2004-1270-Minutes for Meeting October 06,2004 Recorded 10/8/2004DESCHUTES
NANCY BLANKENSHIP,POS COUNTY CLERK1+J 444.1114
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 10/08/2004 03;51;08 PM
111111111111111111111111IIIIIII
2004-1270
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
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1947
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF MEETING
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2004
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St.., Bend
Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly and Dennis R. Luke; Commissioner
Tom De Wolf was out of the office. Also present were Mike Maier, County
Administrator; Tom Blust and George Kolb, Road Department; Mark Pilliod and
Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; George Read, Tom Anderson, Kevin Harrison,
Don Horton and Catharine White, Community Development Department; Greg
Canfield, Mental Health Department; media representative Barney Lerten of
bend. com and The Bugle; and ten other citizens.
Chair Michael Daly opened the meeting at 10: 00 a. m.
1. Before the Board was Citizen Input.
Commissioner Daly stated that Legal Counsel has advised him that the
Elkhorn/Pahlisch public hearing, which had been noticed some time ago, has
been cancelled.
Members of the Central Oregon Legal Professionals group, Carol O'Dell and
Laurie Kendall, announced that County Deputy Legal Counsel, Laurie Craghead,
has been selected "Boss of the Year". They then awarded a plaque to Ms.
Craghead.
Leigh Kuhn, citizen, spoke. She gave her address as 65575 Sisemore Road,
located within the Tumalo winter deer range. She then read a statement (a copy
of which is attached at Exhibit B).
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 6, 2004
Page 1 of 10 Pages
Commissioner Daly said he received an e-mail from the County Clerk that the
plat in question has been recorded.
Laurie Craghead explained that Jeff Sageser of the Clerk's Office showed a copy
of the recorded document to her this morning. He is still working on the
notification of other owners who may be in a similar situation. The Community
Development Department is trying to determine which properties are affected.
The 1979-1985 time period included a County Code requirement to record these
documents, but there was no State requirement at that time. At this time,
individual developers record their plats; the County does not have to do so. She
said the Kuhns can get a certified copy from the Clerk if they'd like.
Tom Anderson added that in 1979 minor partitions were not required to be
recorded, and it was unclear how this issue was supposed to be handled.
Bill Boyer, of the Friends of Deschutes County, living at 17575 Jordan Road,
then spoke. He said he wanted to compliment the Board for correcting this long-
standing injustice. Since it seems to affect a large number of people, it is good to
nip it in the bud before it becomes a highly publicized issue.
Commissioner Daly stated that the Board was just made aware of this situation a
short while ago. Mr. Boyer replied that the Kuhns have worked on this issue for
a long time. It is good that the County now recognizes the problem and is taking
action on it.
William Kuhn added that Mr. Daly is correct in that he might have just heard
about this issue. However, both Commissioners Luke and DeWolf knew about it
in the year 2000 and were asked to record it then, but the request was refused.
Mr. Kuhn thanked Tom Anderson and County Legal staff for moving this
forward.
2. Before the Board was Consideration of the Reading of a Proclamation that
October 2004 be Declared National Disability Employment Awareness
Month.
Note: This item was addressed first, prior to Citizen Input.
Dan Horton, a Community Development Department employee, and Kristi
Svendsen of the Central Oregon Resources for Independent Living (CORIL),
spoke before the Board. Mr. Horton then read the proclamation.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 6, 2004
Page 2 of 10 Pages
Ms. Svendsen added that CORIL's mission is to empower people who live with
disab to take respons for own life. Big part is having a job, one of the primary
things the group does. Proud of what people with disability contribute to the
community. Expect more and bigger things to come.
LUKE: Move approval of the Proclamation.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
3. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2004-
119, Adopting the Deschutes County Five -Year Capital Improvement
Program (Road Modernization, Traffic Safety, Bridge Improvements, Other
Road Projects).
George Kolb explained that County Code requires that the program be brought
before the Board every year.
LUKE: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
4. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Adoption of
Resolution No. 2004-120, an Exemption from Competitive Bidding,
Declaring a Sole Source, and Approving Documents No. 2004-445 (Oregon
Treatment Network) and 2004-466 and 2004-469 (Central Oregon
Extended Unit for Recover, dba Rimrock Trails) for Adult and Adolescent
Outpatient Alcohol and Drug Treatment Services.
Greg Canfield said there are no other providers and he has not been contacted
by anyone who is interested. Notice was published as required, and he has
worked with Legal Counsel throughout the process.
Chair Daly opened the public hearing.
