Loading...
2007-392-Minutes for Meeting February 13,2007 Recorded 3/29/2007NANCYUBLANKCOUNTY ENSHIP,F000NTY CLERKDS Q 2001.392 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 03/29/2007 04:25:32 PM IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I II III 2007-392 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244: Re-recorded to correct [give reason] previously recorded in Book or as Fee Number and Page E 8'c' { Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING - LAND USE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2007 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tammy Baney. Also present were Tom Anderson and Catherine Morrow, Community Development Department; Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; media representatives Barney Lerten of News Channel 21 and Keith Chu of The Bulletin; and ten other citizens. Chair Daly opened the meeting at 10: 00 a. m. L Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. Tom Anderson stated that the Measure 37 opening statement has been revised to be consistent with Code, making it clear that not everyone can submit oral testimony unless they were in the notification area. Written testimony can be provided by any citizen. The statement has been made available to all attendees. 2. Before the Board was a Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-011, a Measure 37 Claim (Hill). Tom Anderson explained the claimants are Monty and Laurel Hill. The property is located west and south of Redmond, outside the urban reserve area, near 58th Street and Helmholtz. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting - Land Use Monday, February 13, 2007 Page 1 of 15 Pages The property consists of approximately 3.7 acres zoned EFU. The claimants have indicated a desire to create a residential subdivision. The amount of damage claimed is $400,000. Ownership was acquired via deed on July 13, 1966, and the property has been owned by the claimants continuously since then. In 1966, there was effectively no zoning in place, so a subdivision is probably allowed, subject to land use application regulations. The Commissioners had no questions. Chair Daly opened the hearing. Ed Fitch, an attorney representing the claimants, said that they would probably want to partition the property into two or three parcels at the most. They have a disabled child for whom they want to provide. They concur with the proposed Order. No other testimony was offered. BANEY: More signature of the Order. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 3. Before the Board was a Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-040, a Measure 37 Claim (Sohn). Mr. Anderson stated that the property is located near Tumalo Reservoir Road, close to Pinehurst Road. It consists of 15 acres zoned EFU-TRB, with a landscape management overlay; 13 acres are irrigated. The proposed use is a subdivision of three-acre to five-acre parcels. The amount of damage claimed is $200,000. Ownership was acquired by deed on January 26, 1977. The property has been continuously owned by the Sohns since then. Zoning in place in 1977 would probably have allowed five-acre parcels. In 1977 a wavier of State rules would have been required; this will be determined as part of the application process. Commissioner Luke stated that he has known Mr. Sohn for many years through his work in the construction business, and Mr. Sohn is also a long-time member of the Fair Association. However, this would not affect his vote. No other comments from the Board were offered. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting - Land Use Monday, February 13, 2007 Page 2 of 15 Pages Bob Lovlien, an attorney representing the claimant, indicated he had no comments and that the claim is straightforward. No other testimony was offered. BANEY: More signature of the Order. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was a Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-041, a Measure 37 Claim (Bradley). Tom Anderson stated that a letter with comments was received from Central Oregon Land Watch. He said the claim was submitted by Chester and Virginia Bradley regarding two parcels located east of Sisters, north of Highway 126. The first parcel is approximately 192 acres. The staff report and Order omitted the zoning being EFU-Sisters-Cloverdale subzone, also partially a flood zone. The first parcel is identified as lot 200. The second parcel, lot 300, is 6.5 acres, also zoned EFU- SCS, and has a landscape management overlay. Together they total just under 200 acres. The claimant would like to subdivide for residential purposes. The amount of damage claimed is $7 million. Both properties were acquired via deed on November 10, 1967, and have been owned continuously since then. At this time, Mr. Anderson referred to the flood plain area on an oversized map. Whychus Creek runs through the property. Flood plain zone designation comes from the federal government; FEMA provided the mapping designation, which follows federal directive; the local flood plain designation ties into it. Flood plan zoning does involve some potential health or safety related concerns. The intent is to follow the 10-year flood plain. Specifically, this involves some restrictions on lot size and location. In many cases property owners will have an elevation survey done that precisely notes the exact location of the flood plain area. