2006-129-Order No. 2006-011 Recorded 2/13/2006COUNTY OFFICIAL
REVIE NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKS CJ 1006.119
y/ COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL
01/13/2006 03:38:37 PM
LEGAL COUNSEL 111111111111111111111111111111
2006-129
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Approving a Waiver of Land Use
Regulations to Authorize Chester and June * ORDER NO. 2006-011
Mitchell to Use the Subject Property as Allowed
When They Acquired the Property
WHEREAS, On November 2, 2004, the voters of the State of Oregon approved Ballot Measure 37
which added provisions to Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 197 to require, under certain circumstances,
payment of just compensation to landowners if a government land use regulation reduces property value. In lieu
of just compensation, Ballot Measure 37 authorizes the governing body of a local government to modify,
remove or not apply the land use regulation, and
WHEREAS, Chester and June Mitchell made a timely demand for compensation under Measure 37 for
a reduction in value to their property at 1784 NW Ice Av., Terrebonne, Oregon due to regulations which took
effect after they acquired this property, and
WHEREAS, Section 8 of Measure 37 authorizes the Board, as the governing body responsible for
adoption and enforcement of County regulations, to not apply the identified land use regulation that restricts the
owner's use and reduces the value of the property in lieu of payment of compensation; and
WHEREAS, the Board has received the report and recommendation of the County Administrator as
required by DCC 14.10.090; and
WHEREAS, the Board has considered the Administrator's report and the evidence presented by the
parties at a Board meeting as required by DCC 14.10.090; and
WHEREAS, the Board makes the following findings of facts and conclusions;
On September 9, 2005, Chester and June Mitchell filed a Measure 37 claim with the
Community Development Department.
2. Claimants' property at 1784 NW Ice Av., Terrebonne, Oregon is within Deschutes County.
3. The County Administrator has recommended that the zoning regulations for the subject property
at 1784 NW Ice Av., Terrebonne, Oregon that were not already in effect until after March 30,
1973 not be enforced in lieu of payment of just compensation to Claimant. The Administrator's
report is attached and incorporated by reference into this Order as Exhibit "A."
4. The Board concurs with the Administrator's report that Chester and June Mitchell are the
present owners of the subject property described in Exhibit "B," having acquired an interest in it
and continuously owned it since March 30, 1973.
5. The Board concurs with the Administrator's report that the current regulation, EFU-TE zoning,
if applied to the subject property, would not permit a partition on this subject property. The
current regulation is a land use regulation which is not exempt from Measure 37 claims.
PAGE 1 of 3- ORDER No. 2006-011 (02/08/06)
6. The Board concurs with the Administrator's report that an application for a partition on the
subject property would be denied if the current zoning were applied. Therefore, such an
application to determine enforcement of the current zoning to the Claimants' property would be
futile.
7. The Board concurs with the Administrator's report that there is no evidence which demonstrates
that the current procedural regulations for land divisions and development applications and
approvals have reduced the value of the subject property.
8. The Board concurs with the Administrator's report that Claimants have demonstrated that
domestic water, and septic for the desired use on the subject property are feasible. Despite the
lack of a precise amount of reduction in value, the loss of the ability to add an additional
buildable lot from the subject property would be a substantial amount of reduction in fair
market value if the regulations at the time Claimants acquired the property allowed that
development; now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY
ORDERS as follows:
Section 1. The Board hereby determines, based on these findings, conclusions, and the Administrator's
report in Exhibit "A," that the Mitchell's claim is eligible under DCC 14.10.100.
Section 2. The Board hereby elects to not apply zoning and nonexempt land use regulations to the
subject properties described in Exhibit "B" in lieu of payment of just compensation under Ballot Measure 37.
Claimants are hereby authorized to use the subject property as permitted at the time they acquired the property.
Claimants may apply for a use of the subject property consistent with the zoning and regulations in effect at the
time they acquired the property. That use shall be permitted if the subject property fully complies with all
regulations in effect on March 30, 1973. The Community Development Director is hereby authorized to
determine the effects that any other non-exempt regulations in effect on this date would have on Claimants'
proposed development differently than current non-exempt regulations. However, the current procedural
regulations for land division and development applications and approval, including, but not limited to setbacks,
access, height, and landscaping requirements shall be applied.