Being no testimony offered, he closed the public hearing.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 6, 2004
Page 3 of 10 Pages
LUKE: Move approval of Resolution No. 2004-120.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
LUKE: Move approval of Document No. 2004-145.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
LUKE: Move approval of Document No. 2004-466.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
LUKE: Move approval of Document No. 2004-469.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
5. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2004-
470, Renewing a Lease Agreement for Property at 736 South 7th Street,
Redmond, for Mental Health Services.
Greg Canfield stated that this is a renewal of an existing contract to lease small
premises in Redmond for A & D related services. The rent is $825 per month,
increasing $50 per month the first year and then $10 per month per year
thereafter. He added that contact was made with representatives of the Becky
Johnson Building and no appropriate space is available there, or at other
locations within Redmond.
LUKE: Move approval of the County Administrator's signature of this
document, if needed after the appropriate research and negotiations
have been done regarding other space.
DALY: Second.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 6, 2004
Page 4 of 10 Pages
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
6. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2004-
476, an Intergovernmental Agreement with ABHA (Accountable
Behavioral Health Alliance) regarding Mental Health Services.
This item will be addressed at a future date.
7. Before the Board was Consideration of Whether to Hear an Appeal of the
Hearings Officer's Denial of a Conditional User Permit for a Personal Use
Landing Strip.
Kevin Harrison gave an overview of the request for an appeal. Commissioner
Luke said he was a bit confused by the fact that the staff report mentioned not
much comment had been submitted by the neighbors, but the Hearings Officer
mentions neighborhood concerns.
Mr. Harrison stated that there was a lot of interest in this application as the date
for the public hearing approached. The response to the initial notice was sparse,
but many neighbors got involved just before the hearing took place.
The application was denied on a failure to meet one criterion. The appellant has
asked for a de novo review, and the time expires on November 17. If the Board
grants this review, staff does not see it as setting precedence. If the Code
language is applied literally, as was done by the Hearings Officer, it could lead
to denial. Mr. Harrison added that staff doesn't see an interpretative issue in
this case; just the nature of the property and the proposed use. It did not go
before the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Luke said that the applicants request mentions not putting gravel
down, and instead using grass on the landing strip that would in turn be used for
hay. He asked if the application can be changed.
Mr. Harrison replied that one of the criteria of use is that the strip should be on
the least productive portion of the property. It is proposed to be on high value,
irrigated land. Commissioner Luke observed that most of the land is irrigated
and of high value.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 6, 2004
Page 5 of 10 Pages
Mr. Harrison stated that this proposed use of the property would lead to denial.
The solution isn't the additional reading of the Code; it may require
modification. He added that this is a County, not a State, requirement. Some
review requirements come from State law and can't be modified. In this case
the requirements are locally generated and are not addressed in this fashion in
State law.
Laurie Craghead said that regarding the appeal notice, the irrigated turf portion
is not a new issue. She also stated that if the County requires it to be placed on
the least productive portion and the case goes to LUBA (State Land Use Board
of Appeals), it would be decided whether the County' interpretation is
reasonable.
Commissioner Luke suggested that this decision be delayed a week to allow for
additional legal review. Ms. Craghead noted that she could be prepared later
today, and putting it off for a week makes the time frame tight. Commissioner
Luke said that the applicant can make the decision whether to extend it; Ms.
Craghead replied that it could lead to denial if the Board doesn't allow enough
time.
This will be addressed further at the Monday, October]] Board work session.
8. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2004-
479, a Written Decision Approving a Conditional Use Permit for the
Proposed Road Dedication of Bull Springs Road and Portions of Other
Roads (Applicant: Thomas).
Laurie Craghead explained that a draft of the decision had been given to the
Board, but some changes had been made since that time. She said the decision
needs to be mailed no later than October 7. She then gave a brief overview of
the changes.
The applicant included their argument about outright use into the draft. The
Board found that this was not true, and that it is in fact a conditional use.
The Hearings Officer had indicated that the Thomas partition decision was not
appealed; however, it did go to LUBA and the County prevailed.
It is being clarified that the road will not be accepted into the County's road
system; it is merely being dedicated.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 6, 2004
Page 6 of 10 Pages
The applicant put into the draft that enforcement of the gate is part of the legal
decision; however, this would be a normal part of Code enforcement, and the
gates are to be installed prior to the final plat approval. It has also been
clarified that the adjacent property owners can be required to enter into a
maintenance agreement for the road. A clarification has also been made
regarding the transformation from a public to a private road.
