Loading...
2003-1361-Minutes for Meeting October 22,2003 Recorded 10/31/2003DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 11111111111111111111111111111 2003-1361 CLERKS CJ 1003.1361 10/31/2003 08;42;56 AM DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK CERTIFICATE PAGE This page must be included if document is re-recorded. Do Not remove from original document. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend, OR 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 388-4752 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2003 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building — 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Tom De Wolf and Michael M. Daly. Also present were Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Scott Johnson, Commission on Children & Families; Kevin Harrison, Christy Morgan, and Cynthia Smidt Community Development Department; Judith Ure, Commissioners' Office; media representative Chris Barker and Mike Cronin of the Bulletin; Jeff Mullins of KBND Radio; Barney Lerten of bend com and The Bugle; and twelve other citizens. Chair Dennis Luke opened the meeting at 10: 00 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. 2. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2003- 430, Federal Grant Award Documents from the Office of Violence against Women regarding a "Safe Havens" Program. Scott Johnson gave an overview of the program, which relates to non-custodial parental visits. The grant is for planning the program; it is hoped that a local family resource center may be involved, or a person could be hired part-time to handle the planning if it is a requirement of the grant. DEWOLF: Move Chair signature. DALY: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Page 1 of 23 Pages VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 3. Before the Board was a Public Hearing, and Consideration of First and Second Readings, and Adoption, by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2003- 033, Amending the Transferable Development Credit Ordinance. Christy Morgan gave a brief overview of the ordinance and the TDC program. There are two amendments; both change operational standards to reflect how business is actually being done. The existing ordinance requires a verification of eligibility in writing; however, phone calls and visits have been allowed. This change would make it easier for the customers. The other change would be changing the TDC advisory committee selection process from the Board to having the members selected in another fashion. This avoids the impact of the perception of a conflict of interest. George Read said that the people who would help determine the next phase of the program are all involved in real estate in some fashion. If the people have any relationship to land in La Pine, it could be perceived as a conflict of interest. However, their expertise is what is needed. Laurie Craghead added that these people could have a future direct monetary benefit. Commissioner Luke questioned how the TDC program would directly benefit for instance an excavator. Ms. Craghead replied that the developer would be paying the contractors. George Read said that all property in the study area is affected, and perhaps an excavator could be directly benefited by, for instance, the installation of new types of septic system. But their input is important in developing the program. Ms. Craghead stated that some have an actual benefit at this time. Commissioner Luke said that he did not want to see the developer on the advisory board. Chair Luke then opened the public hearing. Being no input offered, Chair Luke closed the public hearing. DEWOLF: Move first and second readings, by title only, of Ordinance 2003-033. DALY: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Page 2 of 23 Pages VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Chair Luke then conducted the first and second readings of the ordinances, by title only, declaring an emergency. DEWOLF: Move approval of Ordinance No. 2003-033. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2003- 109, Changing the Number of Transfer Development Credits Needed for Development in the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area. Christy Morgan explained the Board can set the number of TDC's required from the planning area to the receiving area. George Read further said that there should be a relationship of the reductions and the new residences; density in the new neighborhood is less than 5.5, so this relationship remains. The next phase will be to further refine that ratio, taking into account how the program is progressing. DEWOLF: Move Chair signature. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 5. Before the Board was Consideration of a Decision to Deny or Approve a Request to Trim/Prune Vegetation within the River Meadows/Stage Stop Subdivision and Within an Area Protected by a Conservation Easement along the Deschutes River. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Page 3 of 23 Pages Kevin Harrison and Cynthia Smidt gave an overview of the request from two property owners to trim willows on the conservation easement. They pointed out that this is not a land use issue, but comes from a land use permit issued in 1987. In terms of history, the permit had to do with the construction of a marina in the channels that were developed for the River Meadows Subdivision. As a condition of approval for the construction, the developer conveyed to the County the conservation easement, which covers the entire wetlands area, everything south of the marina down to the river. The easement covers the whole front of the subdivision and a large portion of the wetlands. At this time, the Commissioners viewed an oversized aerial photograph and oversized map of the area, and Ms. Smidt pointed out the marina, where the vegetation and residences are located. Mr. Harrison added that the operative language of the easement states in part that cutting of trees to provide view corridors for lots may be undertaken by grantor, which in this case is the River Meadows Homeowners' Association, only after obtaining prior written approval from grantee (the County). In determining whether to grant such approval, grantee may consult with other entities, such as the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Oregon Division of State Lands. We have solicited comments from the U.S. Forest Service, the Division of State Lands and the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife; so far letters from the Department of Fish & Wildlife and the U.S. Forest Service have been received. The purpose of the request is to maintain river views by the requestors. While the language in the conservation easement and the description, and the analysis or the findings in the underlying land use decision, are less than crystal clear, what we read in these documents in terms of the purpose of the easement might be summed up two -fold. My interpretation of what I've been reading is that the purpose of the easement is to preserve the wetland in a natural state and to screen the marina from properties to the south. There is room for interpretation in the language of the easement itself, and there is room for interpretation in the findings that you'll see in those land use findings. Basically, the question posed to the commissioners is -- Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Page 4 of 23 Pages DEWOLF: Which way is south? HARRISON: Down. DEWOLF: So, the vegetation in here was to screen the view of the marina from people living down here. Is there any vegetation on this side of the marina, or is it all on this side? Is there any conservation easement on this side? HARRISON: No. The question before the Board is whether to approve or deny their request to come onto the property to trim the willows as requested. Also make note that the Board received a letter by fax from Joe Robinson either last night or this morning. In his letter he asks that his letter be read verbally today. DEWOLF: He called me yesterday and maybe a couple of weeks ago. He believes he was misled and I can see how he came to that conclusion. I'd be happy to read his letter if you guys would like me to. DALY: That's fine. LUKE: It would be part of the record anyway. We can give copies to anyone who wants one. DEWOLF: It is his contention is that he didn't think he'd be able to address the Board; that no one would be able to address the Board, so consequently made no plans to be here, and was surprised to read in the paper that we allowed others speak. I was under the mistaken impression that we wouldn't be legally allowed to take public testimony, so I conveyed that mistaken impression to him. But a bunch of folks showed up on Monday, and we're always open to having people communicate with us, so that's why we let them give testimony. Here's a guy who feels like he was treated unfairly, and I agree with him based on my conversation with him. So, my belief is we either read this out loud or make copies for everybody. I'm not sure I'm going to be voting on this today in any case, because I'm more confused today that I was yesterday. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Page 5 of 23 Pages LUKE: I wasn't here Monday. When this first came up months ago, did staff make a recommendation? I think the history is that before Mr. Cecchi started trimming the willows, he asked those entities that he thought might have some regulatory authority whether this was the correct thing to do. He said talked to the homeowners' association, and talked with the planners at the counter, and he talked with some of the resource agencies. As far as the advice from the planning department, based on lack of knowledge of the history here and the presence of the easement, he was told by the County that it would be okay to go ahead to trim the willows if he had permission from the property owner. Then, when we found out that there is this conservation easement and we read it, we called him back. We told him that the property was subject to the conservation easement and has some limitations on what can be done; there's a procedure to get where you want to go, but you have to follow the procedure. That's what he has done. LUKE: What's the penalty? HARRISON: Basically, he could be cited. He would be entering on property without permission. LUKE: Whose property? LAURIE CRAGHEAD: The other penalty is code enforcement, which could be subject to a citation and a fine. x8r4m The motel where the Shilo is, they chose to cut down the trees because it was easier to pay the fine than it was to ask permission. DEWOLF: Trees are a bit different from willows. I mean, those trees took fifty years to grow to that size. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Page 6 of 23 Pages CRAGHEAD: It also depends on the recurring number of citations and fines and how long it takes to go through the court system. LUKE: Does our code have a specific process for this? CRAGHEAD: Normal code enforcement procedure for not adhering to a condition of approval. DEWOLF: Since this is on tape, I want to make clear that it wasn't the Shilo Inn that cut down the trees. It was the previous owner - I believe they were called "A Touch of Class" - that made the decision to cut down the trees. LUKE: So staff has not made a recommendation? HARRISON: We have not. DEWOLF: I asked that staff be prepared to make a recommendation - not knowing whether we would actually ask for it or not today. LUKE: Let's listen to the testimony first. There are copies of the letter from Mr. Robinson available to today's attendees. DALY: He does ask that it be read aloud. And there might be folks here today who'd like to hear it. DEWOLF: I'm assuming that everyone here today is in support of this request. Is there anyone here who is opposed to this trimming? No response was given. He raises enough points in here, so we should give people an opportunity to respond to what he is claiming here. I'll go ahead and read it now. (A copy of Joe Robinson's letter is attached as Exhibit B.) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Page 7 of 23 Pages DALY: He refers to a conditional use permit that was required when Mr. Cecchi built his house. Do we have a copy of that or has it been reviewed? SMIDT: It's a landscape management site plan review; that's what Joe Robinson is referring to. DEWOLF: So there isn't an actual conditional use permit. SMIDT: No. It's a site plan. 1RU) 114 91 You had the landscape management permit the same time as the one we had for the nursery on Gerking Market Road. You have to go through a land use process because you're in the landscape management zone. DALY: My question is, he is referring to that document - what does it say? He's saying that when he built his house that the document says he can't change it. Is that true or not? SMIDT: I don't know the exact specifics of that particular application. But generally in the landscape management site plan review, if there's enough vegetative buffer between the landscape management corridor - in this case, the Deschutes River - and the property, we may not require them to plant any additional vegetation. I know in Mr. Cecchi's case, he was not required to plant a lot; I think he had to plant perhaps three Ponderosa pines or something like that. He has since done so this year; he knows he was in violation of that. As for what was there at that time, I don't know that information. I just know what was required for Mr. Cecchi to do. Do you want more specifics about the conditional use permit just for the marina, or for Mr. Cecchi's property? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Page 8 of 23 Pages DALY: The statement here says that when he applied for landscape management site plan approval, he was not required to further buffer his home, but he was to retain the existing vegetation. Now, Mr. Robinson is making a claim that the document says he was to retain the existing vegetation between his house and the river. I am wondering if that's what it says. LUKE: Why don't we bring up some other testimony, and then maybe staff can review the document and someone can answer that. HANK FAIRBROTHER: I work as the real estate manager for the River Meadows Homeowners' . Association. I am just now getting involved in this particular issue. I will try to clarify a couple of things for you, and maybe you'll find it helpful. There are a couple of things going on. It started with Mr. Robinson, I believe, complaining about Mr. Cecchi trimming the willows across the river. Subsequent to that, he has - or I think it is probably him - someone has filed a code enforcement violation against the Homeowners' Association for trees that were or were not planted back in 1988 when the marina and the boat basin were built. On the one hand, I'm trying to be responsive to at least Linda Larsen (the code enforcement officer), and we're trying to identify what was planted and what wasn't. The area of concern, of course, is the wetlands bordering the boat basin and the channel, and that has pretty well established a fragile ecosystem over the past seventeen years. So I don't know if we're going to be successful in planting trees there or not. That's one issue. The issue at hand is Ray Cecchi's having trimmed some willows. I think there are six willows that have been trimmed. Before getting into further testimony, I wanted to bring up our interpretation of where the easement is and isn't. I have past experience as a land surveyor and a real estate developer, and I feel that I can interpret easements fairly well. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Page 9 of 23 Pages There are actually two easements that were put together back in 1988. One easement covered all of the property that fronted the Deschutes River from wherever the property started on the river, and it went upriver all the way down around the wetland area, and back up where it reconnected with the existing subdivision. It was so because River Meadows Homeowners' Association, or at that time Stagestop Development, owned that wetland and still do. There was another easement that was put into place that covered the wetlands itself, up to the boat basin and the channel. And the easement specifically says that it does not include the banks of the boat basin and its channels. So, it is our argument at least today that there is no conservation easement on the banks of the boat channel and the basin. And that is where the six willows were trimmed. The Bulletin did say that the trees were cut, but that wasn't the case. DEWOLF: I want to get a clarification of that. It sounds like this is open to some interpretation. Is there anywhere in that document where it states a typical high water mark from the river, or ten feet back, or whatever. Are there any measurements to guide us in this? FAIRBROTHER: A couple of years ago Kevin Harrison and I went around and around with what identifies a bank of a river or a channel or whatever. I talked with the parks people in the State of Oregon and got their interpretation; Kevin had his interpretation. Somewhere along the line I think one has to use common sense and reason. If you are standing on the bank where these willows are, then there is no easement; because it says it does not include the bank. DEWOLF: It says that in the easement? FAIRBROTHER: Yes, it says, "but not including the banks of said boat basin and channels". DEWOLF: Kevin, is this a reasonable conclusion to draw? HARRISON: The conclusion being? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Page 10 of 23 Pages DALY: That's it is not part of the easement. HARRISON: We would agree, yes; that the easement does not include the bank of the inlet channel. The easement runs from the marina and the channels south to the river, excluding the banks of the channel. FAIRBROTHER: It would obviously exclude the north bank of the river. HARRISON: There were pictures in the applicant's submittal, showing the channel and the willows. DEWOLF: Part of this is trying to make a determination of what the bank is? HARRISON: Whether the willows are inside of, on or off the bank; if they are subject to or exempt from the easement. DEWOLF: I can tell you right now that I'm not going to vote on this today. I want to go down there with one of the planners. FAIRBROTHER: We're not trying to be obstinate about it. We're trying to find a way out of this issue. LUKE: Things have changed since 1988. I mean, the Fish and Wildlife used to require you to take all of the trees out of the river for fish habitat, and now they found out that was a mistake, and they are putting them back in. What was required in 1988 may not be what is best for the river. And hopefully you've had some discussions with Fish and Wildlife and the Division of State Lands about what is best for the river. I would hate to impose requirements from 1988 if they did damage to the river. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Page 11 of 23 Pages FAIRBROTHER: That's our feeling, too. We will be proceeding with Fish and Wildlife and the Forest Service. I can't imagine that they would want us to go wander around in this fragile area and start planting trees. As it exists now, there is no view of the channel and boat basin from the across the river because of the thrushes and marsh grasses that have grown there. At some point in time, hopefully we can get together with Mr. Robinson or whoever made this particular complaint and sit down in a setting, possibly with a mediator, and get it resolved. I think that would be the best route. But, for today, that was our primary issue. LUKE: I was on the Natural Resources Committee for six years in the House, and people who lived on the Sandy River got their tax statements and found that they owned less land than they did the year before. The State had come in and decided that it was a navigable river and took the property without even telling them. So things could be worse. FAIRBROTHER: That's my only testimony. I think that is an important point on where the easement is. DALY: There's no definition of a bank? In my mind, it's an area on both sides of the channel, but how far back is subject to interpretation. FAIRBROTHER: Once again, I'm relying on the great wisdom of the Bulletin folks. They did mention in the paper that willows were cut - although they were just trimmed - on the banks of the channel. DALY: It appears that they are on the bank. If your interpretation of the easement is correct, I would think it is not even part of the conservation easement. RAY CECCHI: I'm the culprit who, according to the Bulletin, who is cutting trees. There has been a serious discussion with the Bulletin regarding what is a tree. We have not cut trees, just trimmed willows. I was a little upset when I read that. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Page 12 of 23 Pages DEWOLF: What are willows? CECCHL The definition of willows in the dictionary says, "any of various deciduous trees or shrubs". I always interpreted that as bushes. DALY: I think it is important to show Commissioner Luke the photos showing that the boat basin is dry this time of the year. (At this time the Commissioners reviewed various photos, and they and Mr. Cecchi discussed them) CECCHI: I think this will clarify the situation a great deal. Upstream, looking down river - these are the mature willows that haven't been trimmed or pruned. These willows are growing very rapidly. This picture is the opposite from upstream. Here's one that hasn't been trimmed. When the County gave us permission to trim we started here and then we stopped at this point when they said to stop. They are growing out over the water. Fish and Wildlife criticized this, through their boilerplate textbook report, but we haven't harmed them. Instead they have grown in density and width, which forces them out over the water, providing more shade. It's not really a fishery; is bone dry part of the year. I've lived there three years and have seen one trout in it. There is trout in the marina area. Here's a view from across the river, and my home. You can see these willows have not been trimmed. These folks with these lots, in a matter of a few years will lose property value because the views will be gone. These lots have been cleared, and there will probably be houses there soon. Here's the ditch, and here's the willows overhanging. Here's the marina, and the dry channel, and a typical trimmed willow. Upriver and downriver. Here's Mr. Robinson's house across the river. I just wanted to point out, you'll notice that he has a dock and concrete walls. I'll grant that he is grandfathered and subject to a different set of rules than the folks on our side. He has grass going to the wall, and no willows. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Page 13 of 23 Pages LUKE: The fertilizer from the grass goes into the river? CECCHI: I don't know. Here's Barry Adams' house. He has planted some aspen out front. His dock extends way into the river. He has a shed along the river. He's just right across the river from us. I just wanted to show you so you can get a picture of whole situation. Here's the other side of the river, high water, these homes are very nice homes but there are no willows, no vegetation, walls, boat docks, and so on. LUKE: I'm surprised that our planners allowed grass clear down to the river like that, with the fertilizer and things in it. In a conservation easement, I'm really surprised you allow that. I mean, the landscape management zone. HARRISON: That area was developed prior to those restrictions. CECCHI: Actually, the folks on the other side of the river do have a conservation agreement. I believe there is a boilerplate conservation agreement for anyone with property on the river. Don't you? In the current conservation easement that the County uses, they allow for pruning up to fifty cubic yards. That's a lot of material. This picture is looking at my house from across the river. You can see the willows that were trimmed. And you'll notice that the boat basin lies back in here, and the water line is several feet below the grass line. These were trimmed; these were not. You can imagine, taking that height line across there. I still have a river view right now, but I'm looking at the future and being able to preserve my river view. This is low water, and you can see that the water is gone. You can kind of see what's going on with that. My property sits right here, lot 14. And the other folks are directly across from US. LUKE: It's clear that they haven't been cut. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Page 14 of 23 Pages CECCHI: I guess we are looking at two separate issues right now. If Hank's interpretation of the conservation easement is correct - and I think it is - and I don't know why we missed that early on. We should have concentrated on that. But if in fact his interpretation is correct, then the boat basin, the inlet channel and the outlet channel are not involved in this, since it is private property, you folks don't have to make a decision on it. All you have to say is that the conservation easement does not apply, since it is private property and since River Meadows has not signed a current conservation easement with the County. I think we can prune without a problem. That would be my interpretation. DALY: The landscape management issue that I brought up a little while ago - does it apply here? If this is not a part of the easement? The landscape management permit that was issued to Mr. Cecchi prior to the development of his property covered his property only. So, what we are looking at is existing or supplied screening on his property. A condition of approval was that he plant two or three trees, and I believe he has done that. That's really not a factor in this issue. DALY: So this is really kind of a no -man's land, the banks of the canal. It's not part of the conservation easement and not part of his. HARRISON: It's property that would be owned by the Homeowners' Association and free of this conservation easement. DALY: And he has permission from the Homeowners' Association to cut or trim the willows. CECCHI: Absolutely. I have a resolution from the board allowing the pruning of the willows. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Page 15 of 23 Pages LUKE: Does legal counsel agree that the County has no authority over this property? CRAGHEAD: There needs to be a determination of where the bank is, and how far the bank is, and whether the willows are on the bank. A definition of the bank is not clear in the easement. LUKE: In a landscape management zone, which we know from a previous land use hearing, the cliff and the bank are determined by the planning department on the setback for the house. So, is the house set back from the river, the high water mark, or the bank? HARRISON: Ordinary high water mark. LUKE: Do you then consider that the bank? HARRISON: The high water mark is or can be on the bank or over the bank. LUKE: So, how do you determine the bank? HARRISON: That's a judgment call. I think Mr. Cecchi has asked a good question. Does the Board believe these willows are on the bank? CRAGHEAD: It's a factual question. CECCHI: If your determination is that these willows are on the bank, the conservation easement does not apply, and all the rest of the stuff I have here is just a lot of verbiage that you probably don't want to hear. If, on the other hand, you decide that in fact the bank is what I don't think it is, then I have lots of arguments here that I think justify the trimming of these willows. When I talk about trimming these willows, I want to assure you that we are not going to decimate the land. We're not going to decimate the river. I live on that river, and consider myself a steward of that river. And I don't want to see the river damaged in any way. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Page 16 of 23 Pages At this time, Commissioner DeWolf asked for directions on how to get to the area, and Mr. Cecchi explained. CECCHI: Right now it's kind of dry. There is a set of pipes in front of my house, and water flows through the pipes into the marina. That pipe is the access to the wetlands. It's kind of a culvert. DEWOLF: I want to go see for myself. How much of this area would you trim? How far back from the water? CECCHI: Most of them are right on the banks of the river. All of them are on the banks of the ditch; the bulk of them are there. LUKE: From your application, it appears that the canal on front of your place was not there, and when they did the development they put in the canal. So, this canal was several tens of feet back from the river's high water mark. Or is, still. CECCHI: The high water mark - if you were to walk beyond the ditch, the grass is growing, and it's really muddy. At high water, there's probably that much water right up to the ditch. As soon as you step over the river side of the ditch, you're in deeper water. LUKE: My point is, this canal in front of your house is a manmade feature as part of the development, and not a natural feature of the river. CECCHI: That's right. That would be upland water, above the river, before the development went in. LUKE: We could go on with this, but is sounds like we need to determine where the bank is. And if we determine they are correct, we have no authority and are done. Is that reasonable, Laurie? To me, maybe we should do this first. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Page 17 of 23 Pages The easement does say that the section they are talking about, "together with an easement, including all elements of this easement, with the exception of', then down below, "section 24, lying between the Deschutes River and the boat basin and its inlet and outlet channels, but not including banks of said boat basin and channels". It does not include the banks of the boat basin and the channels. LUKE: So if we make a determination that the willows are on the banks, we have no authority; is that right? CRAGHEAD: You could determine that, yes. LUKE: If we make the determination that the willows are on the banks, then we have no authority. So that is a determination that we really should make before we continue this hearing, because we may not have the authority to do the hearing to start with. CRAGHEAD: Yes. LUKE: If we determine that they are not on the bank, then we'll invite you all back. DALY: That's fine. DEWOLF: Even though this isn't really a public hearing. LUKE: I understand. But we would still invite them all back, because they are here to testify. But maybe they are here to testify on something over which we have no authority. We don't know yet. DEWOLF: I'm going to go out and visit the area. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Page 18 of 23 Pages CECCHI: I can show you around. DEWOLF: We can't do that. I will go with staff, and won't talk with either side of this issue. And we have to do individual visits with staff. CECCHI: Do you have any idea of the timing? DEWOLF: We'll do this as soon as we can. I'd like this to be on next Wednesday's agenda. DEWOLF: Kevin, please call Joe Robinson regarding the conditional use permit that he refers to. Obviously, he is thinking of some kind of document. HARRISON: You have this information in your packets. The conditional use permit was for the construction of the marina and channels. DEWOLF: This is what gets complicated for me. In the conditional use permit, "we have agreed to landscape the site with natural willow and aspen trees, and are making an effort to screen the total site from neighbors from across the river". That's something you have to overcome, depending on how we define a bank. HARRISON: If you find that the willows in question are located on the bank, then the question goes away. If you find that the willows are located off the bank in the easement area, then we get back to the purpose of the easement and what is allowed, and how it relates to the conditional use permit. DEWOLF: Do we have any definitions anywhere in our code regarding how wide a bank is? We will look at the code to see if there is anything there and will advise you. Otherwise, what we would then do is defer to a common dictionary definition. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Page 19 of 23 Pages LUKE: Or the Division of State Lands should have something. This is a navigable river. HARRISON: The channels are not. DALY: It's a man-made ditch. LUKE: The river is navigable. DEWOLF: What we're talking about is a bank. Is the bank a foot wide from the water? Ten feet from the water mark? HARRISON: I think that the use of the term "bank" in relation to the marina and the channel is a non-technical term. It's not like state law that refers to the bed and banks of the Deschutes River. It's a term that would put in this easement by the County and by the parties for some purpose. LUKE: I would point out to you that the state definition of navigable is to be able to pull a canoe up the water. HARRISON: If we have one, I will get it to you. If not, we'll defer to the dictionary. CECCHI: Tom, I'll address this to you. When you talk with Mr. Robinson, we, on our side of the river, want to have peace. We don't want to fight with the neighbors. You can tell him that Mr. McGuire and I are talking about planting some aspen. DEWOLF: I'm actually not going to do that. I'm not sure if I'll talk with him or not, but if I do I'm not going to get in between you guys. I'd like to see you work out your issues together. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Page 20 of 23 Pages 6. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Letters Reappointing Dick Deatherage and Linda Cook to the Board of the Lazy River Special Road District. DEWOLF: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 7. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2003- 122, Transferring Appropriations within the Fiscal Year 2003-04 Budget for the 9-1-1 County Service District, and Directing Entries. DEWOLF: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 8. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $7,771.03. DEWOLF: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Page 21 of 23 Pages CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the Amount of $36.95. DEWOLF: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $1,010,633.90. DEWOLF: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 11. Before the Board was Additions to the Agenda. None were offered. Being no further items brought before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 11:25 a.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Page 22 of 23 Pages DATED this 22nd Day of October 2003 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Attachments ennis R. Luke, Chair Tom beWolf, Commissioner Daly, Copfinissioner Exhibit A: Sign -in sheet for today's discussion regarding a request to trim willows. Exhibit B: Letter from Joe Robinson dated October 22, 2003. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Page 23 of 23 Pages 4.1 Pap—e / Ot m N !� N N m .E K tC U. I �o O t M � r N G :2 a NC� N O r O V c� U) .O H Q CD cr 1 c Q-11 7 i_ E (D a Exl Pap—e / Ot m 1-0421/2003 08:54 5036555489 October 22, 2003 From, Joe Robinson EXCEL_FINISHING ATfn: PAGE 01 Attention: Board of Commissioners for Deschutes County Please read verbally so that all who attends may hear. My name is Joe Robinson and I am writing this letter to the Commissioners to be read prior to a vote of the Willow Trimming Project proposed by Raymond Cecchi. I would like it to be on record that I was informed by Commissioner DeWolf and Devin Harrison that the work session held on Monday, October 20'' was to be a closed session. It wasn't until I received a call from the Bead Bulletin that I found out that the meeting allowed testimony from the applicant of the Project as well as others. Furthermore, after obtaining the minutes of the meeting it states that an opportunity must be allowed for rebuttal. At this time I would like to take that opportunity. In regards to Mr. Cecchi's request to maintain a "View Corridor" I must clarify the following facts. When Mr. Cecchi built his home, he had a partial view of the river. There were existing willows at a height of 15 to 25 feet on the Island between his home and the Deschutes River. When he applied for a Landscape Management Site Plan Approval he was not required to further buffer his home because he was to RETAIN the existing vegetation between his house and the River. Mr. Cecchi has testified to the Board that with the vegetation growing as it is, there will be no view in a few years. What I would like to express to the Board is he DID NOT have a view to begin with. He Illegally cut the willows to obtain his view prior to the County mis-authorizing any further cutting. He later states once more that he just wants to trim the willows on regular basis to maintain their views. What I would like to add further to the Commissioners is he cannot maintain a view that he was not allowed to have in order to build his home. For River Meadows Association to build the Marina they had to acquire a Conditional Use Permit. Everyone keeps referring to the Conservation. Easement ONLY. The point is this land is Governed by the Conditional Use Permit also. I never regarded the cutting of the vegetation as a personal issue towards Mr. Cecchi. All I ever wanted was that the Conditional Use Permit to be enforced by the County to protect the wetlands. As I stated in my previous letter I did not object to the Marina 20 years ago or the re -dredging this past Exhibit 16 Page / 0f 10421/2003 08:54 5036555489 EXCEL_FINISHING PAGE 02 year as we were assured the existing vegetation would be retained. I would like to add that additional planting and screening was to be done and completed before August of 1988, and it never was. Mr. Cecchi references the Grandfather issues regarding docks, cement walls, and cutting of vegetation. First, these were legally permitted long ago. Second, the above has no bearing on the issue at hand. I would like to add that I have never cut any vegetation or trees on the river side of nay property. Finally, I believe that expert input from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and other Governmental agency should have a strong influence towards this decision. In closing, I would like to say that the Homeowners' greatest concern that he expressed to myself and others is his property values will decrease if his view is lost. In my opinion, the value of a home should not out way the wildlife and scenic beauty of the Deschutes River. It clearly states in your bylaws that any dispute or disagreement regarding a conservation easement MUST revert to those ordinances that govern the property. In this case that would be the Wildlife and Landscape ordinances. If you read this letter prior to your scheduled vote on Wednesday, I will not object to the loss of nay opportunity to appear before you in person. Exhibit Q Page of �-