2008-564-Order No. 2008-040 Recorded 5/9/2008REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ X008-564
NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL
111111111111111111111111111111
05'09/200e
08:1:,27
p"
2008-564
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order declining review of Hearings Officer's
Decision in File No. A-07-9 (A-08-6). * ORDER NO. 2008-040
WHEREAS, Appellants William and Martha Leigh Kuhn appealed the Deschutes County Hearings
Officer's decision on application number A-07-9; and
WHEREAS, Section 22.32.027 of the Deschutes County Code allows the Board of County
Commissioners (Board) discretion on whether to hear appeals of Hearings Officer's decisions; and
WHEREAS, the Board has given due consideration as to whether to review this application on appeal;
now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY
ORDERS as follows:
PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDER NO. 2008-040 (5/5/08)
Section 1. That the Board will not hear on appeal application no. A-07-9 (A-08-6).
Section 2. The appellant shall be granted a refund of some of the appeal fees, according to County
Procedures.
Dated this of , 2008 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
`Y'om-K
DENNIS R. L HAIR
TAMMY TO , VI CHAIR
ATTEST:
_ G
Recording Secretary I AE M. D Y OMMISSIONER
Record of Vote
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Dennis R. Luke L---
Tammy Melton C
Michael M. Daly
Effective date:
ATTEST:
day of 12008.
Recording Secretary
PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDER NO. 2008-040 (5/5/08)
Jf.
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
FILE NUMBER: A-07-9
HEARING DATE: September 24, 2007
6:30 P.M.
Barnes and Sawyer rooms of the
Deschutes Services Building
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, Oregon 97701
LOCATION: The subject property is located at 65595 Sisemore Road, Bend
97701. It is identified on Assessor's Map 16-11-19 as tax lot 100.
APPELLANT: William and Martha Leigh Kuhn
PO Box 5996
Bend, Or 97708
OWNER: Dowell, Pat
Dowell, Jeff
10705 NE 38th Ave
Vancouver, Wa 98686
REQUEST:
STAFF CONTACT:
1. APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
An appeal of Building Permit #B65731.
Will Groves, Senior Planner
A. TITLE 22 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE, COUNTY ZONING.
1. Chapter 22.04, Introduction And Definitions
2. Chapter 22.16, Development Action Procedures
3. Chapter 22.32, Appeals
4. Chapter 18.40, Forest Use Zone - F-2
5. Chapter 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone - LM
6. Chapter 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone - WA
II. BASIC FINDINGS:
Quality Services Perfortned With Pride
A. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 65595 Sisemore Road, Bend 97701. It
is identified on Assessor's Map 16-11-19 as tax lot 100.
B. ZONING: The subject property is zoned F2, Forest Use Zone. The property abutting
also within the Landscape Management (LM) Combining Zone and the property lies
within the Wildlife Area (WA) Combining Zone.
C. LOT OF RECORD: The subject property is a legal lot of record, being parcel 1 of minor
partition MP-79-232.
D. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is 4.3 acres, slopes downward from east to
west, and has a vegetative cover of ponderosa pine and juniper trees, as well as scrub
brush. The property is accessed from Sisemore Road. There is an existing dwelling on
the property with a driveway leading from Sisemore Road.
E. PROPOSAL: The appellant appeals a Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS)
provided by Deschutes County Planning for a building permit (B65731) for the interior
remodel of an existing structure.
H. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division sent notice of this proposal to all property
owners within 250 feet of the subject property. No responses were received.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Prior to reviewing this DCC 22.32.050, Staff had sent notice of the
hearing to the appellant, the landowner, all landowners within 250 feet, and published
notice in the Bend Bulletin.
J. PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS: The following land use application history is quoted from
the Board of County Commissioner's decision on A-07-2:
MP-79-69, Partition submitted in March of 1979. The information in the file indicates the
partition was for two parcels, consisting of a 22-acre and a 20-acre parcel. What appears
to be a decision letter dated May 9, 1979 denied the application based on an "interim
agreement" between the County and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for a
40-acre minimum lot size in the proposed (not yet adopted) Tumalo Deer Winter Range
areas. The decision letter indicated a right to appeal the decision, and it appears no
appeal was submitted.
