2007-1097-Minutes for Meeting April 21,1981 Recorded 6/20/2007FICIAL NANCYDESCHUBLANKENSHIPTES COUNTY CLERKS CV 2QY1.1091
21
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
bESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
April 21, 1981 - Regular Meeting
Chairman Paulson called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. Commis-
sioner Young and Commissioner Shepard were also present.
Amendments to There were two amendments tc the agenda: (1) Discussion
the Agenda on LID's, and (2) For Signature: Ordinance no. 81-018.
MOTION: YOUNG moved to amend the agenda.
SHEPARD: Second.
VOTE: PAULSON: AYE.
SHEPARD: AYE.
YOUNG: AYE.
At this time the Commissioners introduced three students
from Bend High School: Helen Miller, Debby Ross and Jean
Halvorson. They were participating in Student Government
Day and were studying county government. They had spent
the morning with the Commissioners.
Hearing:
Chairman Paulson opened the hearing and noted that a final
River Bend
hearing would be held on May 20, 1981 at 10:00 a.m. He
Estates Spe-
began.i.by reading Order #81-207 by title only. This order
cial Road
sets the final hearing. Chairman Paulson then asked for
District
comments from those present. Being none, he closed the
hearing.
MOTION: YOUNG moved to adopt order #81-207 setting
a hearing for Wednesday, May 20, 1981 at
10:00 a.m. This will be the final hearing.
SHEPARD: Second.
VOTE: PAULSON: AYE.
SHEPARD: AYE.
YOUNG: AYE.
Discussion
Dave Jaqua, attorney representing the developer of Lower
regarding
Bridge Estates, came before the Board. At this time
setback re-
the developer is preparing his report to be filed with
quirements
the State Read Estate Divsion. There is a question at
in Lower
this point as to the setback requirements to be placed
Bridge Es-
on the lots with river frontage in this subdivision.
tates
At the time of this application, planning staff had re-
commended in its staff report that a 100 foot setback
requirement be placed on the lots with river frontage.
The Hearings Officer approved the application without
that condition. Later the Board of Commissioners approved
this subdivision with changes in the Hearings Officer's
decision which did not relate to the setback requirement.;
A short time after the approval of this subdivision, PL-
15, the County Zoning Ordinance, was amended and the
setback requirements for river frontage lots changed,
and rimrock setback,r.equirements were established. There
was some question as to whether they would have to obtain
variances in order to build within the setbacks on these
lots or whether they were exempt from this ordinance as
they had received prior approval. The ordinance now re-
quires that no building should be built in sight of the
river, but the developer had intended these to be river-
view lots, as was originally-approved. The Board approved
this on September 17, 1980 and the Ordinance was amended
Page 1 of 5
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
April 21, 1981 Regular Meeting
in December of the same year. This was discussed at
length. John Andersen, Planning Director, was also
present and took part in the discussion.
MOTION: YOUNG moved that on Lower Bridge Estates
that they adopt the decision of the Hearings
Officer which in essence was there shall be
no 100-foot setback required from the rim
and that the plat be approved as such and
allowed to proceed.
SHEPARD: Second.
Under discussion; Commissioner Shepard said that the
concern is that the applicant assumed at the time that
he made application on the basis of the ordinance that
was in effect and on the basis of the Hearings Officer's
findings that this was approved and hb could ultimately
proceed. Rick Isham, County Counsel, cited a case,
Diance vs. Cit_v of Dayton, similar to this one. The rul-
ing in that case had been that exclusions from the ordin-
ance must be spelled out in the decision. There was
some further discussion in which Chairman Paulson sug-
gested another motion, the ultimate result of which would
be that variances would have to be obtained.
VOTE: PAULSON: NO.
SHEPARD: AYE.
YOUNG: AYE.
Discussion
Chairman Paulson had a memo from Michael Maier, Director
and Decision
of Administrative Services, regarding the current status
regarding
of the Animal Control Program. The program is not able
Animal Con-
to stay within its projected revenues. If the program
trol Budget
ceases operation by May 1, the estimated loss to the County
would be $1,500. If the program continues until July 1
the estimated losses would be in excess of $6,000. In
a prior meeting, the Board had requested financial infor-
mation regarding animal control to determine whether or
not this department should continue to operate.
MOTION: SHEPARD moved to close this department.
PAULSON: Second.
Darrell Davidson, Sheriff's Department said that their
department could handle emergency calls formerly handled
by the dog control officer and expressed his regret at
losing this department. Chairman Paulson said that this
position would be reinstated July lst. Don Martin, Dog
Control Officer, said that if the computer program he had
suggested in the past had been in effect, the revenues
would be higher, possibly high enough that this action
would not have had to been taken. He suggested that this
program could become self-supporting with a computerized
renewal liscensing program. He felt that this could be
done for as much as or less than the Humane Society is
currently proposing, and if the County did it themselves,
they would not have divide the revenues with the Humane
Society.
VOTE: PAULSON: AYE.
SHEPARD: AYE.
YOUNG: AYE.
