Loading...
2007-1102-Minutes for Meeting May 06,1981 Recorded 6/20/2007COUNTY NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,F000NTY CLERKDS Y~1 ~44~-1141 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL ~6/~0/~007 1~:56;Y3 AM 111i[i IIII1IIII IIIIIII I (III x0 11 2 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 ;DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MAY 6, 1981 - COURTDAY MEETING Chairman Paulson called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. Commissioner Shepard and Commissioner Young were also in attendance. Amendments There were two amendments to the agenda. They were: to the Agenda (1) Discussion regarding records retention, and (2) Consideration of Nunc Pro Tunc Order #81-239. These will be heard under "Other Staff/Public Concerns". MOTION: SHEPARD moved to amend the agenda to provide for these items. YOUNG: Second. VOTE: PAULSON : AYE. SHEPARD: AYE. YOUNG: AYE. Discussion This discussion had been continued from April 28, 1981. regarding Dave Jaqua, attorney representing the applicant, came Partition MP- before the Board to request a minimum amount of additional 79-172, Tim time to obtain. signatures on the final mylar. He Eide explained that the applicants had been confused by the letter of tentative approval, the applicant had assumed that the partition was approved. About one month ago, when Mr. Eide had contacted his engineer to process a building permit, they found out that they did not have three lots. They would like an extension of about 10 days in order to obtain signatures on the final mylar. The expiration date was in October of 1980. The conditions of the approval had not been completed prior to the expir- ation date. He explained that since they had hired an engineer to do the work, they had assumed that they did not have to do anything more. Chairman Paulson said that in the past they had granted extensions only when the appli- cant demonstrated that all or most of the conditions had been met prior to the expiration date. Rick Isham, County Counsel, said that the former ordinance did not allow for extensions, but that the current one does. He said that there were two bases for granting extensions: (1) condi- tions were eventually met, or (2) the applicant was not somehow at fault in the reason for the lapsing of the approval. MOTION: YOUNG moved that the Board of Commissioners find the applicant not at fault and they be granted a ten-day extension. SHEPARD: Second. Craig Smith, Planning Department, said that the new part- ition ordinance does not allow extensions. He noted that he sent a copy of his October 1980 letter to the appli- cant's engineer, Consultants Northwest. Mr. Jaqua suggested that the letters should be sent prior to the expiration date. Chairman Paulson said that he did not recollect that they had ever granted extensions because they felt that the applicant was not at fault. Mr. Smith said that the Board has granted extensions on subdivisions, but never on partitions. He said that both the old and the new ordinance do not have a mechanism to extend part- itions. He added that the conditions had not been met and the meaning of the ordinance which was passed would be abridged. He suggested that if there is a problem Page 1 of 5 'Deschutes County Board of Commissioners May 6, 1981 - Courtday Meeting with the ordinance in this regard, perhaps it should be changed. Mr. Jaqua said that one of the reasons for the budget problems is County image. He said that he did not under- stand why the Planning Department has such an objection to this. He said that the Board has it within their general jurisdiction to look at these on a case by case basis. He felt that the Board owed this to the people. He did not see where it would be a detriment to the County to approve this, but there is one in not approving it. Commissioners Paulson and Shepard said that they had problems approving an extension when the conditions were not met prior to the expiration date. Mr. Jaqua said that he did not think that the Planning Department was in a position to say what the ordinance was in relationship to their interpretation. He thought that Mr. Isham said that the Board does have the authority. Mr. Isham said that the Board has the authority to make a decision on procedural issues such as this. Mr. Smith said that on October 11, 1979, this was approved with one year to complete the conditions. In October of 1980 none of the conditions had been met. There were six conditions of approval. He said that he did not hear from them for six months after the expiration date. VOTE: PAULSON: NO. SHEPARD: NO. YOUNG: AYE. Consideration Sam Rail came before the Board to explain the problem of extension they are having in completing their conditions of approval of PP#494, within the specified time limit. They are having a problem Double R Es- with the Road Department's road requirement. Chairman tates, Sam Paulson read aloud a letter from the Deschutes County Rail Surveyor requesting that Mr. Rail be granted a 30-day extension. The problem they are having is with condition #10, that the access County road be brought up to standards which would require paving. This is a Road Department requirement, which the Hearings Officer approved. Craig Smith said that this was granted under the old subdivision ordinance #PL-2. They did request a one-year extension which was granted. MOTION: YOUNG moved that the extension be granted for 30 days. SHEPARD: Second. Mr. Smith said that the Board had granted subdivision and Preliminary Plat extensions in the past, but never partition extensions. There was some discussion on this. Commissioner Shepard said that if they are not comfortable with these ordinances, perhaps they should be looked at again. VOTE: PAULSON: AYE SHEPARD: AYE. YOUNG: AYE. There was some further discussion on the Road condition problem. Mr. Smith quoted part of the October 24, 1978 staff report for Mr. Rail's partition. On page 2 it reads, "The