MP-79-232, This partition application appears to have been originally submitted to the
Planning Division on December 11, 1979, and, according to the maps in the file, was
originally proposed as a 2-parcel partition consisting of a 20-acre and a 23.1-acre parcel
(little change from MP-79-69). The County planner at that time sent a letter dated
February 6, 1980 to the applicant indicating that the "original" application could not be
reviewed "under the County's old zoning regulations." The Board believes that the
Planner's letter was referring to a "first" version of MP-79-232. There is also a copy of a
letter from the Planning Division dated December 28, 1979 indicating that the subject
property was in a Wildlife combining zone and that the application fee would be returned
since the partition could not be approved as submitted. The County's new
comprehensive plan and implementing zoning ordinance (PL-15) were adopted on
November 1, 1979, before the application was submitted. The zoning ordinance
established a 40-acre minimum lot size for the deer winter range areas. It appears the
partition application was somehow amended to show two small parcels and a common
larger parcel (in spite of the December 28th letter) and held pending an application for a
conditional use permit for a cluster or planned development. The decision on the
partition application was issued by letter dated May 13, 1980. The final plat for this
A-07-9
Page 2 of 10
partition indicates a setback limitation of 400 feet from Sisemore Road, with lines drawn
on the plat indicating where the limitation applied.
CU-80-22, Conditional use permit for a cluster development in an F-3 (WA) zone, to
create two 4.3-acre parcels and a 34.4-acre common remainder parcel. The decision on
this application was rendered on April 3, 1980. Board reviewed the application materials,
along with the staff report and decision, and there does not appear to be any reference
to a specific setback in any of the written materials. There are two drawings which
indicate the proposed dwelling locations, one at a scale of 1" to 100', and the other with
an approximate scale of 1/8" to 333. These two drawings show different proposed
dwelling sites for the subject 4.3-acre property. The drawings were scaled off by staff
and the first drawing (1" to 100') shows side setbacks of approximately 120 feet and 40
feet from the south and north property lines, respectively; the smaller scale drawing
shows side setbacks of approximately 66 feet and 100 feet from the south and north
property lines, respectively.
LM-92-9, Landscape Management Permit for a single family residence on the subject
property, findings and decision rendered on March 10, 1992. The approval was for a
1,568 square foot dwelling. The applicant ended up constructing only a portion of the
dwelling according to the County Assessor's records (424 square foot dwelling, 576
square foot garage - total 1000 square feet). The plot plan submitted with the application
indicates a setback of 50 feet from the south property line and 150 feet from the north
property line. The Board finds that these setbacks cannot be correct, since the parcel is
only 200 feet wide. The front setback is shown to be 744 feet; however a notation on the
plot plan states, "This drawing is not to scale, the house site will not be more than 400 ft
from Sisemore Road." Setbacks were not specifically addressed in the findings and
decision on LM-92-9, except for the finding under item 3, Site Description on page 2 of
the decision, which states, "These approvals established the two parcels for building
sites which required a maximum 400' setback from Sisemore Road retaining
approximately 33 acres for the protection and preservation of wildlife in the area."
E-92-68, Extension of LM-92-9 for one year, to March 21, 1994.
DR-01-5, Declaratory Ruling for a determination of the whether a setback of less than
100 feet, but not less than 25 feet for the side yard was approved for the subject
property. This matter went before the County Hearings Officer at a public hearing on July
10, 2001. The record was left open until August 7, 2001. The Hearings Officer issued a
written decision that was mailed out on September 17, 2001. The Hearings Officer
determined that, "Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
the Hearings Officer hereby DECLARES that the decision in CU-80-22 did approve side
yard setbacks on the subject property less than 100 feet, but did not approve side yard
setbacks of not less than 25 feet. The applicant appealed (A-01-19) the Hearings
Officer's decision to the Board, for clarification. Staff was unsure what the decision
meant and recommended that the Board hear the appeal. The Board determined it
would hear the appeal and approved Board Order No. 2001-112. However, the transcript
of the hearing before the Hearings Officer was not submitted within five days of the
Board hearing as required by DCC 22.32.024(B) and, consequently, the appeal hearing
did not occur. The applicant formally withdrew the appeal by letter dated December 12,
2001.