On Page 18, wording was added that the Hearings Officer found the Sisters
Forest Planning Committee had not raised the issue of public need, since there
was no citing of Code provisions. This issue was raised but it was found that it
lacked merit and didn't apply in this instance.
Another issue raised by the Sisters Forest Planning Committee was that the
Hearings Officer chose to delineate the study area for impacts, yet the
Hogensen study had not been entered into the record even though it was
mentioned. The area was delineated even if the comments regarding the
Hogensen study were excluded.
A clarification needs to be made regarding future development requiring a
public hearing. This is not necessary the case for all applications; some could
be staff decisions after the appropriate notice and public comment period.
The draft didn't include conditions of approval, which have been added. The
final document can be provided for Board signature today.
LUKE: Move approval, subject to the changes put into the record by Legal
Counsel today.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
9. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2004-
431, Amending a Real Property Purchase Contract to Provide for
Purchaser's Construction of a Multi -Use Path in Quadrant 2-C of the
Newberry Neighborhood.
Laurie Craghead explained that this would amend the purchase contract, so that
the County would not be responsible for the development of the trail. It lowers
the purchase price for the quadrant, and Elkhorn will then build the multi -use
path as they would any other infrastructure improvement.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 6, 2004
Page 7 of 10 Pages
LUKE: Move approval
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
10. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2004-084,
Exempting the Requirement for Bid Security for a Five -acre Thinning and
Fuel Removal Project in La Pine.
Laurie Craghead explained that this involves a bid and performance security
bond exemption because of the tight time frame, the area is smaller, and the
cost should be less than $10,000 to get the work done. The dollar amount is
under the amount allowable per County Code. The plan is to ask for written
quotes for the eleven acre portion, which is a portion of the previously proposed
project. This concerns just the Quadrant 2-C project. The balance of the
project will go out to bid.
Commissioner Daly said that he took a lot of heat on this issue, and is glad to
see that this portion is exempt from bonding requirements. Ms. Craghead stated
that the intent is to seek quotes, and a quote sheet is already being developed for
distribution. It will go out to those who bid the last time. It will be a straight,
low bid selection, and the bidders are not subject to prevailing wage law since it
is a contract for services under the cost allowed by the Code.
LUKE: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY
SERVICE DISTRICT
11. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of an Intergovernmental
Agreement for Various Services Provided by Deschutes County to the 9-1-1
County Service District.
This item will be addressed at a future meeting.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 6, 2004
Page 8 of 10 Pages
12. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of
$251,115.26.
LUKE: Move approval, subject to review.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
13. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the
Amount of $1,136.05.
LUKE: Move approval, subject to review.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
14. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $1,156,099.24.
LUKE: Move approval, subject to review.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
15. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2004-
484, Amendment No. 1 to an Intergovernmental Agreement with the
Oregon State Marine Board regarding Cultus Lake Boating
Improvements (Revenue Increase to County).
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 6, 2004
Page 9 of 10 Pages
Mike Maier explained that the County is the pass-through administrator for
these grant funds, and that the U.S. Forest Service coordinates the actual work.
LUKE: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
Being no further items brought before the Board, Chair Daly adjourned the
meeting at 11: OS a. m.
DATED this 6th Day of October 2004 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
,00 y-o1r. , zz�
ichael M. Daly, Ch r
-0— � ---
Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner
Tom DeWolf, Commissioner
Attachments
Exhibit A: Sign -in Sheet (1 page)
Exhibit B: Documents dated October 6, 2004 submitted by Leigh Kuhn (13
pages)
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 6, 2004
Page 10 of 10 Pages
3
O
y..
Page -�-- of
N
N
L
V
0
•E
N
Gs
CO
V
d
K
t0
LL
0
L
O
j
o 5zo
a �
om
m
6-
�
C
IV �,
It t
d
O
.N
N
d
V
.0
w
`
O
V
v3
_ a
•:�
O
1
T
in
C
J
O
` N.
i
cc
Z Y
CL
-
Exhibit
Page -�-- of
Leigh Kuhn to BoCC on 6 October 2004
Good Morning Commissioners. My name is Martha Leigh Kuhn and I live at 65575 Sisemore
Road which is in the Tumalo Winter Deer Range.
We've already experienced the effect of what measure 37 would bring.
On our minor partition county codes were totally ignored, restrictions meant for the benefit of
wildlife, totally disregarded.
It's been more personally devastating for us than what we went through after losing everything
in the Awbrey Hall fire. It's been degrading for the Tumalo Winter Deer Range.
The county has refused to enforce codes and allowed the degrading of the integrity of the
Tumalo Winter Deer range exactly the actions financial threat from measure 37 would promote.