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting - Land Use Monday, February 13, 2007 Page 3 of 15 Pages In terms of a future land use application, if the Commissioners approve the waiver and an application is submitted, the owner might want to pursue a survey. The flood plain zone restricts the placement of homes with in the flood plain, but in terms of configuration of a subdivision, it governs where lots might be located. A lot cannot be entirely within the flood plain, but a planned unit development or narrow lots connecting to the flood plain with buildable areas might work. Most importantly, staff believes that the flood plain designation represents an exempt regulation under Measure 37, which cannot be waived due to health and safety concerns. There are ways to more precisely define the zone, and this will be pointed out in the staff report and Order. Commissioner Daly pointed out that many people build in flood areas in the country. Commissioner Luke noted that flood insurance is only available through the federal government. It was pointed out that Central Oregon Land Watch's letter said that Virginia Bradley is not an owner, but the report says both parties are. Mark Pilliod stated that the Board is required to make its decision based on substantial evidence. The deed shows both person, and this shows substantial ownership. Someone could say there is a record out there that conflicts with this, but it would not completely contradict what is in the deeds. For the most part there will be imperfect evidence in these claims. Decisions have to be based on what has been submitted. Mr. Anderson said that two letters of opposition were received: one from Central Oregon Land Watch and another from a neighboring property owner. At this time Chair Daly opened the hearing. Ed Fitch, an attorney representing the claimants, said that there is no disagreement about building in a flood plain. The development would probably be a planned unit development, but no specific plans have been made. This will be addressed at the time of land use application. The Order satisfies the requirements regarding health and safety concerns. The only information he has is that they are the owners, although the tax printout only has one name on it. As to two issues noted in the staff report, there is a residence on the property and it is anticipated that a soil and water study will allow development. There is also a domestic well. The property was jointly acquired in 1967, and they indicated they both still own it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting - Land Use Monday, February 13, 2007 Page 4 of 15 Pages No other testimony was offered. Commissioner Luke stated that it is up to the applicant, if challenged, to produce information as needed in court. However, a deed with both names on it is fairly conclusive. Mark Pilliod stated that if the Board is inclined to go forward, he would like to elaborate more on the flood plain issue. The clock runs out on this claim on March 24. LUKE: More this item continued to the Board meeting of February 26, 2007. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 5. Before the Board was a Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-043, a Measure 37 Claim (Craig). Tom Anderson explained the property is located in La Pine, south of Masten Road, and consists of 4.5 acres zoned RR-10 with a wildlife overlay. The claimants wish to partition the property into two parcels. The damage claim is for $94,000. The ownership history is somewhat convoluted. The property was acquired in December 1976 by Richard and Diane Craig, the parents of the claimant, Dana Craig, via a memorandum of sale. The senior Craigs purchased the property from the Ehrlingers, who purchased from someone else. There were separate agreements between the Ehrlingers and the Campbells and the Craigs and Campbells. There is evidence of these transactions in 1976. The Ehrlingers transferred title to Donald and Margaret Campbell via warranty deed on October 10, 1985. On November 6, 1985, the Campbells conveyed title to Richard and Diane Craig. On April 3, 1986, Richard and Diane Craig conveyed the property to Dana and his brother, Richard. After that, the ownership changed between the brothers and their wives. The end result was that all four, the two brothers, Dana and Richard and their wives, Pamela and Carolyn, are currently listed as the owners. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting - Land Use Monday, February 13, 2007 Page 5 of 15 Pages There is an affidavit from Diane Craig, the surviving parent, indicating it was the senior Craig's intent that half of the property would go to his son, Dana. Records documenting that intent are not available, and the affidavit is the only physical evidence. Based on evidence in the record, the first verifiable interest is the 1986 transaction, transferring the property from the senior Craig to Dana. Measure 37 allows compensation to the original ancestor in 1976. The date that the current ownership can be verified is April 3, 1986, which would be the date of review. In 1986, RR-10 was in place, with a ten-acre minimum lot size. It is doubtful that the partition would have been allowed then. Commissioner Daly asked if there is already a residence on the property. Mr. Anderson replied that a manufactured home was placed on the property in the early 1970's, then a replacement dwelling in the 1980's. The records indicate there is just one. The rules for replacement dwellings specify that the original be demolished as part of the replacement dwelling part. Bob Lovlien, attorney for the claimant, said that there are people in attendance who wish to speak, as that is the only way to get the evidence before the Board, other than with the affidavit. They will do a narrative to confirm what he is stating. The Ehrlingers did sell the property to the Campbells via land sale contract, which was a common conveyance form at the time. The Campbells sold five acres to