On January 21, 2002, the Applicants filed an application (DR-02-2) and burden of proof
statement for a declaratory ruling to establish the minimum side yard setbacks for Parcel
1 of MP-79-232. The Deschutes County Hearings Officer held a public hearing on
Tuesday, April 2, 2002. The Hearings Officer issued her decision dated May 7, 2002,
A-07-9
Page 3 of 10
denying the Applicants' request for a declaratory ruling as to what side yard setbacks
were established in CU-80-22 on the grounds that the Hearings Officer found the
question asked in this application to be the same as in the previous declaratory ruling.
Therefore, pursuant to DCC 22.40.040(B), the applicant was precluded from reapplying
for another declaratory ruling.
In DR-02-2/A-07-2 the Board of Commissioners found that the record for the subject
property includes at least one site plan map showing a side yard setback of forty (40)
feet and; therefore, the side yard setbacks for the subject property are forty (40) feet.
III. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS:
TITLE 22 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE:
A. Chapter 22.04, INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS
1. 22.04.020. Definitions.
"Development action" means the review of any permit, authorization
or determination that the Deschutes County Community Development
Department is requested to issue, give or make that either.
A. Involves the application of a County zoning ordinance or the
County subdivision and partition ordinance and is not a land use action as
defined below; or
B. Involves the application of standards other than those
referred to in DCC 22.040.030(A), such as the sign ordinance.
For illustrative purposes, the term "development action" includes
review of any condominium plat, permit extension, road name change,
sidewalk permit, sign permit, setback determination, and lot coverage
determination.
FINDING: At the outset, the Planning Division asserts that the issuance of a LUCS for
this building permit is a ministerial act and does not constitute a land use action as
defined in DCC 22-04-020 and is not appealable under Title 22, as indicated in DCC
22.04.010(B).
Mrs. Dowell applied for a building permit (B65731) on July 25, 2007 for the interior
remodel of an existing structure. Deschutes County Planning was asked by the
Deschutes County Building Division for a Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS).
This building permit was reviewed by Deschutes County Planning for compatibility with
the zoning ordinance and was found to be a use permitted outright on July 25, 2007.
However, if the Hearings Officer finds that Title 22 is applicable in this case, then Staff
believes that the review of this building permit by Deschutes County Planning constitutes
a development action.
"Land use action" includes any consideration for approval of a
quasi-judicial plan amendment or zone change, any consideration for
approval of a land use permit, and any consideration of a request for a
declaratory ruling (including resolution of any procedural questions raised
in any of these actions).
A-07-9
Page 4 of 10
FINDING: Staff believes that that the review of the building permit did not constitute a
consideration for approval of a land use permit. ORS 197.015(11)(a) defines "land use
decision" as:
(A) A final decision or determination made by a local government or
special district that concerns the adoption, amendment or application of,
(i) The goals;
(ii) A comprehensive plan provision;
(iii) A land use regulation; or
(iv) A new land use regulation;
(b) Does not include a decision of a local government.
(A) That is made under land use standards that do not require
interpretation or the exercise of policy or legal judgment;
(B) That approves or denies a building permit issued under clear
and objective land use standards;
If Title 22 is applicable to this case, Staff believes that the review of the LUCS by
Deschutes County Planning was a decision of a local government that approved a
building permit issued under clear and objective land use standards.' The building
permit was evaluated against requirements in the Forest Use Zone, Landscape
Management Combining Zone and Wildlife Area Combining Zone. The relevant
requirements of these zones are discussed below.
B. Chapter 22.16, DEVELOPMENT ACTION PROCEDURES
1. 22.16.010. Review of development action applications.
A. A development action application may be handled
administratively by the Planning Director without public notice or hearing.
B. The Planning Director has the discretion to determine that for
the purposes of DCC Title 22 a development action application should be
treated as if it were a land use action application.