Section 3. To the extent that any law, order, deed, agreement or other legally enforceable public or
private requirement provides that the subject property may not be used without a permit, license, or other form
of authorization or consent, this order does not authorize the use of the subject property unless the Claimant first
obtain that permit, license, or other form of authorization or consent.
Section 4. This Order is a waiver of a non-exempt County land use regulation from a property
determined to be claim eligible as defined in DCC 14.10.020(0)
Section 5. A STATE OF OREGON WAIVER MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OR
USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS WAIVER APPLIES ONLY TO THE LOCAL REGULATIONS
SPECIFIED ABOVE. DESCHUTES COUNTY LACKS THE AUTHORITY TO WAIVE ANY STATE
REGULATIONS OR LAWS. STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS MAY APPLY TO THE USE OF THE
PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND A WAIVER OF SUCH LAWS AND REGULATIONS MUST BE
SEPARATELY OBTAINED BY THE OWNERS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON. AS A RESULT OF A
DECISION BY THE MARION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, THE STATE MAY BE UNABLE TO
PROCESS CLAIMS MADE UNDER MEASURE 37 CHALLENGING STATE LAND USE REGULATIONS.
PAGE 2 of 3- ORDER No. 2006-011 (02/08/06)
Section 6. This order does not affect any land use regulations of the State of Oregon. Although the
County will accept and process subsequent land use applications associated with the subject property, approval
may not be granted without a valid waiver from the State pertaining to any State regulations which would
preclude the proposed land use. The outcome of a land use application will also affect the ability of the claimant
to obtain any required building permits.
Section 7. This Order shall be recorded in the Deschutes County Deed Records together with portions
from the deed or other instrument in Exhibits A and B sufficient to identify the subject property for recording
purposes.
DATED this . day of February, 2006.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
/z-,
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
PAGE 3 of 3- ORDER No. 2006-011(02/08/06)
D IS R. LUKE, Cf1AIR \
-0 J U-422--,
Deschutes County Department of Administrative Services
1300 NW Wall St., Ste. 200, Bend, OR 97701-1947
(541) 388-6570 Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
TO: Board of County Commissioners
From: Michael A. Maier, County Administrator
DATE: February 8, 2006
RE: Measure 37 Claim - Chester and June Mitchell (Claimants)
1784 NW Ice Ave., Terrebonne Oregon
Introduction
The County processed the initial Measure 37 claims using its brief claim form, evaluating the initial
submission, asking that the Claimants furnish more evidence to complete or clarify the claim, and
preparing this report and recommendation under DCC 14.10, the Measure 37 ordinance. The County's
claims process recognizes that less precise evidence of value may be sufficient to evaluate claims, since
there are currently no County funds available for payment of compensation. Also, the ordinance provides
further opportunities for affected neighbors to present evidence and testimony at the Board meeting when
these claims are considered.
This report and recommendation is intended to be a summary and evaluation of evidence in the record.
The report may be attached to the Board's Order that decides Measure 37 claims, as a factual basis for
the Order. Any factual changes or additions to this report from testimony or other evidence can be made
part of the Board's Order. Claimants and affected parties have the opportunity to rebut this Report and
provide additional relevant evidence to the Board. Also, under the County's process, Claimants must
provide evidence that the desired use of the property, which may be allowed by a waiver of County
regulations is feasible, i.e., not prevented by physical, utility or other development limitations of the site.
Report and Recommendation - DCC 14.10.090
This is my report and recommendation on this Measure 37 claim received on September 9, 2005 when
Measure 37 was in lawful effect. Claimants have paid the filing fee and submitted the County's official
demand form. The property is estimated to be 10 acres. The current zoning is EFU-TE. The Claimants'
Page 1 of 5 - Exhibit A - Order No. 2006-011 (02/08/06)
desired use is to partition the property into two lots of approximately 5 acres each. The following is an
analysis of the evidence in the record on the elements of this Measure 37 claim
Current Owner - Chester and June Mitchell
Claimants presented a copy of a Bargain and Sale Deed indicating they first acquired an ownership
interest in the property on March 30, 1973.