Richard and Diane Craig, through a memorandum of contract date December 23, 1976. About a year and one-half later, the Craigs moved up from California to take a job here and bought 2.5 acres from the father. There was a handwritten agreement showing Richard and Diana selling to Dana and Carolyn for $7,500. The other 2.5 acres were to be purchased by the other brother. There is no copy in the file but it can be explained. Based on the agreement for the 2.5 acres, Carolyn obtained a manufactured home permit and placed the home with permits. In 1984, the replacement dwelling was moved onto the property. This is documented in the Assessor's records. They have been living on the property since 1978 and made payments to Richard and Diana Craig. They considered it an investment, and made payments through 1986. At the time, they did not think partitioning it would be an issue. By 1986, they realized they needed help. The held the property as an undivided V2 interest for his brother and his brother's wife, so that any liens would affect just one half. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting - Land Use Monday, February 13, 2007 Page 6 of 15 Pages Commissioner Daly stated that they couldn't lien just part of the property. Mr. Lovlien replied that they could lien just one brother's interest. In January 2004, there was a burglary and the contents of the home were stolen, including a safe that contained the original contract of sale. Documents are at the Sheriff's Office regarding the burglary. The claimants believe they bought 2.5 acres from the parents, and put a mobile home on the property immediately after they paid the parents off. Commissioner Luke asked if they had any canceled checks, perhaps from paying the taxes. Mr. Lovlien replied that they don't go all the way back to 1978. The $7,500 just about paid off what the father had paid for properties in the area. The partition rules were substantially different in 1978. Commissioner Daly asked if they are asking to split the property, and whether it would have been possible at that time. Mr. Anderson said that it could have been possible in the 1970's. Commissioner Baney stated that the land was zoned RR-10. Mr. Anderson noted that properties were grandfathered in when the County adopted the State's land use rules. Commissioner Luke said that the Board can only defend what is in the written record. Mr. Lovlien stated that what he related is correct per his client. Commissioner Luke asked if they could do other searching for records. Mr. Lovlien said they would not object to holding the claim over for a few more weeks to see if any further evidence can be found. Dana Craig testified that he purchased the property in 1978, but didn't think about subdividing. His father wrote out documents, cleared the land of 2.5 acres of bitterbrush and bought a home, knowing the sons would get their share. He said they don't want the $94,000; they just want the kids to get their part. His father would not just give the property away; they had to buy it. Commissioner Luke asked if there is any record of who bought the mobile home and who paid taxes on it. Mr. Lovlien said that Carolyn got the permit, and they have paid the taxes since 1978, but he's not sure if this would be I the Assessor's records. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting - Land Use Monday, February 13, 2007 Page 7 of 15 Pages Commissioner Luke asked if they are willing to find other information, as he hesitates to set this type of precedence. Commissioner Baney added that she doesn't doubt the story, but they have to rely on factual, hard copies of documents. She said she would like for them to be able to document their case. Commissioner Luke pointed out that in his experience, the Building Department only issues permits to the owner or builder. Mr. Anderson said that is the case today, but it could have been different years ago. Mr. Lovlien said they would give it one more shot. The expiration date is March 14, so he will provide a letter to extend the date for two months. LUKE: Move continuance until the March 13, 2007 Board meeting. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 6. Before the Board was a Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-044, a Measure 37 Claim (Crooked Pine Ranch/Durdan). Tom Anderson said that the claim involves three separate parcels located northwest of Sisters off Indian Ford Road, approximately two miles east of Highway 20. The first parcel is 5.5 acres, the second parcel is approximately 146.5 acres, and the third parcel is 39.5 acres; all are zoned EFU, Sisters- Cloverdale subzone. The combined area is approximately 191 acres. The claimant wishes to subdivide the property for residential purposes. The damage amount claimed is $25 million. Leigh Durdan and her husband, Scott, acquired the first parcel via deed on August 16, 1968, and acquired the other two by deed on October 17, 1968. On September 30, 1996, all three parcels were conveyed to the Leigh Durdan Revocable Trust. On July 13, 1999, all three properties were conveyed via warranty deed to CPR LLC. The Board has reviewed previous Measure 37 claims involving LLC's. This is similar but not exactly the same. The properties first went through a revocable trust, then to an LLC. There is a choice of how to handle this situation. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting - Land Use Monday, February 13, 2007 Page 8 of 15 Pages Staff indicates the date of acquisition of the LLC is July 1999, which was a break in the ownership of Durdan. State rules and laws regulate the creation of LLC's. It could constitute a break in ownership. However, unlike similar claims, there is also language in the Order stating that if the Court decides the creation of the LLC does not constitute a break in ownership, it would go back to the original dates in 1968, and the County would accept the Court's decision and honor it for land use reasons. There was one letter of opposition from Central Oregon Land Watch. Commissioner Daly asked if the decision would come from Circuit Court. Mr. Pilliod confirmed that the Circuit Court could make that determination. The County would have to abide by the decision of a Court of Appeals if it has the same effect. Commissioner Luke asked if in the case of Ward and Leeson, did the State rule against the County. Mr. Pilliod said there is no ruling yet, but they are suing the State. Commissioner Baney asked if the Durdans could cancel the LLC and refile the claim as the original owners. Mr. Pilliod replied that this could be considered a change in ownership with a new acquisition date. Commissioner Daly said that there was a split vote previously. He asked if the owner is recognized as a part of the LLC. Mr. Pilliod replied that Leeson was a corporation closely-held by Leeson. They presented testimony that they continued to reside on and treated the property indistinguishably from being owned by a corporation. This was considered. Commissioner Luke said the contention was that they added people to the corporation. In the Ward case, they added the children to the corporation. This doesn't deny the claim, but establishes a date. Commissioner Baney asked who the owners of the LLC are. Mr. Pilliod stated that he believes Leigh Durdan is the only member. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting - Land Use Monday, February 13, 2007 Page 9 of 15 Pages Bob Lovlien explained that they have no plans to develop the property. They filed as a result of a decision by the Board regarding LLC's not entirely being a break in ownership. This is a place marker on this situation. If the Board decides this is a break in ownership, his clients do not want to litigate it through the courts. He added that he's sure the Board knows that people form LLC's strictly for estate planning purposes and to reduce estate taxes. It has become a very common form of estate planning, and no one could have foreseen this type of problem resulting. He said he could put this on hold until there is a Supreme Court decision. It would protect what Measure 37 rights there are now. Tom Anderson asked that the extension needs to be put in writing, with a notation that it could be brought back at the claimant's request within a sixty- day time frame. Mr. Pilliod added that there is another possibility in play; that's the legislature. There may not be a decision from the Courts. The County could be responsive to that if there is additional time allowed. He also recommended that the Board take any testimony permitted today. No other testimony was offered. LUKE: Move this hearing be continued indefinitely at the applicant's request. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 7. Before the Board was a Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-045, a Measure 37 Claim (Glover). Tom Anderson said that the claim was filed by Steven Glover on a property located at 71150 NW Lower Bridge Way, west of Terrebonne near Holmes Road. The property is approximately twenty acres zoned EFU Lower Bridge subzone, which the claimant would perhaps like to subdivide into four lots. The amount of damage claimed is $600,000. A larger piece was acquired by Mr. Glover on February 20, 1979, which was partitioned in 1980. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting - Land Use Monday, February 13, 2007 Page 10 of 15 Pages Although there was the transfer of some interest to another party in 1980, Mr. Glover's interest in the property has been unbroken since February 20, 1979. This date would govern any future land use applications. At that time, A-1 zoning was in effect, and five-acre subdivisions were allowed. Three letters of opposition have been received. The first is from the Four Winds Foundation, the second from Paul Dewey on behalf of Douglas and Katrina Haynes, and an e-mail from Margarite Sasswell, a neighbor. The staff report covers pertinent information, but they are eligible to testify. Ed Fitch, representing the claimant, asked that this hearing be continued to allow him time to get more information into the record. This information would show that each parcel has a value of $200,000, and that septic systems and domestic water wells are feasible. All other issues have been addressed. It is a straightforward partition. Paul Dewey, representing Katrina Haynes, an adjacent land owner, said the primary issue has to do with the date of the claim. State rules were in effect in 1973, and goals were finalized in 1975. There was a State land use system that overlaid the County system. The County was going through the approval process, and its land use was finalized in 1981. During the time between 1973 and 1981, draft and final goals, specifically Goal 3, prohibited the division of farmlands beyond what was required for viable commercial operations. The County eventually adopted a forty-acre minimum lot size. Even the question of compensation is a threshold argument. He stated that the owner has not established any loss in value, since the State prohibited the use in 1979. Commissioner Luke asked if Mr. Dewey thinks the State would turn this one down. Mr. Dewey said that he can't speak for the State, but they have not addressed the issue in this way. State law prohibited it then, but he doesn't know how they would handle this. It is a valuation issue, premised on the regulations affecting the value. State law was in place before they purchased the property. Commissioner Daly stated that in regard to Goal 3 at that time, it must not have been too hard and fast, because he subdivided property into five-acre parcels in the 1970's. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting - Land Use Monday, February 13, 2007 Page 11 of 15 Pages Mr. Dewey said that a lot of things happened that were contrary to State law. It was a difficult process and not everyone was sure what to do then. It just may not have been challenged. Mr. Anderson said that a State waiver is required in this case. The County cannot waive State rules, just local rules. This was one of those in-between issues between the adoption of State land use goals and the County's final comprehensive plan. In practice at the time, the County operated under the existing rules. Douglas Haynes testified that he realizes there are difficult issues and it is standard practice for these to go forward. He said that this claim and another nearby are collectively beginning to erode his lifestyle. He emphasized this has to be given consideration beyond the letter of the law; there has to be thought given to the environment. If his neighbor wants to build a home for his son and can't afford land, it is not allowable under current conditions so he has to file a Measure 37 claim. The original intent of Measure 37 was born from this type of thing. He said he doesn't oppose his neighbor having a home for his son but there is a significant difference if he wants four parcels. The amount of light, noise, traffic and people is a big issue. Commissioner Luke said that he isn't that optimistic about the legislature dealing with this issue. The bills they are dealing with now are delaying action on other things. If there are major changes done without a lot of thought, it could create a bigger mess. He said he hopes the courts give more definition to what can and can't be done. Sweet Medicine Nation, who lives next door, then spoke. She said she purchased her land from the government. Because of her indigenous heritage, she wanted to be on the edge of things, near wildlife and to look at things differently. She immediately went about putting the land into conservancy. There is a wildlife corridor there. The animals were there first. She teaches people who come to Four Winds to limit the impact to animals. She has forty acres but does not intend to divide it, nor will she remove trees or rocks. She said nothing is on the Glover's land except their house. It is troubling that there could be four houses there. It is located at the end of a lane and is now quiet. She expressed concern about what it would do to her property long-term. She said she is glad there is a system where she can speak and share her feelings. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting - Land Use Monday, February 13, 2007 Page 12 of 15 Pages She appreciates the difficult position the Commissioners are in, since this is a State and local issue. She is also concerned about neighbors across the canyon who could build possibly 200 homes. She said she would like her children to live on her land, too, but it is not always the best thing. Commissioner Luke said that each county handles these claims differently. Some don't do mailings to the neighbors, and some don't allow testimony at all. Deschutes County wants to keep the public involved. Ed Fitch responded to Mr. Dewey's remarks about State and County waivers. He said the County waiver goes back to February 1979, with a footnote that State laws and guidelines may apply. Only one claim has been denied, and it involved prime, irrigated farmland. This will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Non-irrigated land developed into five-acre parcels was common during that time frame. The interplay of goals, guidelines and zoning is hard to determine. He asked that the record be kept open until February 26. No other testimony was offered. LUKE: Move continuance until the February 26, 2007 Board meeting. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 8. Before the Board was a Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-038, a Measure 37 Claim (Burk - continued from February 5). This hearing was continued from February 5, 2007. Tom Anderson stated that the revised staff report sorts out the effect of the lot line adjustment done on the two properties in 2002. The acquisition dates for the two properties were inadvertently transposed. The correct acquisition date of lot 100 is July 20, 1973. Lot 208 was acquired December 1, 1981. The lot line adjustment changed the configuration of the two lots. Instead of considering the tax lots, they considered just the land. (He referred to a map of the changes to the lots.) Part of one lot was peeled off another; that part is not part of the Measure 37 claim. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting - Land Use Monday, February 13, 2007 Page 13 of 15 Pages Mr. Fitch said that he agrees with the staff report and order. Commissioner Luke asked if they own to the center of the canal. Mr. Burk testified that it is just a right of way. He owns land on one side and his son owns the other. This takes land on one side of the railroad tracks and makes it useable. Commissioner Luke asked if someone testified last time before the Measure 37 statement was corrected, do they have the right to testify now. Mr. Pilliod said it was made clear it was one time only. They can still submit written testimony if they want. No other testimony was offered, so the hearing was closed. BANEY: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 9. Before the Board were Other Items. No other items were discussed. Being no