FINDING: The Planning Director handled the LUCS administratively without public
notice or hearing. The Planning Director determined that for the purposes of DCC Title
22 the LUCS should not be treated as if it were a land use action application.
2. 22.16.020. Decision.
C. The decision may be appealed under DCC 22.16.030.
D. A development action decision becomes final when no
further appeal under DCC Title 22 is possible.
FINDING: Appeals of development actions are governed by DCC 22.16.030, discussed
below.
' In Tuality Lands Coalition v. Washington County (22 Or LUBA 319 (1991)) LUBA found that a decision
approving a building permit is a land use decision subject to LUBA's jurisdiction only if the building permit
approval decision involves the application of the goals, comprehensive plan or a land use regulation and
does not qualify as a ministerial decision under ORS 197.015(10)(b).
A-07-9
Page 5 of 10
3. 22.16.030. Review of development action.
If the authority under which a development action is undertaken
provides a means of review or appeal of a decision independent from DCC
Title 22, the review or appeal shall be in accordance with the procedures
independently provided and not in accordance with DCC Title 22. If the
authority under which a development action is reviewed does not provide a
means of review or appeal of a decision, then review or appeal shall be in
accordance with DCC 22.32.
FINDING: Staff is uncertain is there is any appeal process under the Building Code.
ORS 455.475 provides for an appeal by a person aggrieved by a decision made by a
building official under authority established pursuant to ORS 455.148, 455.150 or
455.467. As of the writing of this Staff Report, Staff has not received comment from the
Deschutes County Building Division on the building permit appeal process. Staff hopes
to have additional information on this topic by the hearing date. If Deschutes County
Building Division or other organization does not provide a building permit appeal
process, Staff believes that review or appeal should be conducted in accordance with
DCC 22.32.
C. Chapter 22.32, APPEALS
1. 22.32.010. Who may appeal.
A. The following may file an appeal:
1. A party;
FINDING: Staff believes that the appellant was not entitled to notice under DCC
22.16.010(A) and is, therefore not a party.
2. In the case of an appeal of an administrative decision without
prior notice, a person entitled to notice, a person adversely affected or
aggrieved by the administrative decision, or any other person who has filed
comments on the application with the Planning Division; and
FINDING: The Planning Director handled the LUCS administratively without prior
notice. As discussed above, Staff believes that the appellant is not a party. The
appellant has not provided any evidence that he is adversely affected or aggrieved by
the Deschutes County Planning approval of the LUCS. Since the LUCS approval is for
an interior remodel of an existing, lawfully established dwelling, Staff believes it may be
difficult for the appellant to demonstrate that he is adversely affected or aggrieved.
LUBA has ruled that where a county code grants standing to file a local appeal to parties
who are "adversely affected" by decisions, but the local code does not define the term
"adversely affected," LUBA has assumed the county's intended meaning of that term is
consistent with its meaning in other land use laws. As that term is used in the 1979
statute that governed standing to appeal to LUBA, adversely affected means the
"decision impinges upon the petitioner's use and enjoyment of his or her property or
otherwise detracts from interests personal to the petitioner. ,2 Staff believes that the
2 Jefferson Landfill Comm. v. Marion Co., 297 Or 280, 283, 686 P2d 310 (1984). Burke v. Crook County,
46 Or LUBA 413 (2004).
A-07-9
Page 6 of 10
appellant has not demonstrated that Deschutes County Planning approval of the LUCS
for an interior remodel of an existing, lawfully established dwelling impinges upon the
appellant's use and enjoyment of his or her property or otherwise detracts from interests
personal to the petitioner.
This criterion also provides right of appeal to any other person who has filed comments
on the application with the Planning Division. The appellant did not address this
criterion. In Staff's review of the record, staff has not identified any filed comments
dated prior to the date of the appeal. Staff does not believe that the appeal, in itself,
constitutes a filed comment that establishes the appellant's right to appeal under this
criterion.
If the appellant fails to demonstrate standing under this criterion, Staff believes that the
appellant would not have the right to appeal the Deschutes County Planning approval of
the LUCS.
