I move for approval of the Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District, subject to review. LUKE: I second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 4-H/EXTENSION COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 7. APPROVAL OF WEEKLY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE VOUCHERS FOR THE 4-H/EXTENSION COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT Before the Board was the Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 4-H/Extension County Service District in the Amount of $578.43. LUKE: I move for approval of the Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 4-H/Extension County Service District, subject to review. DEWOLF: I second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 6 of 15 Includes Continuation of Kiesow/Watkins Hearing Wednesday, February 9, 2000 RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNT BOARD OF COMMMISISONERS CONSENT AGENDA 8. SIGNATURE of Order No. 2000-005, Transferring Cash Among Various Funds as Budgeted in the Deschutes County Budget for Fiscal Year 1999- 2000, and Directing Entries; 9. SIGNATURE of Resolution No. 2000-004, Transferring Appropriations Within Various Funds of the Deschutes County Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Budget; 9. SIGNATURE of Letters Re -Appointing Craig Lacy, Bob Bridgeford, Rod Bonacker, Kyle Gorman, Ray Clarno and Steve Fitzgerald to the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, through January 31, 2002; and 10. SIGNATURE of a Letter Appointing Viviane Simon -Brown to the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council through January 31, 2003. LUKE: I move for approval of the Consent Agenda. DEWOLF: I second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA 12. a) SIGNATURE of Order No. 2000-033, Authorizing the Sale of Property Located off Fryrear Road to Jeff Van Blaricum Commissioner Luke stated that this was thoroughly discussed during Monday's Work Session. Jim Bonnarens, Property Manager, explained that the County's financing terms would not be subordinate to a loan on any construction on the property, and that the County would be paid off in this event. He also explained that the sale would be made subject to the conservation easement that is desired by the local neighbors. DEWOLF: I move for approval of Order No. 2000-033. LUKE: I second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 7 of 15 Includes Continuation of Kiesow/Watkins Hearing Wednesday, February 9, 2000 b) SIGNATURE of Resolution No. 2000-016, for the Adopting of the Central Oregon Community Investment Plan. DEWOLF: I move for approval of Order No. 2000-033. SWEARINGEN: I second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. c) AUTHORIZATION of Chair Signature of Oregon Liquor Control Commission Application for John and Renee Price, d.b.a. "Farmer John's Produce", Bend. DEWOLF: I -move for approval of Order No. 2000-033. SWEARINGEN: I second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. c) EXTENSION OF TIME FOR BARCLAY MEADOWS BUSINESS PARK AND SISTERS SCHOOL DISTRICT HEARING RECORD Chair Swearingen explained that the Board had received a request from Leslee Banks and Tia Lewis, acting on behalf of Barclay Meadows Business Park, LLP, and Sisters School District, for an extension for the record to remain open from February 10, 2000 to Monday, February 28, 2000. LUKE: I move that this record be left open until February 28, 2000, at 5:00 p.m. DEWOLF: I second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 8 of 15 Includes Continuation of Kiesow/Watkins Hearing Wednesday, February 9, 2000 d) DISCUSSION OF A DRAFT AGREEMENT DETAILING PROCEDURAL UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE WORKING GROUP CONSISTING OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY FAIR ASSOCIATION, THE DESCHUTES COUNTY FAIR BOARD AND THE COUNTY Chair Linda Swearingen explained that group working in regard to the Deschutes County Fair has been meeting every week in order to resolve problems with the Fair, and have come up with an agreement that she hopes all three entities will approve. She stated that the agreement consists of eight parts (copy attached, Exhibit B). She explained that they all felt it was very important to set some ground rules for negotiations among the members, and that significant progress has been made since meetings began. She said that she felt that all three parties feel this should be put in writing so there -is'ho, miscommunication between the parties. Commissioner DeWolf stated that he is not opposed to the idea of the agreement and feels it is a good start, but asked if he could have some time to read it over, until the next Board meeting in two weeks. Chair Linda Swearingen replied that they can work in the spirit of this agreement during that time; however, that it is in the best interests of all concerned to have this agreement. Bob Shotwell, KICE Radio, asked for clarification on how the media will receive information. Chair Swearingen explained that they want to make sure everyone is on the same page, and for consistency it is best that this be in writing. She further stated that the press is welcome to come to the meetings, which are held every Monday between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. at the Fairgrounds. Commissioner Luke explained that the media is always welcome to provide clarification to the public. Commissioner DeWolf said that he would like the press to have a copy of the agreement so they can say if, in their opinion, there are any red flags. Chair Swearingen explained that this is a serious issue, and perception can be a problem when verbal comments are given by the three entities involved in the situation. It was decided that the signature of this agreement would be decided at the next regular Board meeting to be held on February 23, 2000. Chair Linda Swearingen then recessed the meeting prior to the continuance of a public hearing to consider an Appeal of the County Hearings Officer's Decision on CU -99-119, MP -99-18. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 9 of 15 Includes Continuation of Kiesow/Watkins Hearing Wednesday, February 9, 2000 PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH JUSTICE COURTS IN DESCHUTES COUNTY FEBRUARY 2000 Sh e / C G DNA t� T ` t--% C' -A 1 G- .% c�,/ •� r�-� 1 'mac PROCEDURAL UNDERSTANDINGS - DESCHUTES COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS All communication with the news media will be by written press release agreed to by the parties. 2. No matter, statement, offer or request will be considered agreed upon until all parties have signed a written agreement or understanding approving the matter, statement, offer or request. All parties will cooperate fully when working to resolve any issue. Each party shall offer all relevant information, and not withhold any information which may be helpful in resolving an issue. Since some issues may be affected by other issues, no party shall withhold any issue from consideration or surprise other parties by raising issues at a later date unless the issue was previously unknown. 4. All financial and operating records of each party shall be fully available for inspection by any other party. 5. All parties will work with diligence to address all issues. If closure cannot be reached on an issue, and the issue is not critical to moving forward on other issues, that issue may be delayed or abandoned. 6. Each party shall employ its own legal counsel. Legal counsel for a party does not represent any other party. 7. Any actions which will result in the payment of money to other persons, firms or corporations shall not be instituted until the responsible paying party or parties are identified in a written agreement or understanding is approved by all parties. 8. During the course of this process, the existing agreement is deemed to be in place and in full force and effect unless amended by all of the parties. Date: , 2000 COUN'T'Y: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ATTEST: Recording Secretary LINDA L. SWEARINGEN, Chair DENNIS R. LUKE, Commissioner TOM DEWOLF, Commissioner RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 13. CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING to Consider an Appeal of the County Hearings Officer's Decision on CU -99-119, MP -99-18. (This is a Conditional Use Permit for a Non -Farm Dwelling on a 3 -Acre Parcel That Would Be Created by a Partition of a 39 -Acre Parcel into a 3 -Acre Parcel and a 36 -Acre Parcel; Applicant: Daniel Kiesow; originally Daniel Kiesow for Christine Watkins) BRUCE WHITE: I am Bruce White, Deputy County Counsel. In regard to the Hearings Officer's finding regarding areas that are otherwise unsuitable, because livestock can loaf there, does that make that portion productive for producing livestock. Fam not so sure that the case that the Hearings Officer uses to support that .position necessarily compels that result. I wanted to put that on the record in case you had questions about it and so that the parties can address that issue. MARTIN WINCH: I am Martin Winch, and I own property just north of the subject property, about 1/4 -mile away. I am the one who challenged Dan Kiesow's application in the beginning. SWEARINGEN: It appears that only one of those who are to testify has property actually abutting the property. Discussion then ensued about the location of various properties to the subject property. MARTIN WINCH: (Distributed a two-sided page of color photos of the area of the subject property, Exhibit 1) DEWOLF: I did a site visit and want to clarify that I was looking at the appropriate area. (Discussion ensued, and it was determined that Commissioner DeWolf did view the correct area.) MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 10 of 15 Includes Continuation of Kiesow/Watkins Hearing Wednesday, February 9, 2000 MARTIN WINCH: I want to say that I support the analysis of the Hearings Officer with respect to the finding that the proposed non-farm dwelling materially alters the stability of the overall land use pattern of the area. I did testify at the originally hearing about the fact that it is truly an agriculture area, and that this proposal would have a destabilizing effect. Regarding the unsuitability of the property for the production of livestock, I believe the rule talks about the parcel as a whole. I don't feel that the suitability issue refers to the smaller parcel. I also think that County Code should mirror State law. The purpose of EFU zoning is the long-term preservation of farmland. There is not real desire to create a new farm, just a dwelling in a farm area. In the. question of creating parcels, I want to refer to a tax lot map .from the late, 1070's. (Exhibit 2) I am'also concerned about the use of irrigation water on this parcels (He then read over portions of the Hearing Officer's decision, at length) S WEARINGEN: We have all read the report; thank you for your input. STEVE PUTNAM: I am Steve Putnam, a dairy farmer; my family has farmed in the area for over fifty years. (He explained where his property is on the oversized aerial photo provided by Community Development.) PUTNAM: It all comes back to the stability issue. It is a great place for a house, but subsequent owners may not like the agricultural environment, consisting of odors, dust, noise, flies and so on. My farm may be the only one making a living in the area now; however, with greenhousing and bioengineering could change this. A long-range view is important; is this going to be a bedroom community for Bend, or farmland? I am concerned about the trend, about a 3 -acre island in the middle of EFU land, which is not a good thing. Some people may want to sell off small portions just to increase their cash flow. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 11 of 15 Includes Continuation of Kiesow/Watkins Hearing Wednesday, February 9, 2000 JOHN FIELD: I am John Field, and I own the adjacent property to the west. I have a lot of respect for my neighbors, and relationships between those in the area have been very harmonious. The land we're talking about is a big rock shale area, which also protrudes onto my property. It is not farmable ground; it's three acres of rock. I don't envy your decision. There appears to be a hodge-podge of zoning in the area. There have been ten or eleven expensive homes built near my property recently. Regarding the noise factor, there are just two people left in the area who make noise at night, one of them being me, baling alfalfa, maybe four nights a year. There is also noise from weaning, and dirt and dust, which most people accept as normal. I am probably one of the worst offenders, and I have never had a complaint from the neighbors. SWEARINGEN: People living there have to realize that farmers have the right to farm. JOHN FIELD: At least this property is on the edge of the farming area; others have not been. Some houses have been built really in the middle of things. It's amazing what they are willing to pay, too. LUKE: Are you in favor or opposed? JOHN FIELD: I don't feel there will be a big impact if this is split off and built on. I am somewhat indifferent to the decision. DAN KIESOW: I am Dan Kiesow, the applicant. I would like to submit my statement again, which was previously submitted into the record. To clarify, it is not a flag lot; it started out that way, but it is now clear it is a dedicated County road, although we may be required, and are willing, to increase the width. PAUL BLIKSTAD: It is a 30 -foot wide, dedicated road, and it will probably need to be widened to 60 feet. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 12 of 15 Includes Continuation of Kiesow/Watkins Hearing Wednesday, February 9, 2000 DENNIS LUKE: To clarify the right -to -farm laws, they do not keep someone from being sued, it just gives them standing in court. DAN KIESOW: There is always the potential for conflict, farm neighbors or not. TOM DEWOLF: You must concede that anytime you are adding more to anything, there is more opportunity for conflict. DAN KIESOW: (Presented a two-page bullet list and map, Exhibit 3.) To respond to Martin's comment, this was created as a legal lot of record in 1981. I feel the Hearings Officer compared apples to oranges. (Submitted letters from John Field and Judith Tracy, Exhibit 4.) Mr. Field and Ms. Tracy, adjacent neighbors, feel there is no potential for conflict, and feel I would not be taking out farmable land with this split. There will still be five acres of dry lot after deleting homesteads, ponds and buildings. Tumalo Irrigation District has remapped water off the property, and the State is amending the map right now. The raised land and the ditch will keep water off the subject land. I made the application in good faith. This is a property rights issue, not a matter of public opinion. I feel it meets requirements without stretching the facts and torturing the statistics. I spent thousands of dollars and many hours based on the County's support of property rights before deciding to pursue this. Please support staff findings and not those of the Hearings Officer. DENNIS LUKE: Some people apparently can't testify today because they didn't sign up last week. Can the record be kept open for new testimony? BRUCE WHITE: You set the rules, so it's up to you. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 13 of 15 Includes Continuation of Kiesow/Watkins Hearing Wednesday, February 9, 2000 LUKE: It will be two weeks until the next regular Board meeting. LINDA S WEARINGEN: Just because Dan submitted this in writing, I don't think he should be penalized; he has always had the right of rebuttal after hearing testimony. There's no legal requirement to keep the record open. Even though you stated the fact that there are others here, at this point they don't have any rights to address us at all. You don't have to extend new rights to folks that you weren't going to recognize in the first place. If there is new material in that, by leaving the record open it gives the parties that you have already recognized the right of rebuttal. Some additional time would allow time for staff to look over the paperwork to assist you in making a decision. It needs to be made clear that Commissioner DeWolf did do a site visit and submitted his observations in writing. If anyone wishes to take issue with his observations, that is available for review. LUKE: We could allow people who have not put anything into the record to do so. WHITE: True, but then Mr. Kiesow would need to have some time for rebuttal. LUKE: I would like to see the record kept open to written testimony from neighbors and others in the area until Friday at 5:00 P.m., with rebuttal left open until Tuesday, 5:00 p.m. (Friday, February 11', and Tuesday, February 15Th) SWEARINGEN: We will meet two weeks from today, on Wednesday, February 9th, to render our decision. The meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 14 of 15 Includes Continuation of Kiesow/Watkins Hearing Wednesday, February 9, 2000 9t DATED this h Day of Jamtry 2000 by the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. n ATTEST: MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Includes Continuation of Kiesow/Watkins Hearing L. Chair De A R. Luke, Vice Chair f1�^ Tom DeWolf, ComraUoner Page 15 of 15 Wednesday, February 9, 2000 s atm �, r � �• l � yet •r ! � }�� , ,-- •". ':-- �,*� des. •y,.