further items to come before the Board, Chair Daly adjourned the meeting at 11:50 a. m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting - Land Use Monday, February 13, 2007 Page 14 of 15 Pages DATED this 13th Day of February 2007 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary R. Luke, Vice Chair Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting - Land Use Monday, February 13, 2007 Page 15 of 15 Pages Tammy ey, Comm' oner Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA - LAND USE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2007 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building 1300 NW Wall St., Bend 1. CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Visitors who wish to speak should sign up prior to the beginning of the meeting on the sign-up sheet provided. Please use the microphone and also state your name and address at the time the Board calls on you to speak. 2. A HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-011, a Measure 37 Claim (Hill) - Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson, Community Development Department 3. A HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-040, a Measure 37 Claim (Sohn) - Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson, Community Development Department 4. A HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-041, a Measure 37 Claim (Bradley) - Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson, Community Development Department 5. A HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-043, a Measure 37 Claim (Craig) - Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson, Community Development Department 6. A HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-044, a Measure 37 Claim (Crooked Pine Ranch/Durdan) - Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson, Community Development Department Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Tuesday, February 13, 2007 Page 1 of 5 Pages 7. A HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-045, a Measure 37 Claim (Glover) - Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson, Community Development Department 8. A HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-038, a Measure 37 Claim (Burk - continued from February 5) - Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson, Community Development Department 9. OTHER ITEMS Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. FUTURE MEETINGS: (Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of Commissioners ' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572) Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 11:15 a.m. Legislative Update Conference Call (tentative) 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, February 15, 2007 7:00 a.m. Bend Chamber of Commerce Legislative Policy Council Meeting, at County 5:30 p.m. Sisters Chamber of Commerce Annual Ball Monday, February 19, 2007 Most County offices will be closed to observe Presidents' Day Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Tuesday, February 13, 2007 Page 2 of 5 Pages Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:00 a.m. Regular Meeting of the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee 1:30 p.m. Work Session regarding Destination Resort Code Amendments 6:00 p.m. Informational Hearing on Sale of Land - Proposed Biomass Plant - La Pine - South County Center Wednesday, February 21, 2007 9:30 a.m. Community Fire Plan Signing, at Sunriver Library 12 noon Regularly scheduled Department Heads Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday, February 26, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board Land Use Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, February 28, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 11:15 a.m. Legislative Update Conference Call 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, March 1, 2007 10:00 a.m. Quarterly Update - District Attorney 11:00 a.m. Quarterly Update - Community Development Department 1:30 p.m. Quarterly Update - Road Department Monday, March 5, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board Land Use Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Tuesday, February 13, 2007 Page 3 of 5 Pages Wednesday, March 7, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, March 8, 2007 11:00 a.m. Quarterly Update - Mental Health Department 1:00 P.M. Quarterly Update - Health Department Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting - Measure 37 Claims Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 11:15 a.m. Legislative Update Conference Call 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Redmond City Council, Council Chambers Monday, March 19, 2007 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Tuesday, March 20, 2007 10:00 a.m. Regular Meeting of the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday, March 26, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board Land Use Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Tuesday, February 13, 2007 Page 4 of 5 Pages Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 11:15 a.m. Legislative Update Conference Call 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday, April 2, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board Land Use Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council) Wednesday, April 4, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 11:15 a.m. Legislative Update Conference Call 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, April 5, 2007 8:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Sisters Council, Sisters City Hall Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Tuesday, February 13, 2007 Page 5 of 5 Pages