3. A person entitled to notice and to whom no notice was
mailed. A person who, after such notices were mailed, purchases property
to be burdened by a solar access permit shall be considered a person to
whom notice was to have been mailed; and
FINDING: Staff believes that the appellant was not entitled to notice under DCC
22.16.010(A).
2. 22.32.015. Filing appeals.
A. To file an appeal, an appellant must file a completed notice of
appeal on a form prescribed by the Planning Division and an appeal fee.
FINDING: Appellant has filed a completed notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the
Planning Division and the appeal fee.
B. Unless a request for reconsideration has been filed, the
notice of appeal and appeal fee must be received at the offices of the
Deschutes County Community Development Department no later than 5:00
PM on the twelfth day following mailing of the decision. if a decision has
been modified on reconsideration, an appeal must be filed no later than
5:00 PM on the twelfth day following mailing of the decision as modified.
Notices of Appeals may not be received by facsimile machine.
FINDING: Mrs. Dowell applied for a building permit (B65731) on July 25, 2007 for the
interior remodel of an existing structure. Deschutes County Planning was asked by the
Deschutes County Building Division for a Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS).
This building permit was reviewed by Deschutes County Planning for compatibility with
the zoning ordinance and was found to be a use permitted outright on July 25, 2007.
The building permit was hand delivered to Mr. Dowell on July 25, 2007, and no mailed
notice was provided. Since no further notice was required on this building permit, Staff
believes that July 25, 2007 would be the earliest possible effective mailing date under
this criterion. The appeal was filed before 5:00 PM on August 8, 2007, meeting this
criterion.
Staff notes that in the absence of mailed notice, the date the building permit comes to
the attention of an appellant may be the effective mailing date. Staff does not know what
date the appellant noticed this building permit.
A-07-9
Page 7 of 10
3. 22.32.020. Notice of appeal.
A. A statement raising any issue relied upon for appeal with
sufficient specificity to afford the Hearings Body an adequate opportunity
to respond to and resolve each issue in dispute.
FINDING: Appellant did not file a written statement detailing the issues relating to the
appeal with the notice of appeal. Appellant supplemented the appeal with a written
statement dated August 14, 2007. Staff is uncertain if the failure of the appellant to
submit a written statement with the original application constitutes a failure to submit a
completed notice of appeal by 5:00 PM on August 8, 2007 and, therefore, fails to meet
the requirements 22.32.015(B). If so, Staff believes this would be a jurisdictional defect
under DCC 22.32.022. Staff requests the Hearings Officer to make a finding on this
issue.
4. 22.32.050. Development action appeals.
Notice of the hearing date set for appeal shall be sent only to the
applicant. Only the applicant, his or her representatives, and his or her
witnesses shall be entitled to participate. Continuances shall be at the
discretion of the Hearings Body, and the record shall close at the end of
the hearing.
FINDING: Prior to reviewing this criterion, Staff had sent notice of the hearing to the
appellant, the landowner, all landowners within 250 feet, and published notice in the
Bend Bulletin. Staff is uncertain if this constitutes a procedural defect. Staff requests
that the Hearings Officer make findings on this issue.
Under this criterion, only Mrs. Dowell, her representatives, her witnesses are entitled to
provide argument and/or evidence in the hearing. Staff is uncertain what constitutes
participation under this criterion. The appellant has submitted, to date, a notice of
appeal and two supplemental information packets dated August 14 and August 22,
2007. While this criterion clearly prevents the appellant from presenting oral testimony
at the hearing, Staff is uncertain if the submittal of written materials by the appellant to
the record constitutes participation under this criterion. Staff requests that the Hearings
Officer make a finding on this issue.
C. Chapter 18.40, FOREST USE ZONE - F-2
1. 18.40.020. Uses permitted outright.
M. Alteration, restoration or replacement of a lawfully
established dwelling that.
1. Has intact exterior walls and roof structure;
2. Has indoor plumbing consisting of a kitchen sink, toilet and
bathing facilities connected to a sanitary waste disposal system;
3. Has interior wiring for interior lights;
4. Has a heating system; and
5. In the case of replacement, is removed, demolished or
converted to an allowable use within three months of completion of the
replacement dwelling.