Page 2 of 5
Beschutes County Board of Commissioners
April 21, 1981 - Regular Meeting
Mr. Martin asked that each of the Commissioners prepare
a letter of recommendation for his resume'.
Discussion re- Mick Tye came before the Board representing the applicant.
garding MP-80- He said that one or two conditions of approval had not been
61, MP-80-67,
met until two days after extension was granted. These
Joyce Barney,
had involved obtaining approval for access use a road
Applicant
across BLr7 land. They requested that they be approved an
additional one-week extension to accomodate the information
received later. There had been a misunderstanding before,
in which Mr. Tye had though that Craig Smith in Planning
had scheduled this to come before the Board previously
to request an extension for this road access documentation.
MOTION: YOUNG moved that they grant an_additional~-one5-
week extension in regard to MP-80-67 and MP-80-
61. This would grant extension until April 22,
1981.
SHEPARD: Second.
VOTE: PAULSON: AYE.
SHEPARD: AYE.
YOUNG: AYE.
These two partitions will come before the Board at their
next day's meeting.
Discussion
This minor partition had been applied for previously.
regarding
That was minor partition number MP-77-168. Under that
MP-79-161
application, they had met some of the conditions of
Orville
approval but not all and the application expired.
Storlie,
Mick Tye was representing this applicant. He said that
Applicant
what had held up this application was a mistake made by
the attorney who drafted the legal description. A mis-
take was made in the Section description. He said that
a declaration of dedication had been filed with the first
application. There was some question as to the date that
access road had been broughtjup to the required standards.
The applicant's son was present, but neither he nor Mr.
Tye was sure of the date of that road's completion.
After some further discussion, it was agreed to place
this item on the agenda for the following Tuesday's
meeting.
Other Staff/ Lou Dvorak came before the Board to request that they
Public Con- sign an agreement they had previously approved and signed
cerns as the Seventh Mountain Service District. This was a
bargain and sale deed. The document had been signed, but
that had been in error in the Notary signature block, so
the signature page was being re-done. The Board recessed
their meeting and signed the document.
Other Staff/ Neil Hudson, Director of Public Works, came before the
Public Con- Board regarding initiating work on formation of some
cerns - Dis- LID'S. As County Counsel had not yet drafted the res-
cussion on olutions necessary, this was rescheduled for the next
LID's day's meeting.
Page 3 of 5
beschutes County Board of Commissioners
April, 21, 19.81 Regular Meeting
Other Staff/ Chairman Paulson said that the Board had been requested
Public Con- to consider holding Board meetings once per week in order
cerns to lighten the workload due to the upcoming 4-day work
week. This was discussed by the office personnel involved
with the Board. The Board decided to continue with two
meetings per week and reduce it to one per week if this
did not work out.
For Signature:
Chairman Paulson discussed this item for signature and
Consortium
read a portion of the document. Mr. Isham suggested they
Agreement for
sign this and include some kind of indemnity agreeement
Balance of
to protect the County from liability with this. Since
State Counties
this is a consortium effort, all counties involved with
these CETA programs are liable, not just the county in
which a liability originates. This was discussed. It
was decided that the County should take a position of
no liability, even if it means excluding Deschutes County
from participating in CETA programs.
MOTION: YOUNG moved that they agree to this and have
Mr. Isham add an addendum to the agreement
protecting the county from liability.
SHEPARD: Second.
VOTE: PAULSON: AYE.
SHEPARD: AYE.
YOUNG: AYE.
They will sign this agreement after the addendum has been
prepared.
For Signature: This is a deed from the City. The Board is being requested
Bargain and to sign the Acceptance of Deed. Rick Isham explained that
Sale Deed this deed is the result of a reversionary interest in part
of a City street.
MOTION: YOUNG moved that they accept this property.
SHEPARD: Second.
VOTE: PAULSON: AYE.
SHEPARD: AYE.
YOUNG: AYE.
Mr. Isham said that this property is near the Colorado
Street bridge and is a small parcel lying in the roadway.
For Signature: This was for receipt #18829 submitted by the Planning
Request for Department because the application was voided. The
Refund applicant is Povey & Associates and the refund is in
the amount of $78. The Commissioners approved the refund.
For Signature: This Ordinance defines the usual hours of operation for
Ordinance #81- the County. Chairman Paulson read this by title only.
018 MOTION: YOUNG moved that the ordinance be read by title
only for first and second reading, hearing be
heard and closed and action be taken.
SHEPARD: Second.
VOTE: PAULSON: AYE.
SHEPARD: AYE.
YOUNG: AYE.
Chairman Paulson gave the second reading by title only.
Page 4 of 5
beschutes County Board of Commissioners
April 21, 1981 - Regular Meeting
Mr. Isham said that he had received calls from indiv-
iduals in the community who objected to the closing of
public recor.ds,on Friddys He said that one person
is considering taking court action in order to obtain
an injunction. There was further discussion on this.
MOTION: SHEPARD moved to adopt ordinance #81-018.
YOUNG: Second.
VOTE: PAULSON: AYE.
SHEPARD: AYE.
YOUNG: AYE.
Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
/ss
Page 5 of 5
Alber A. Youn , ~imission