From what we are observing, this process is continuing. In our case, the reason given for no
enforcement and putting us at risk was that our partition map was not recorded with the county
clerk.
What we are asking you to do, in writing as you've requested, is to record our minor partition
final map as the county was required to do when our parcel was created in 1980. We are further
asking that all other partition final snaps that have been unrecorded since 1979 through the mid -
eighties be recorded as was required. We are requesting a formal confirmation from the county
that our minor partition has been recorded, and that all build lines and county codes are now
enforceable and our property now legally saleable. We are requesting that the owners of all the
currently unrecorded parcels be notified when their final maps have been recorded, and their
names and addresses be included in the county's database as it is a matter of public record.
We've just been informed by acting director Tom Anderson that he is already moving forward to
see that our minor partition final map be recorded, and to look into what other partitions and
plats need to be recorded.
We are extremely grateful for his integrity in this effort to correct our unrecorded status. As
members of this commission or should be aware, we asked for our partition final map to be
recorded in 2000, only to be refused by three different county officials. We hope Mr. Anderson's
responding to our request for fundamental fairness did not put him at any risk.
We are asking again, as we have repeatedly asked that you the commi. Sion consider our written
requests in this same light of fairness. It may helhutting things right7p rtition or- !4 ►''�'j WP
current owners, and future owners. It would also hopefully allow the co mission to finally move
on to other business.
U ��
I'd like to add we will not be voting for measure 37.
Exhibit
Page _,_ _ of \ 'S�
What we are asking the County Commission to do
At the BoCC work session meeting of 20 September 2004 we asked the BoCC for help in
dealing with the continued harassment and intimidation we are receiving from the Dowells and
their attorneys, tenants, friends, and employees. We were asked by the County Commission to
specify what we wanted the BoCC and Deschutes County to do. We therefore submit these
requests and supporting arguments.
Request number 1
The BoCC should publicly and on the record communicate and endorse an order to CDD to do
what is necessary to complete the required filing and recording of the final plat map for MP -79-
232 with the County Clerk which would give full and complete legitimacy to all provisions and
conditions associated with the map, as required by PL -14 and all subsequent ordinances.
Further, all minor partition final plat maps should be filed and recorded with the County Clerk as
required by County ordinances since 1 November 1979.
Request number 2
We ask that all affected property owners be notified of their unrecorded status. We think that
they should also be made aware of ORS 92.025 or its predecessor in effect at the time their
plat/partition was created, and all other pertinent codes, such as lot of record definition, that
could negatively affect them as long as their property remains unrecorded with the County Clerk.
We ask that the Dowells be included with this notice.
Request number 3
When our partition becomes recorded, we request we receive formal notification of such and that
the Dowells also receive formal notification.
Request number 4
We ask that the CDD and the BoCC communicate to the Dowells that there must be a JHOA
implemented to conform to the original CU for this cluster development. Ms. Craghead's
assertion that because the County was not party to the civil lawsuit, therefore not responsible to
enforcement by the County is ludicrous. County ordinance required it then and County
ordinances still require that the JHOAs be implemented.
In all of our mediation attempts with the Dowells, in all of our attempted negotiations, there
seems to be no understanding on their part of the legal implications of their past bad acts
including placing the structure in back of the maximum build line even though there were several
communications from CDD regarding this issue. The Dowells stated they have always relied on
supposed assurances made by George Read to the Dowells' attorney Robert Lovlien that further
development of the Dowell property would be no problem, making realistic mediation
impossible.
The original CU required a JHOA be recorded. County ordinances for cluster developments
require both a JHO Agreement and a JHO Association. A civil court judge has ruled that the
defendants, the Dowells, are to enter into such an agreement. (The plaintiffs, the Kuhns, were not
mentioned in this part of the ruling and the Dowells did not appeal the ruling.)
Exhibit
Page 2 of 3
In the meantime the Dowells who are full time residences of Vancouver, WA are taking the
position that anyone may come onto our joint property at anytime, and because there is no JHOA
we cannot prevent it. We believe that the County is therefore enabling the Dowells in this
obvious harassment of us.
In considering this request please bear in mind that CDD staff, the Dowells, the Dowells'
attorneys, and the BoCC all argued in DR -01-5, DR -02-2, and A-02-7 that "when this CU was
applied for county planning was in its infancy and therefore more than likely simply overlooked
certain issues." We are arguing the same thing. County planning staff should have included both
the JHO Agreement and a JHO Association in their report to the hearings officer. No ordinance
said that there had to be side yard setbacks of less than 100', but an ordinance did say there were
to be both a JHO Agreement that established a JHO Association.