access to the parcel will be off of the County road Page 2 of 5 "„„Deschutes County Board of Commissioners May 6, 1981 - Courtday Meeting or one constructed by the developer." Mr. Rail said that right after that they went to talk to the Commissioners about it. They.had planned to build a culdesac which would provide access. This would save using the County road as access, so they would not have to bring the County road up to County standards. He said that they were told at that time by the Board that that would be alright. There were two plats, the original one not showing the culdesac and the final one that did show the culdesac. The Road depart- ment had reviewed the one without the culdesac, but the Hearings Officer had approved the one showing the culdesac. Commissioner Shepard suggested that this be referred to the Road Department for their recommendation. Mr. Judd of the Road Department asked for some additional time in which to make a recommendation. MOTION: YOUNG moved that the previous motion granting the 30-day approval be the time that a decision is handed down from the Road Department. SHEPARD: Second. VOTE: PAULSON: AYE. SHEPARD: AYE. YOUNG: AYE. Discussion Commissioner Young read aloud a letter from Mr. Rhodin regarding dated April 28, 1981. Mr. Rhodin had purchased his lot Lee Rhodin in February of 1978. He was recently refused a building mobile home permit because the lot was not a legal lot. His lot is placement located within Chaparral Estates subdivision. Bruce Knowlton of the Planning Department gave a brief history of this. This land is zoned MUA-10. This lot was created prior to any zoning being in the County. One of the lots was broken down into four smaller parcels. This lot was created in 1973. At that time there was no partition ordin- ance. When it was zoned, it was zoned A-1 with a 5-acre minimum lot size. At that time there was no partition re- quirement, the only requirement was that the lot meet the minimum 5-acre requirement. It did not, that is why the staff took the.position that it was an illegal lot. The parcel was split several times after the zoning was in effect. In 1977 there was a mobile home on the parcel, and on that basis he is requesting that it be granted some kind of status for mobile home use. There was some further discussion. Mr. Rhodin said that in 1975 a septic tank permit was issued (permit #28575) for a septic tank on the parcel. He had no mobile home placement information. Mr. Rhodin said that the last time there was a mobile home on the property was in 1977. He had purchased the property without the mobile home. There was some further discussion. MOTION: YOUNG moved that the Board of Commissioners rule Tax Map #15-12-36C, Tax Lot 1201 Code 2-04 will the Commissioners find that it is because of past use condisered a legal lot and that a double wide mobile home be allowed to be placed on the lot. SHEPARD: Second. Chairman Paulson said that he is bothered by the part of the motion which states that it is because of its past use. Page 3 of 5 ,Deschutes County Board of Commissioners May 6, 1981 - Courtday Meeting There were no permits issued by the Couty prior to the septic tank permit. Mr. Isham commented that tax lot numbers are notorious for not being something you can use to establish legality of the lot. VOTE: PAULSON: AYE. SHEPARD: AYE. YOUNG: AYE. Consideration Chairman Paulson read aloud the Order's title. of Nunc Pro MOTION: SHEPARD moved to approve order #81-239. Tunc Order YOUNG: Second. #81-239 VOTE: PAULSON: NO. SHEPARD: AYE. YOUNG: AYE. Discussion Phil Miles, Oregon State Archives Office, and Mike regarding Maier, Director of Administrative Services came before Records the Board to discuss this. Mr. Maier explained that Retension the County maintains many records that do not have to be maintained. He said that Mr. Miles is currently looking at the microfilming in the Planning and Building depart- ments. Mr. Miles said that under ORS 192.357 auth- ority of all public records within the State falls under the State. He discussed briefly records he had found within the County that could be discarded and the minimum period of time they should be retained. He said that with respect to building permits, they should be retained only 90 days, and after that point the burden of retaining those records should fall on the private person. He added that permits for commercial and public buildings should be retained indefinitely. Ken Glantz, Building Official, made some comments about the retention of building permits. He said that 90 days is too short a time for them to retain these records. He said that they frequently refer to building permits issued in 1976 or 1977 He added that property changes hands so frequently that it is best if they keep these records to refer to. He felt that it was worth the cost of keeping them because they referred to them so frequently. There was some further discussion. Mr. Miles agreed to further examine the County's records and make further recommendations as to how they should be retained. Chairman Paulson recessed the meeting until 2:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. For Signature: MP-97-191, Orville Storlie Chairman Paulson reconvened the meeting. Commissioner Young was present, Commissioner Shepard was absent. Craig Smith brought this before the Board for their final approval and signature. MOTION: YOUNG moved to approve MP-79-191, Orville Storlie. PAULSON: Second. VOTE: PAULSON: AYE. YOUNG: AYE. Page 4 of 5 t Deschutes County Board of Commissioners • May 6, 1981 - Courtday Meeting MP-80-96, Craig Smith explained this, and brought it before Frank Nolan the Board for final approval and signature. MOTION: YOUNG moved that they approve MP-80-96, Frank Nolan. PAULSON: Second. VOTE: PAULSON: AYE. YOUNG: AYE. Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. $ DESCHU COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS C 04~-~ Robert C. P ulson, Jr., Chairman ass Page 5 of 5