A-07-9
Page 8 of 10
FINDING: Staff believes the interior remodel permitted under the building permit was an
alteration of a lawfully established dwelling. Assessor's records show the existing
dwelling has the facilities required under these criteria. Staff believes that there are no
other provisions in DCC 18.40 that are applicable the Deschutes County Planning
signoff on the LUCS for the subject building permit.
In his submitted materials, the appellant lists numerous violations of Deschutes County
Code that are alleged to have occurred on the subject property. These include violations
under current code, violations under historic code, and failure of the landowner to meet
conditions of approval of previous land use decisions. Staff believes these allegations
may only be relevant to the present matter if they conclusively show that the existing
dwelling was not lawfully established.
The existing dwelling was constructed under building permit number 834821, issued
July 22, 1994. Deschutes County Planning evaluated this building permit in decision
document LM-92-09 with consideration of CU-80-22 (Conditional use permit for a cluster
development in an F-3 (WA) zone, to create two 4.3-acre parcels and a 34.4-acre
common remainder parcel).
Appellant argues that the structure constructed on the subject property differs
substantially from the structure approved under LM-92-09 and does not meet the
requirements of CU-80-2. However, Staff notes that that CU-80-2, LM-92-09, and
Deschutes County Planning's LUCS signoff on 834821 are not before the Hearings
Officer and cannot be collaterally attacked through this appeal. Staff believes that, if the
appellant wished to argue that the existing dwelling was not lawfully established, he
would need to first directly appeal or bring code enforcement complaint against CU-80-2,
LM-92-09, or Deschutes County Planning's LUCS signoff on 834821. Were such appeal
or code enforcement complaint to result in a determination that the existing dwelling was
not lawfully established, that result could be used in an appeal like the one before the
Hearings Officer under the criteria of this section. Since the appeal periods of these
Deschutes County Planning decisions has long passed without successful appeal, Staff
believes there is no basis for a finding that the existing dwelling was not lawfully
established.
D. Chapter 18.84, LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE - LM
1. 18.84.030. Uses permitted outright.
Uses permitted in the underlying zone with which the LM Zone is
combined shall be permitted in the LM Zone, subject to the provisions in
DCC 18.84.
FINDING: The interior remodel of an existing, lawfully established dwelling is permitted
outright in the F2 - Forest Use Zone.
2. 18.84.050. Use limitations.
A. Any new structure or substantial alteration of a structure
requiring a building permit, or an agricultural structure, within an LM Zone
shall obtain site plan approval in accordance with DCC 18.84 prior to
construction. As used in DCC 18.84 substantial alteration consists of an
alteration which exceeds 25 percent in the size or 25 percent of the
assessed value of the structure.
A-07-9
Page 9 of 10
FINDING: The interior remodel is not a substantial alteration of the existing, lawfully
established dwelling since it, at an estimated value of $500, does not exceed 25 percent
in the size or 25 percent of the assessed value of the structure ($70,090 in 2006). Staff
believes that there are no other provisions in DCC 18.84 that are applicable the
Deschutes County Planning signoff on the LUCS for the subject building permit.
E. Chapter 18.88, WILDLIFE AREA COMBINING ZONE - WA
1. 18.88.030. Uses permitted outright.
In a zone with which the WA Zone is combined, the uses permitted
outright shall be those permitted outright by the underlying zone.
FINDING: The interior remodel of an existing, lawfully established dwelling is permitted
outright in the F2 - Forest Use Zone. The interior remodel does not impact the
dimensions of the parcel (18.88.050), the siting of the dwelling (18.88.060), and no new
fences are proposed (18.88.070). Therefore, staff believes that there are no other
provisions in DCC 18.88 that are applicable the Deschutes County Planning signoff on
the LUCS for the subject building permit.
IV. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes that the appeal, as submitted as of the date of this Staff Report, does not
establish the appellant's standing in this matter nor does it document any error in
Deschutes County Planning's review of the LUCS for building permit 665731.
Therefore, Staff recommends denial of this appeal.
WWG/slb
Dated this day of September, 2007
Mailed this day of September, 2007
A-07-9
Page 10 of 10