Request number 5
Pending the filing and recording of our final plat map MP -79-232 and based on ORS 92.025, we
want our property taxes recalculated, rebated, and suspended for loss of economic value since
our purchase date. We can't sell our property. By denying us the ability to rely on the County to
enforce the maximum build line the County has denied us the benefits of our property. The
County further denied us the benefits of enforcement of County ordinances. Our basic health,
safety and general welfare were put at risk. Why should we have to pay for the services we did
not receive?
Also, ALL minor partitions that have not been recorded by the County should also have their
property taxes recalculated, rebated, and suspended for loss of economic value.
Request number 6
The County Cartographer should indicate on all parcels that have not yet been recorded that the
owners of those parcels may not sell their property until the County has recorded their maps with
the County Clerk.
Further Arguments and Considerations:
Because tax lots 100, 200, and 300 were all taken from the same parent parcel and only two of
the tax lots are buildable with the third parcel set aside to be wildlife protected this was not a
simple land partition, but rather a cluster development it was/is to be considered a sub -division,
and subject to the restrictions of both a simple partition and a sub -division.
We wish to simply have the County do and correct what they should have done back in 1979-
1980 during the application and approval process for CU -80-22 and MP -79-232. Record the
Final map, drawing, or plat with the County Clerk and to agree to require that both a JHO
Agreement and a JHO Association be created.
Based on ORS 92.025 it seems to us that Mr. Isham's refusing to facilitate the recording of our
MP -79-232 map puts an interesting and detrimental light on ALL parcels in Deschutes County
that have not yet been recorded.
ORS 92.025 Prohibition of sale of lot or conveyance of interest in parcel prior to recordation of plat;
waiver. (1) No person shall sell any lot in any subdivision or convey any interest in a parcel in any
partition until the plat of the subdivision or partition has been acknowledged and recorded with the
recording gfficer of 'the county in which the lot or parcel is situated.
Exhibit (j
Page �_ of
It seems to us that any further hesitation by the County to facilitate our requests would put them
in direct conflict of the County's own slogan or mission statement, and absolutely at odds with
the very purpose of the County's own ordinances.
18.04.020. Purpose.
A. The intent or purpose of DCC Title 18 is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare and
to cant' out the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, the provisions of ORS 215 and the Statewide
Planning Goals adopted pursuant to ORS 197. DCC Title 18 is to establish zoning districts and regulations
governing the development and use of land within portions of Deschutes County, Oregon;
B. To provide regulations governing nonconforming uses and structures; to establish and provide for the
collection of fees; to provide for the administration of DCC Title 18 and for the officials whose duty it shall be
to enforce the provisions thereof, to provide penalties for the violations of DCC Title 18; and to provide for
resolution of conflicts;
This is the County's problem to fix. The County created the problem by failing to do what was
required following the passage of PL -14 and PL -15 in November and all subsequent ordinances
which required the filing of plat maps. The County should bear ALL expenses.
Under State Goal 2: Land use Planning - The County is to establish a consistent set of
ordinances
references consistencies between
To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and
actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions.
City, county, state and federal agency and special district plans and actions related to land use shall be
consistent with the comprehensive plans of cities and counties and regional plans adopted under ORS
Chapter 268.
All land use plans shall include identification of issues and problems,
Well here is a problem. We want it fixed.
Exhibit el
Page1- _ of
PL-14_Arguement — Why the map should have been recorded.
Requirements for conditional use of our cluster development come from PL -14 and PL -15 both
of which tools effect on 1 November 1979.
This cluster was in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone as established and confirmed by
numerous authorities including County Auditor, and the original CU application, and various
County staff reports.
Section 4.190: WILDLIFE AREA COMBINING ZONE. WA.
in any zone Which is a Wildlife Area Corbining zone aw ,
the requirements and standards of this section shall apply
in addition to those specified in this ordinance for such
underlying zone. If a conflict in regulations or standards
occurs the provisions of this section shall govern except
that the larger minitaum lot size shall always apply.
The Wildlife Area Combining Zone stipulates that this development conform to Section 8.050
(16), (17) or (19)
(5) Use Limitation. All .residential commercial or industrial
developments within the WA zone shall be a cluster
development (residential only), a�planned development,
crecatiQnstjnt5:b�j6�esort and shall conform to the provisions of
,(17) or (19) of this. ordinance.
.- 79 _
VOL 33 PmE 171
ARTICLE 8. CONDITIONAL USES
SECTION 8.010. OPERATION.
