Loading...
2002-100-Minutes for Meeting February 04,2002 Recorded 2/8/2002DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS �J �00���00 J"t E S ^A"AcA, MARY SUE PENHOLLOW, COUNTY CLERK JVCOMMISSIONERS' JOURNALOZ/08/ZOOZ 01;51:30 PM -< Board of Commissioners 1130 N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 388-4752 www.deschutes.org Tom De Wolf Dennis R. Luke MINUTES OF WORK SESSION Mike Daly DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2002 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building Present were Commissioners Tom De Wolf, Dennis R. Luke, and Michael M. Daly. Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Scot Langton, Lane Thomas and Theresa Maul, Assessor's Office; Sue Brewster, Sheriffs Office; Tom Blust and George Kolb, Road Department; George Read, Paul Blikstad and Kevin Harrison, Community Development; Rick Isham, Mark Amberg and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Jenny Scanlon, Commissioners' Office; Media Representative Barney Lerten of bendnet. com; and no other citizens. Chair Tom De Wolf opened the meeting at 10: 00 a. m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. The Commissioners recognized Lane Thomas' twenty years with the County, and awarded him with a congratulatory letter and a plaque. No other input was offered. 2. Before the Board was Discussion of the Approval of a Deed of Dedication, Dedicating a Strip of County -owned Land off Spruce Avenue to the City of Redmond. Rick Isham stated that this is a narrow sliver of land of one of the roads that was previously a County road, and was turned over to the City of Redmond. He explained that Tom Blust of the Road Department is examining the paperwork and will report if it is satisfactory from the Road Department standpoint. Minutes of Work Session Page 1 of 12 Pages Monday, February 4, 2002 Quality Services Performed with Pride The Board requested that additional background regarding this property be provided, along with a more detailed vicinity map. (This will be readdressed on a future meeting, to be established.) 3. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Chair Signature of Oregon Health Division Grant Revision #5, Adding Revenue to Various Health Programs. Dan Peddycord explained that this grant revision represents revenue of $40,275; half was appropriated last fall, when they hired someone for the Mother's Care Program. The other half was divided between the Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Programs for women over age forty. He stated that there is no additional FTE, and a small part is used for personnel costs. The final component is marketing outreach for family planning. He further explained that they have been behind on billing for grant funds, but with additional staff back on board they should be able to handle the billings on a timelier basis. (This was placed on the consent agenda) 4. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Cooperative Patrol Enforcement Agreement between Deschutes County and the U. S. Department of Agriculture (U.S. Forest Service) for Fiscal Year 2002. Sue Brewster said this has been in place annually since 1997. The U.S. Forest Service pays Deschutes County for patrol of USFS lands. The latest contract gives Deschutes County a slight increase in revenue. Since the Sheriff must respond to these calls anyway, this is an added bonus. The contract took effect in October 2001, but the USFS lost the contract, so they are now in arrears for payment to the County. LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Work Session Page 2 of 12 Pages Monday, February 4, 2002 5. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Deeds Regarding the O.B. Riley Road/Cook Avenue Exchange Agreement. George Kolb explained that these deeds basically finalize the O.B. Riley Road project. The Commissioners complimented George and his department for the good work they did on this project. The paperwork to be approved was: • Acceptance of Warranty Deed from John Bushnell and Robert Holley (Tumalo Feed Company) conveying certain property to Deschutes County. • Warranty Deed from Deschutes County conveying certain property to John Bushnell and Robert Holley (Tumalo Feed Company). • Acceptance of Warranty Deed from Hap Taylor and Sons conveying certain property to Deschutes County. • Warranty Deed from Deschutes County conveying certain property to Hap Taylor and Sons. • Acceptance of a Deed of Dedication from Hap Taylor and Sons for the O.B. Riley Road right-of-way. • Acceptance of a Deed of Dedication from John Bushnell and Robert Holley (Tumalo Feed Company) for the Bailey Road right-of-way. • Deed of Dedication from Deschutes County for public purposes for the Cook Avenue right-of-way on the northeast side of Highway 20, along with the Acceptance of the Deed of Dedication by the Board. LUKE: I move approval of the listed deeds, acceptances and dedications. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: DALY: DEWOLF Yes. Yes. Chair votes yes. 6. Before the Board was a Discussion of a Decision of Whether to Hear an Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Denial of File No. CU -01-93 (Well Drilling Business -Home Occupation in an RR -10 Zone) . Minutes of Work Session Page 3 of 12 Pages Monday, February 4, 2002 PAUL BLIKSTAD: We received an appeal of the Hearings Officer's denial of File No. CU -01-93, which was a conditional use permit for a home occupation in the RR -10 zone. It consisted of a well drilling business that had a water tank, the drill truck and another piece of equipment. The Hearings Officer denied it since it is not indoors, he has employees, and it doesn't meet the criteria for approval of a home occupation. I believe Laurie (Craghead) has some comments about the notice of appeal. LAURIE CRAGHEAD: Yes. Under Deschutes County Code 22.32.027(b)(3), you do have the ability to call up on your own a hearing for a de novo appeal. However, under (b)(2), there's a list of criteria for you to consider when you're deciding whether or not to do a de novo. The criteria have not really been addressed in the notice of intent to appeal. It's up to you to decide that criteria. DEWOLF: But calling it up on our own is different from them appealing to us to make a decision as to whether to hear it. Calling it up on our own means that nobody is paying for it but us. CRAGHEAD: You may decide on your own whether to hear it. However, they have asked for de novo but they did not put down the criteria under which you are to consider hearing it de novo. LUKE: I need to put on the record that I've had outside discussions on this with both the applicant and George (Read) regarding some of the criteria. This happened before this appeal came before us. CRAGHEAD: If you decide to hear it, I would also recommend that your comments be put on the record at that time. DALY: I've read this file, and I have some questions as to why they are applying for a home occupation. What's wrong with just parking a truck at your house? Is there something against that? Minutes of Work Session Page 4 of 12 Pages Monday, February 4, 2002 BLIKSTAD: Well, we determined that it was actually a business; it wasn't just him parking his truck there. I believe that there were possibly employees coming and going at the property. DALY: What I read in the file is that the employees - in fact, I think that testimony was that they never came there. That anytime they were operating, they were off somewhere else, away from the property. BLIKSTAD: That's true. The testimony was that most of the time the equipment was off- site, and the employees were working off-site. But there would be periods when they would return the equipment and Mr. Aikens, the business owner, wouldn't necessarily return the equipment; his employees might return the equipment. DALY: My question is, and I'm going back to when I was a contractor, I had a truck with a lumber rack on top, and I'm sure Commissioner Luke had the same thing when he was in business. I always brought that to my house at night, and sometimes I was towing a trailer. I can't see the difference between that activity and him parking his equipment along the side of his shop. What's the difference? I can understand that he may not fit the home occupation criteria - in fact, I don't think he does - but I'm wondering why he even needs that designation. DEWOLF: Because it's a residentially zoned piece of property. By what you just said, that you don't believe that he meets the criteria for home occupation, that's the whole point of this. BLIKSTAD: I think that because he has more than one rig and he's got employees were the big factors. I can understand a contractor having more than one rig, but he's got a well drilling truck, a water tank truck and another piece of equipment, moved back and forth not just by him. Minutes of Work Session Page 5 of 12 Pages Monday, February 4, 2002 DEWOLF: What the Hearings Officer said is, "the purpose of the limitations in the home occupation definition is to assure that the subject property has no outward appearance of a business." The way this is being conducted is inconsistent with that purpose, according to the Hearings Officer. The focus is, for example, that I don't start a little grocery store in my garage that is going to impact my neighbors, in a residentially zoned property. That's why we have the ordinances written the way that we do, to protect other people, not just that particular individual. LUKE: Let me ask you a question. If this was a one-person operation, or a family operation, and they move the truck in and out of there to the job sites, would that be allowed? You allow log trucks to do that. BLIKSTAD: I think it is allowed. KEVIN HARRISON: We recognize that all contractors live in a house, and they all have some vehicle that they start up in the morning and drive to the work site. We have always said that is a residential use of the property. It's a fine line, but there is a line that's crossed