Owner Date of Acauisition - March 30, 1973
The date of acquisition by the current owner is the relevant date for Board consideration of waivers under
section (8) of Measure 37. The compensation section of Measure 37, section (6), uses the acquisition
date of a family member to determine the extent of reduction in value for compensation. Since the County
has no funds budgeted for payment of compensation, waivers that are issued by the County are limited
by section (8) of Measure 37 to County land use regulations that were adopted after the later acquisition
date of the current owner. If a waiver is granted as to County land use regulations which were adopted
after the current owner's acquisition date, no compensation is due, even if the prior family member held
the property for many years. While this may seem inconsistent, the measure was, evidently, written to
encourage waivers of local and state land use regulations.
Restrictive Regulation - EFU-TE zoning.
Under the terms of the ordinance, the claimant must identify County land use regulations that prevent the
claimant from using the property in a way that the property could have been used at the time the property
was acquired. The claimant must also show that these identified regulations cause a reduction of property
value.
The Claimants have identified the EFU zoning as restricting the desired use of a two-lot partition. This
regulation is a County land use regulation, which is subject to Measure 37 claims. The applicability of
additional development standards listed in the Claim will be determined consistent with the Board's Order
when a specific land use application has been received. Non-exempt land use regulations will not be
applied. Public safety regulations or others exempt under Subsection (3)E of the Measure cannot be
waived.
Page 2 of 5 - Exhibit A - Order No. 2006-011 (02/08/06)
Enforcement of County Regulation - futile DCC 14.10.040(G).
Measure 37 requires that an ordinance that restricts the current owner's use be "enforced" against them.
There is no evidence that Claimants have applied for a land division of the property resulting in the
current zoning being enforced on the subject property. Claimants have not demonstrated that submitting
an application for such a land division would be futile. However, this Report confirms that such an
application for the desired use would violate the current zoning and be denied. Therefore, the intent of
DCC 14.10.040(G) has been met for this claim.
Reduction in Value - $200,000 alleged in claim
The ordinance requires that the claimant provide evidence of the amount of the claim in alleged reduction
in the fair market value of the property resulting from the enforcement of the County's land use regulation.
• Claimants have submitted no evidence that domestic water is available although the existing
residence is served by an on-site well.
• Claimants have submitted no evidence that septic approval is feasible in the area, although
Claimants' representative has indicated such evidence is available.
• Claimants have submitted a map showing access from Ice Avenue and 18th St., as evidence of
available road access for the desired additional lots.
• Claimants have submitted a statement on which they base their opinion of the value of their
property if they were able to develop and sell one additional residential lot. The value does not
include the cost of development.
Assuming Claimants could obtain approval of a partition of the property, absent current EFU zoning
restrictions, the value of Claimant's property for Measure 37 purposes would be substantially reduced.
Effect of County Waiver - Measure 37 clearly allows the County to waive its non-exempt land use
regulations only back to the date the current owner, not family members, acquired the property:
"(8) Notwithstanding any other state statute or the availability of funds under
subsection (10) of this act, in lieu of payment of just compensation under this act,
the governing body responsible for enacting the land use regulation may modify,
remove, or not to apply the land use regulation or land use regulations to allow
the property owner to use the property for a use permitted at the time the owner
Page 3 of 5 - Exhibit A - Order No. 2006-011 (02/08/06)
acquired the property.., (emphasis added)
11(c) "Owner" is the present owner of the property, or any interest therein."
In this case, the present owner has continuously owned an interest in the property since 1973. This
follows the effective date of PL-2, the 1970 subdivision ordinance, and PL-5, the County's first zoning
ordinance.
A claimant who receives a waiver must use the current process to seek the needed development permits
based on the zoning in place at the time the current owner acquired the property. Except in a rare case,
the current procedural requirements for handling permits are not regulations that reduce value. Therefore,
the County's procedural regulations are not waived.
Conclusion and Recommendation
The present owners of the property submitted a claim pursuant to Measure 37 that demonstrates
eligibility for their use of the subject property based on non-exempt land use regulations in effect on
March 30, 1973, the date they acquired an interest in the property. There was zoning of the subject
property at the time. There is some evidence in the record that some additional development on the
subject property would be feasible for available domestic water, and sanitary waste disposal. The non-
exempt County land use regulations that were in effect at the time Claimants acquired the property would
be applied to a partition application for that use.