(16) Cluster Development (Single -Family .Residential Uses only}. '.
Under Section 8.050 (16) Cluster Development (B) (b) "All subdivision requirements contained
in Ordinance PL -14 shall be met."
PLEASE NOTE - subdivision requirements are much more comprehensive than simple
partition requirements.
r ). ' mh£ nd'"o 1 sal - n t es5
i�I MQ; � v 3. l:S�.. ., :3 ^Jt b gc%ntcd. Ciiaav�.:a t}'i2.
followl,g fir_dings' are made:
(a) No more than 35 percent of the land will be utili%
for the development and 65 percent will be kept in -
open space uses.
(b) All subdiv sion requirements contained in County
ordinance P1.-14 shall be. met.
(c) The total .number of units does not exceed the over-
all densit,v estalbished by the minimum lot size
of the zone in which the development is proposed.
(d) The rural character of the area shall not be ad-
versely affected.
This is in addition to the cluster development requirements listed below.
C:\Docs\prop65i75\De CoCode\PL-14_SubDivisionKPartition\PL-14_ArguenrentForRecordingMap.doc page 1 10/03/2004 1:30:34 PM
Exhibit
Page __ of. C��>
(C) All applications shall be accompanied by a plan with
the following information:
(a) A plat :nap meeting ali the subdivision requirement ---
of the County Ordinance PL -14.
(b) The area to be preserved for open space clearly
desir;nated,on the plan and adequate deed restric-
tions to maintain the .land in open space provided.`
(c) A written agr,-eement establishing an acceptable
homeowners association assuring the maintenance of
common property in the development.
With the passage of PL -14 beginning 1 November 1979 —all final plats are required to be
recorded with the Clerk's Office. The subdivision requirements shown in PL -14 specify
Section 4.100. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. After the final plat
has been checked and approved as provided in this article,
and when all certificates appearing thereon, except tnose
of the Planning Director, County Clerkand Board of County
Coruiaissioners i'2.'.. o been swannd and when necessary, Fi!'iC.now_
leged, the Planning Direcotr shall certify the fna_l. lat and
submit it to the Board of County Corlmissioners for final
approval.
Section 4.110. R;COP.DING OF PLAT.
(1) No plat shall have any force or effect until the
same has been finally approved by the Board of
County co.mmi.ssioners. No title to any property
fi2awt pl^-1� 1�7� ia'U� -
<'c3ZblV(Sr'aai/Pi9>9'T"17/ant - 36
0Ri))nlr W,c8
described in any offer of dedication shall pass
until the final, plat has been recorded.
(2) The Planning Director or his representative shall
file the approved final plat, including an exact
copy ;:hereof as described in subsection (4) of this
section, with the County C? uric.
The Planning Director is the only one authorized to file the final plat maps with the County
Clerk.
Section 5.060. MAP OR DRAWING FOR PARTITIONING.
Following approvalof the tentative plan for a proposed
partitioning, the applicant sha11 prepare and submit to the
Planning Department the final map or drawing for the subject
partitioning. Such filing shall be completed within six
months fro -m the date cf the approval, G" the approval shall
.t.
be void. The final mai) or drawing shall be prepared in
accordance with the folloo:ing requirements and the original
and two t2? copies thereof submitted by the Planning Department
to the Executive Committee f3r approval. The original shall
be recorded by the Planning Director in the of ice of the county
Clerk following approval by the Executive Committ-ae.
C:\Docs\prop65575\DesCoCode\PL-14_SubDivisionXParlition\PL-14_ArguemenlFurRecordingMap.doc page 2 10/03/2014 1:30:34 PM
Exhibit
Page SIL of
The final plat map was required to have been recorded with the County Clerk. It was not. When
Director George Read, Commissioner Luke, and Rick Isham refused our requests during the
summer and fall of 2000 to record the map, they were wrong in not doing so. And the County
would be wrong in not doing so now.
18.04.030. Definitions.
As used in DCC Title 18, the following words and phrases shall mean as set forth in DCC
18.04.030.
"Lot of Record" means:
A. A lot or parcel at least 5,000 square feet in area and at least 50 feet wide, which
conformed to all zoning and subdivision or partition requirements, if any, in effect on the
date the lot or parcel was created, and which was created by any of the following means:
It doesn't really matter what else the definition of Lot of Record says, it's basically meaningless
because of the word `and'. The parcels do not qualify for Lot of Record status because they were
not created based on the zoning and subdivision or partition requirements in effect on the date
the lot or parcel was created.