`/, � ` +� "r � ,I�"�C'�i� •. ti �v • � '�..�'_.• �- ♦ �: a' � + rim r� Af - ilyli F � � a • y� .�X v Irk t k5 i •� 'ate `�. •may_ •. . � -$y� _ J -� +'�•k. , �� #�.e�,ii'k4 ,r •} 'amu. r1 . W. .:,� �' �' c -1. H a N V 2 -/ v N ~ l'1 N ga t �^ F >Hearings Officer an&Staff both approve the non-farm partition, which contains the standards for neighbor conflict, roads, utilities, setbacks, etc. >Staff approves the conditional use for non-farm dwelling, finding no stability or general unsuitability issues. Other Staff concerns have since been mitigated According to Staff all criteria can be meet. >Hearings Officer takes ultra -conservative approach due to lack of information, misinterpretation of facts and photos, apples to oranges comparisons, and failure to visit the area to see if theoretical suppositions can be actualized. When in doubt, deny. >Information was/is available to Hearings Officer. By not fully looking at the information, or incorrectly interpreting the facts, suppositions were made which negatively effected the owners application, and denied the owner's rights to use his property to the fullest extent allowed under the law. >Fact: 39.1 acre farm with 29.5 acres irrigation = 9.6 dry acres. Take away 3 acre non-farmable land, leaves remainder 6.6 acres dry. Take away 1.5 acre existing farmstead (dwellings, barn, sheds, ponds, etc) still have a remainder of over 5 acres for drylot, loafing, etc., many times over what is necessary for running livestock on -29.5 irrigated acres. >Fact: Only 3 parcels in "same category of developability" (23 acres under irrigation and real potential nein-farm: parcel), none of which are the "same size or smaller", therefore none' could be considered "similarly situated" by Hearings -Officer's articulated criteria written in her decision. >Fact: Application cannot destabilize existing vacant tion -farm parcels, -as this is a "farm partition" with conditional use for dwelling (not "same category of developability"). Trend already exists to allow building on non- farm parcels by percentage of 82% to 18% since 1993. No precedent set. >Fact: 18 tak lots (18.5% of study area) meet minimum standards for commercial farms in TRB subzone. 29 tax lots (30% of EFU lots in study area) are, "... characterized as rural residences or hobby farms.", as stated by the Hearings Officer. Therefore, even by "conservative" approach, the hobby farm uses out run the commercial farm uses by nearly two to one. Thus the character is predominately hobby farm and rural residential. F,,,/ �,_ (,. I _� >Both neighbors who own the large irrigated farm parcels adjoining the 3 acre non-farm parcel have written letters stating they foresee no conflicts to their farm practices, and have no objection to the non-farm dwelling. >Neighbor to the South of the fmm parcel has no objection. Will allow free use of his 59 irrigated acres just to maintain water rights. If he cannot even find someone to lease his irrigated land, how could it be reasonable to assume the two farm neighbors adjoining the non-farm parcel would want to obtain the rocky 3 acre parcel for farm use? Adjoining property to West has 21 acres dry land, adjoining parcel to North has 8.47 acres dry land, subject farm parcel to South and East has a remainder of 6.6 acres dry land after partition. >My application was made counting on the "good faith" of the County to SUPPORT my rights to partition and build if I could meet the criteria. County Staff clearly believes I can meet those criteria. I KNOW this application meets ALL the criteria, WITHOUT stretching the ordinance's intent, torturing the statistics, forgetting the facts, outweighing the experts, or negating the adjoining neighbors. I have spent thousands of dollars and at least a hundred hours based on the Counties support of my property rights. >This application must stand or fall on the current criteria in the ordinance as it exists and is currently and in the past being applied. My rights as a property owner should not be held to a higher standard, or need to meet any additional requirements, other than the ordinance as it now exists. C, ol FZZZW /!/l/!d apn�ii November 19, 190 TO: DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FROM: John and Denyse Field RE: APPLICATION FOR NON-FARM DWELLINGS This is to inform you that we do not object to granting a conditional use permit for a non-farm dwelling In the NW corner of Christine Watkins' property near the eastern boundary of our farm. Our land is used for hay and cattle production and the addition of a dwelling on the proposed she should not adversely effect our farming operation. The rocky area proposed for the home site extends Into our property and Is of no farm value. Sincerely, John Field De ie d Of 85801 Gerking Market Road Bend, OR 07701 �XC'Gllu+ �- It- 1?- 91 TO: DESCHU MS COUNTY HEARIMOS OMCER FROM: JUDITH TRACY RE: WATKM PARTITION NON-FARM DWELLM APPLICATION This is to inform you that I do not object to the oondidowt use fora MD-fam dadbng om the Watkins property ad oinmg my land odfOaking bduW Road My land is usod for hay production and p ohm. It is also separated f om the p gored moo"m pwbdm by a dedwowd 30 Goof wide cod. I do not belim my farm aces would impact the dwdlm& nor wtouid the dwdimg bw any impact an the farm uses. Smomcly,