My recommendation is that the Board approve a waiver in the form of Order attached. This Order would
have the effect of waiving the non-exempt County land use regulations that were not in effect until after
March 30, 1973, to allow the owners to use the subject property in a manner permitted at the time they
acquired an interest in the property. In essence, the County would not apply the current EFU zoning to
the Claimants' property which were not in effect when the Claimants acquired the property unless they
are exempt from a Measure 37 waiver under Subsection (3)E of the Measure. This waiver is not a
development permit. Claimants must apply for a partition under current regulations.
Page 4 of 5 - Exhibit A - Order No. 2006-011 (02/08/06)
Cautionary Note on Measure 37
On October 14, 2005, Marion County Circuit Court announced its decision in MacPherson v. Dept. of
Administrative Services, (Marion Co. Circ. Ct. Case No. 0OC15769), which involved a challenge to
Measure 37. The Court ruled that Measure 37 violates the constitution in the following particulars:
impermissibly limits the Legislative Branch of Oregon government from exercising its plenary power to
regulate land use in Oregon; violates the Oregon Constitution, Article I, Section 20, the Privileges and
Immunities clause; violates the Oregon Constitution, Article I, Section 22, the Suspension of Laws; and
violates the United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment Procedural and Substantive Due
Process. This decision is expected to be appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court. However, until ruled on
by the Supreme Court (and unless a stay is granted), this decision will prevent the State of Oregon from
processing or deciding Measure 37 claims and from administering State laws as if Measure 37 were valid.
Deschutes County will, for the time being, process Measure 37 claims unless a claimant requests that
such process be placed on hold. Claimants should understand that a decision by Deschutes County may
not enable them to proceed with future development or construction in light of the fact that the State may
be prevented from processing "State" claims. Claimants who wish to obtain information relative to their
"State" claims under Measure 37 are advised to contact the State Department of Land Conservation and
Development.
Page 5 of 5 - Exhibit A - Order No. 2006-011 (02/08/06)
EXHIBIT B
The West Half of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter Northwest Quarter
(W1Wf NW-41N D of Section Nine (9), Township Fourteen (14) South, Range
Thirteen (13) East of the Willamette Meridian; together with five acres of
water.frorh'Central Oregon Irrigation District.
Order No. 2006-011; Mitchell
~ a
Community Development Department
ViannIng Divislao Building. Safety blvision Environmental Health Divislon
117 Nw Lafayette, Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)383-5575 FAX (541,)385-17:64
http:JJwww.co.deschutes.or L cdd/
Demand for Compensation - Measure 37 Claim
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION (Please type or print firmly in dark Ink)
ch(?A+e,.- ~:S-LAVIP 0 ifC_~ e1 Dl_,~e.fle_ ~~rsrne~
Nam f Property Owner Name of Representative (if Any)
_1 ~7Y4 /U LJ I C~ v 0 N e- -3 rd
Mailing Address Mailing Address
:'a2 ' or tJE1, QK 02`7260 APJAJ OR 9:2--7b/
City, State, Zip
ls`~r 15L/ 8 - 35C) 5
Phone Fax Phone Fax
PRIVATE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Assessor's Map and Tax Lot Number:
Street Address: 1-78 q MW t c
ZONING DESIGNATION WHEN ACQUIRED: A - I
CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATION: E-Ft4 -(4E-
DATE CLAIMANT ACQUIRED PROPERTY: 3 (include deed, contract, or
other conveyance). e
DATE CLAIMANT'S RELATIVE ACQUIRED PROPERTY, IF APPLICABLE: L~la,rr o77, J q 6V
(include title report; chain of title letter; lot book report; Assessor's tax lot card).
AMOUNT OF CLAIM: $ ooo, DOU A statement of the amount of the claim in dollars
based on the alleged reduction in the fair market value of the property resulting from the enforcement of
the County's regulation
Signature of Claimant (Property Owner(s):
Z~,
DISCLAIMER NOTICE:
Approval of compensation or modification, removal or non-application of land use regulation does not warrant or otherwise
guarantee that the present property owner or any successors interest can legally use the subject property for the purpose, or in
the manner, approved by the County as such use or purpose may impact third parties, including rights established by
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), other private restrictions, or other regulations, restrictions or contracts.