C:\Docs\prop( 5575\DesCoCode\PL- 14_SubDivision&Partition\PL- 14_ArguementForRecordingMap.doe
page 3 III/03/20(9 1:30:34 PM
Exhibit
Page -1 of � j
TES
- _�-
,`r Community Development Department
qnv .�,�R''� •est°_ Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Dlvlslon
X
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http*//www.co.deschutes.or.us/.cdd/
September 20, 2004
Mr. William Kuhn
65575 Sisemore Road
Bend, OR. 97708
RE: MP 79-232 - Partition Plat Filing/Recording
Dear Bill:
Enclosed is a copy of the 1979/80 final minor partition plat (MP 79-232)
associated with your property. A mylar of this plat is on file with the Community
Development Department.
You have requested an accounting of the filing/recording of final plats from 1979
to 1986. Below is the chronology of final plat disposition.
1977-1979 — PL -7, Requires final plats to be filed with the Planning Dept. the
final plat will be recorded with the County Clerk at the request of the partitioner.
1979-1981 — PL -14, Requires final plats to be recorded with the Clerk's Office.
1981-1990 - Ordinance 81-043, Requires final plats to be recorded with the
Clerk's Office.
1990 -to present — Title 17 of the Deschutes County Code, Requires final plats to
be recorded with the Clerk's Office.
Basically, final plat recording with the Clerk's office was required from 1979 on.
MP 79-232 should have been recorded.
Let me know if I can be of further assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Tom Anderson
Operations Manager/Interim Director
Quality Services Performed with Pride
Exhibit_�j
Page $
e
4
�o
h°
3,
y
t F
�ry
�
q
rery��
b
•so a n
2 �
� evv
!Q
�
LLJ
1
IL
A
J
�zQ
W
y(11
Z
w
CL
d
3
e
4
th
7
w
JLd
Q L �'
N
0,._wLd>-
uai1-
o 0 z
U :3
a2 F}-li
W U U
CA
■
F TiZI!, «oA
..I� Ililll
W
W
4
w LLJ
U
a �
W J�
3 W 0U :02!.
3 U
N 006
\ry l }
fad , h• �
�o
h°
3,
y
t F
�ry
�
q
rery��
b
•so a n
2 �
� evv
4�g0N
a�N
th
7
w
JLd
Q L �'
N
0,._wLd>-
uai1-
o 0 z
U :3
a2 F}-li
W U U
CA
■
F TiZI!, «oA
..I� Ililll
W
W
4
w LLJ
U
a �
W J�
3 W 0U :02!.
3 U
N 006
\ry l }
fad , h• �
�o
h°
3,
y
0
0 h
0
�ry
�
q
0
y
th
7
w
JLd
Q L �'
N
0,._wLd>-
uai1-
o 0 z
U :3
a2 F}-li
W U U
CA
■
F TiZI!, «oA
..I� Ililll
W
W
4
w LLJ
U
a �
W J�
3 W 0U :02!.
3 U
N 006
\ry l }
fad , h• �
- 6/
Ir
0
0
a
m
bb
pA
�Nfi
�
e
�Z
T=
'c
- 6/
Ir
0
0
a
m
.�
�
c4
w�>
�Z
T=
'c
s3�
000
IL
A
Exhibit_ `) _
Page q of
S .t A M E R j First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon
ti4 y An assumed business name of TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON
395 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 100
P.O. Box 323, Bend, Oregon 97709
Phone: (541) 382-4201 • Fax: (541) 389-5431
October 4, 2004
Mark Pilliod, County Council
Deschutes County
1 130 NW Harriman St
Bend, Oregon 97701
Re: William and Lee Kuhn
Dear Mark,
I have been contacted by William and Lee Kuhn. They have property on Sisemore Road that
was created by Minor Partition 79-232.
Their concern is that their Minor Partition was never recorded with the County Clerk, in
accordance with the County Ordinances in place at the time. There appear to be literally
hundreds of Partitions which were approved but never recorded.
From my perspective at County Manager for First American Title I see this as a potential
problem in that there are partitions that reflected restrictions, easements and or right of ways and
other specific items that are not shown elsewhere of record. Literally, recording was to give
constructive notice of these items.
William and Lee have sought to have their partition recorded and have to this point been
rebuffed by the county in their efforts.
I must ask if there is a reason for this refusal, and further if there is a reason that the County has
not administered their own Ordinances and recorded these partitions. I urge you to consider
recording the partitions. I would think that at a very minimum some curative action should be
taken by the county for legal recognition of the parcels created in the partitions.