when a contractor has employees coming to his property, or has a sign in front of his property, has customers coming to the property, or has equipment and material associated with the job stored on his property. Then we look at it as something more than a residential use of the property. DEWOLF: If in fact using a piece of residential property for a business that would be permitted outright in a commercial or business type zone, what we would be doing by allowing that sort of activity would be giving an advantage to that person who doesn't have to either rent or buy business property elsewhere to operate their business. So by not causing that additional expense, we're giving people an undue advantage in a competitive market. I think there are real issues here, and real legitimate reasons why the Hearings Officer denied it. HARRISON: There was a code complaint. A neighbor had objected about the operations that were going on at this property. I suspect it had to do with equipment that was being stored there, and coming and going. Minutes of Work Session Page 6 of 12 Pages Monday, February 4, 2002 LUKE: Again, though, the equipment being stored there, if the owner -operator is the only one driving in and out, is not a code violation. Because the employees were involved, I understand that is where the problem lies. DALY: My question is, he has applied for a home occupation. I believe he probably doesn't fit those criteria. So, why does he even need it? If he was driving that truck himself, is he in violation of some code? DEWOLF: Take it to another extreme. Have you been following the e-mails that have been going back and forth with the guy who has the business out in Sisters in a rural area? And he has parked and stored lots of stuff, allegedly, and a violation was there. That seems to be just a step further than what I am reading here. And the reason for that is to protect the peace and quiet of a residential neighborhood. HARRISON: It kinds of gets to the definition of what constitutes a land use. You have to look at how that property is designed and arranged and how it's being used. What is the intended use, and how is it being used. If you go onto this piece of property and you see a number of heavy rigs, it doesn't look like a residential piece of property any more. It may be - and you could argue it either way - that the owner lives on the property, no employees or customers come to the property, but because of the kinds of equipment and material stored on the property, it no longer looks like a residential parcel. It may appear to be arranged and intended for use for the operation of a business. I think you can pursue it as a code violation. DALY: If you go by my five -acre parcel right now, you'll find a backhoe and a dump truck parked there. I am no longer in business and they aren't' being use for business. But if you drive by there and look, it probably looks like I have a business there. So, am I in code violation? BLIKSTAD: Well, this is where you might argue that the code enforcement system is primarily complaint -driven. I would suspect that your operations haven't caused your neighbors any problems. It may look like some other piece of property, but they way people use a property might cause a problem. Minutes of Work Session Page 7 of 12 Pages Monday, February 4, 2002 BLIKSTAD: If we get a complaint we have to look into it. If you're not operating a business, I don't think that we could pursue it. LUKE: Do you allow owner -operator log trucks to park in residential areas? BLIKSTAD: Yes. Independent log truck drivers and contractors who take their vehicles to work and home at night -- LUKE: Gets up at 3:00 a.m. and cranks that rig up and lets it run -- BLIKSTAD: I think that's a residential use of the property. If he has two log trucks and an employee comes in there to get that second truck, you have something else. LUKE: Has the Planning Commission looked at this issue for a while? BLIKSTAD: No, they haven't discussed home occupations for years. DALY: So we don't specifically have a code that says, well drilling trucks are not allowed, but log trucks are. BLIKSTAD: You have to look at the nature of the operation, and who is doing what at the property. DALY: The well driller gets up, takes his truck out, drills a well and comes back home. How is that different from a log truck operator? BLIKSTAD: In this case, we're talking about a well drilling rig, a water truck, forklift, and four employees. I suspect that the equipment is all going to the same job site. There isn't just one person driving all the equipment. Minutes of Work Session Page 8 of 12 Pages Monday, February 4, 2002 DALY: The evidence I read was that the employees didn't show up there at all. Maybe there is something different than that going on, but that was the testimony. DEWOLF: All you are reading are the reports. Did you also look through the record? DALY: Not the entire record, but what the Hearings Officer said. DEWOLF: And the Hearings Officer