! li«t 3c~rvices Pet fonned/ #hT",de
Q 4n ~
0 0
We purchased Tax Lot 600 Assessor's Map 14-13-09 from Leslie and Elizabeth Aldous
on March 30, 1973. A copy of the title report at time of purchase and subsequent deed
are submitted with our Measure 37 Claim. At the time we purchased this property,
effective land use regulations would have allowed us to divide the parcel into 5 acre lots.
The land use regulations cited in our Measure 37 claim have substantially reduced the
value of our property by restricting subdivision and partitions, restricting residential
development and restricting the building of roads and provision of utilities.
Based on a review of Assessor's records and real estate sales in the area, I estimate the
current value of our property subject to existing land use regulations at $300,000. If
present land use regulations were not applicable, I would divide this property into two
five-acre parcels served by on-site wells and septic systems. Without the land use
regulations prohibiting such subdivision, I estimate I could sell the two parcels for in
excess of $500,000. Therefore, the land use regulations have reduced its value in excess
of $200,000. This valuation is approximate and intended to be used as such.
Chester A. 'tchel r.
Land We Ed-"- i 0 S510 7701 541.317.1009 fax
August 31, 2005
Deschutes County Community Development
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
Bend, Oregon 97701
Re: Measure 37 Claim for Chester A. Mitchell and June E. Mitchell
Deschutes County, 14-13-09 Tax Lot 600
To Whom it May Concern:
As you will see from the evidence submitted, the Claimant acquired the subject property at a time when
land use laws would have allowed them to subdivide their parcel into 5-acre parcels and place
dwellings on both panels. Based on Deschutes County Assessor's records and comparable sale price
values in Deschutes County, the Claimants estimate their property value has been reduced in excess
of $200,000 due to the current applicable land use regulations. Those regulations include but are not
limited to ORS Chapters 92, 195, 197 and 215; OAR 660, Divisions 1-45; Statewide Planning Goals,
DCC Titles 17, 18, 22 and 23; and any other state or local land use limitation which would prevent
division of the subject property and which would prevent construction of single family dwellings on all
panels.
Pursuant to Ballot Measure 37, this letter constitutes written demand for compensation for the loss of
fair market value of the property in the amount of $200,000. Pursuant to Ballot Measure 37, you have
180 days to resolve the claim. You also have the option of repealing, modifying or waiving the
offending regulation in lieu of paying the claim.
The Claimants have filed the equivalent claim with the State and do not wish to be compensated for the
reduction in value. Instead, the Claimants seek to use the Measure 37 process to develop the property
in the manner which was allowable at the time they purchased it. In that regard, Claimants are asking
the State and County to exercise there option to repeal, modify or not apply the existing land use
regulations to allow Claimants to divide. the property and place single family dwellings on the resulting
parcels which will be served by on-site wells, septic systems, and private streets. The Claimants
further seek to obtain a Measure 37 remedy which would allow a single family dwelling on the newly
created parcel and which would apply to or run with the land to provide for the transferability of the
property with the land division and residential development rights.
Enclosed are the following materials in support of their claim:
1. Deschutes County Measure 37 Claim Form;
2. Authorization from the Property Owners to file the claim;
3. Statement of Chester A. Mitchell in Support of Measure 37 Claim;
• Page 2 August 31, 2005
4. Bargain and Sale Deed dated March 30,1973;
5. Warranty Deed conveying to Applicants dated November 13, 1980;
6. Warranty Deed conveying to Applicant's parents dated March 27, 1964;
7. Title Report with copies of relevant exceptions, dated August 18, 2005;
8. Deschutes County DIAL Report of the subject property;
9. Deschutes County Tax Maps for the subject property;
10. List of owners within 750 feet of the subject property.
Sincerely,
L~1('l
Danielle M. Strome
# 0",
AUTHORIZATION
I, Chester A. Mitchell Jr., as owner of certain real property located in Deschutes County,
Oregon, hereby authorize Danielle Strome to act as my agent for the purposes of filing a
Measure 37 claim with Deschutes County and the State of Oregon for the real property
located at 1784 NW Ice Ave. in Terrebonne, Oregon County of Deschutes.
State of Ore on
County of ukeS
On C~ua U u 073 , 2005 personally appeared the above named Chester A.