I would welcome the opportunity to talk with you further concerning this issue, please feel free
to call me at 382-4201.
Sincerely,
David R. DeCourcey, County Manager
First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon
Exhibit i>
Page I D of �j
-V I—
Assessor's Office
Scot Langton, Assessor
1300 NW Wall St, Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6508 - Fax (541) 330-4629
www. co. deschutes.or. us
September 30, 2004
William Kuhn
1\4ailfia Leigh Kuhn
P.O. Box 5996
Bend, 97708-5996
Re: Assessment Records for 161119 200
Per your request, tile following is a sequence of tyre documents received and the changes
made in the assessment records:
1. Received from C,0UI1tV Planning a copy of the letter dated'November 14, 1980 to John
Barton with a copy of Minor Land Partition MP -79-232 attached which allowed the
Assessor to segregate and create tax lot 200 as one of the three parcels thereon.
2. Deeds recorded July 22, 1987 In VOILItTIC 148 OR, at pages 1794 and 1796 conveying
to and from Barton and Barton & Burchette, adjusting the lot lines between Tax Lots 200
arid 300,
Deed recorded July 22, 1987 from John Barton to William John Kuhn and Martha
Leigh Kuhn, husband and wife in VOILInle 148 OR, at page 1798, conveying the adjuster!
Tax Lot 200.
Tile documents, on the dates received, and the changed made met the requirements for
property assessment and taxation purposes. Tile records maintained by the Deschutes
County Assessor are for assessment pUr-p0SCS only and no warranty, representation or
guaranty as to tile content, accuracy, timeliness, completeness or merchantability and
fitness for a parlicular purpose Is expressed or implied herein.
If the assessment rccords on the subject account are not accurate we ask that you submit
any and all additional recorded documentation for review by this office.
Additional information regarding property valuation and taxation can be found at:
Look for the DIAL short cut.
Exhibit
Page 1 of 13
Sincerely,
rl6uom8
Chief Carto'gu'a'plier,
[}csubuicoCounty, Oregon
[-Lomic .CuumsCl
Exhibit
Page of
The Deschutes County planning division of Community Development Department (CDD)
maintains a data base of all land use applications and tracks them from application through
completion or lapse, withdrawal, or rejection. The data base is found in a file labeled
PLandUse.pdf and can be downloaded from the CDD website.
I am however curious as to why there are holes and missing data in the system. For example in
looking at our own cluster I can find our LM -88-7 and the Dowells' LM -92-9, however, our MP -
79 -232, Gil Eddy's MP -79-70, our CU -80-22, and our LL -87-21 are all missing.
I further noted that of the MPs listed from 1974 through 2004 there were sometimes more
missing data than listed data. I appreciate that as time has gone on the data is much more
accurate and complete. However, I would like to know if CDD will be filling these holes, or if
they can give us further information in some other way as to how to obtain the data.
Year
Highest Numbered MP
Probable
Listed
Missing
% Missing
1974
MP -1974-063
63
17
46
73%
1975
MP -1975-076
76
23
53
70%
1976
MP -1976-081
81
11
70
86%
1977
MP -1977-188
188
73
115
61%
1978
MP -1978-292
292
126
166
57%
1979
MP -1979-243
243
107
136
56%
1980
MP -1980-121
121
48
73
60%
1981
MP -1981-085
85
33
52
61%
1982
MP -1982-025
25
12
13
52%
1983
MP -1983-022
22
14
8
36%
1984
MP -1984-023
23
10
13
57%
1985
MP -1985-019
19
11
8
42%
1986
MP -1986-024
24
12
12
50%
1987
MP -1987-027
27
16
11
41%
1988
MP -1988-052
52
43
9
17%
1989
MP -1989-057
57
43
14
25%
1990
MP -1990-093
93
87
6
6%
1991
MP -1991-059
59
52
7
12%
1992
MP -1992-065
65
60
5
8%
1993
MP -1993-032
32
30
2
6%
1994
MP -1994-039
39
35
4
10%
1995
MP -1995-049
49
40
9
18%
1996
MP -1996-049
49
46
3
6%
1997
MP -1997-038
38
36
2
5%
1998
MP -1998-038
38
36
2
5%
1999
MP -1999-025
25
25
0
0%
2000
MP -2000-039
39
39
0
0%
2001
MP -2001-018
18
18
0
0%
2002
MP -2002-048
48
46
2
4%
2003
MP -2003-037
37
37
0
0%
2004
MP -2004-025
25
25
0
0%
Exhibit
Page 1�> of ►3