said, "As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein". She found the applicant's well drilling business is conducted by the applicant and four employees who are not members of the family. That is what throws it over the line. W.IVNN But if the employees don't show up at the residence, I fail to see the problem. There is a fine line, no question. I think that if it looks like a business and there are employees showing up there, I suppose there is possibly a code violation. DEWOLF: Well, I don't want to hear this. If the two of you do want to hear it, then we will. LUKE: I would kind of like to hear it, but not specifically for this one case. I think it's something that we face quite a bit in this county, and I think we need to have more definitive rules of what this means. Didn't this person build a building also? BLIKSTAD: He has a shop, but he doesn't store this equipment inside of it. LUKE: I think that on the larger lots there may be some room for this. I'd be willing to hear it. Minutes of Work Session Page 9 of 12 Pages Monday, February 4, 2002 DALY: I feel the same way. I think we've got to define this. We have ten -acre lots where the neighbors complain. Maybe we need to look at the whole issue and decide some of these occupations that are not disturbing to the neighbors maybe should be allowed. DEWOLF: So we're going to hear it. The question is whether it's on the record or de novo. LUKE: I'd like to hear it de novo, because I think there is a major difference between a home occupation where you have customers coming to that residential site, and another where you do all of your work off-site. DALY: I agree with de novo. DEWOLF: What's our time frame on this? BLIKSTAD: I think we're fine as far as timing goes. We need to schedule it fairly quickly, though. The Commissioners agreed that the hearing should not be held in conjunction with a regular Board meeting. Laurie Craghead said she'd draft an order setting a hearing date for Board signature on Wednesday. 7. Before the Board was Discussion of a Decision (Scheduled for Wednesday, February 6) Whether to Hear an Appeal of the County Hearings Officer's Decision of CU-01-83/SP-01-52 (Regarding Commercial Activity in Conjunction with a Farm Use - Applicant. Gary Brian). Paul Blikstad said that the Board had asked for more time to review this issue. Chair DeWolf suggested that the Board hear this. Commissioner Daly agreed. Legal Counsel will prepare an Order for Board signature on Wednesday, February 6. Minutes of Work Session Page 10 of 12 Pages Monday, February 4, 2002 8. Before the Board was a Discussion of a Final Public Hearing (Scheduled for Wednesday. February 6) on the Formation of the Spring River Special Road District. Laurie Craghead stated that the Board approved the petition for formation, the name and the tax rate. She said this is an odd way to do it, but it's Oregon statute. After the final hearing, this would be set for a May election. She said that the Department of Revenue had previously rejected the map and the legal description, but she worked with them to revise it to their satisfaction. If the Board approves the formation after the public hearing, the revised map and legal will be a part of that approval. Chair DeWolf stated that he hasn't heard much about this issue from anyone. Commissioners Luke and Daly concurred. 9. Before the Board was a Discussion of a Public Forum (Scheduled for Wednesday, February 6) on the Formation of the Sunriver Service District. Laurie Craghead explained that a public hearing had originally been scheduled for February 6, but since the District wanted to add another service, a new hearing had to be noticed and set for February 13. February 6 will be a public forum, and a transcript of the testimony taken at that time will be entered into the February 13 final record. 10. Before the Board Were Additions to the Agenda. A. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Four Rivers Vector Control Annual Work Program for 2002. Chair DeWolf noted that they are trying out one new pesticide not used previously, but otherwise the program is similar to previous years. (This was placed on the consent agenda) B. Before the Board was Consideration of Chair Signature of an Oregon Liquor Control License Application for the Tumalo Store, Bend. (This was placed on the consent agenda) Minutes of Work Session Page 11 of 12 Pages Monday, February 4, 2002 C. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Letter Reappointing Kendal Shaber to the Deschutes County Commission on Children and Families through December 31, 2005. (This was placed on the consent agenda.) Being no further business brought before the Board, Chair Tom DeWolf adjourned the meeting at 10:40 a.m. DATED this 4th Day of February 2002 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Tom'DeWolf, Chair D nnis R. Luke, ommissioner ATTEST: Michael M. Daly, CA missioner Recording Secretary Minutes of Work Session Page 12 of 12 Pages Monday, February 4, 2002