Mitchell Jr. and June E. Mitchell and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their
voluntary act. Before me:
`ilai.2 ~ UU0
Notary public for Oregon
EAL
RTWOOD
OREGON
NO. 389966
MFEB 24 2009
G'r'~ I---- ' 42L/~
e E. Mitchell
M
v
~"ao
~eNi
SepteTt 12"0,
Re: Measure 37 Claim Reference # M37-05-64 SEP 3 0 2005
.v
To Whom It May Concern:
We are the Kellers (Wallace & Lorene) located at 10460 N.W. 18th Street in
Terrebonne, Oregon. We have been informed of being able to submit a
statement commenting on how we would be impacted by the approval of the
Measure 37 request of Chester and June Mitchell (Claim Reference # M37-
05-64). Consulting the accompanying map, the Keller property is outlined
in a blue dashed line. The Mitchell property -is outlined in a dashed green
line and a solid red line. This then will establish how the Mitchell and
Keller properties adjoin.
Concern #I Explanation - Irrigation Water
Currently, Mitchells obtain water to irrigate their six acres of water right
from a ditch crossing the north edge of our property (green line: H-LAT)
and under our driveway onto their land. They have no written easement
claim on our portion of the ditch. This manner of water access has been in
place many years, dating back to a time when both properties were under
one ownership. We, the Kellers, assumed ownership of the adjoining
property in 1979 and have since maintained the ditch without compensation,
though we have not requested such. This decision was due partly to our
having rented their land intermittently for the past twelve to fifteen years.
Under these circumstances, we had some control of the rate of water. flow
and when irrigation occurred. Divided ownership of this property will make
renting of both pieces for cattle use and supplying water to both impractical.
A solution to this situation has been suggested by the Central Oregon
Irrigation District, our water supplier. In conversation with their
representatives, it was stated that after Mitchells have supplied them with an
explanation on how both parcels would be irrigated, the COID would put in
a headgate to supply their water directly from the CID canal ( the blue line
on the map crossing the north end of the Mitchell property).
Concern #2 Explanation - Overflow Water Control
The Mitchell property is currently flood irrigated. The overflow water
(often called tailwater) collects at the end of the field after it has flowed
Io]4J 6e
SO"AANNED
across the parcel being irrigated. This is typical of any flood irrigation
system. On the Mitchell parcel, water flow, when irrigating, essentially
travels north to south with the overflow water directed into a pond at the
southwest corner which we share with them (note on the map). It is separate
from the one pictured in blue. In years past, overflow water simply flowed
into the adjacent property to the west. About five years ago, that property
owner requested that the practice no longer continue. By law, the person
generating the overflow water must prevent it from impacting surrounding
properties. Consequently, we (the Kellers) installed a pump and piping
system to carry this water away to another site. Ultimately, then, before the
Measure 37 request is approved, the overflow water situation resulting from
the irrigation of Mitchell's property needs to be confronted. We DO NOT
wish to pump "tail water" for multiple owners when these parcels are
developed.
Concern # 3 Explanation - Drain field effluent
Currently there is one septic drain field in the irrigated area of the property.
In the event of further development, at least one additional field would exist
there. Irrigation water passes over the field now in use, with the risk of
carrying with it effluent that ultimately could end up collecting in the pond
that we use to pump "tail water" from. This means that contaminated water
could be reaching our property. All factors remaining as they are, the
addition of a second drain field would only compound the problem.
In summary then, we want it to be known that we do not want our concerns
to prevent the Measure 37 request submitted by the Mitchells to be
disallowed. What we are asking for is that irrigation of their property be a
totally self-contained system, freeing us (the Kellers) from any involvement
in supplying water, or processing overflow water.
Respectfully submitted,
0L. Kd.&v
Wallace L. and Lorene A. Keller
SCANNEP
~4.
~w NA
600 502 % 500 ~//4-0/q
/
` 0
H-
7 ti
6.0 ac. 7.6 ac.
p /
/10.4 ac.
p
ti
2.2 ac.-
1 `LSO knol 901 100
p 01 9.2 ac. 5.8 ac.
C.
/ 8 1 902
1 1.0 ac. 900
1/5.4 ac. 900
/ 8 ► ~i
5.4 ac. 13.6 ac./
r / t
3.0 ac.
i
1.44 cc 702 p o H-10 L
-1 ND'
1 1 / 0// 0\
- 4 1
28.0 c. / / % it l I /ac./
/ 8.0
8 ~ci