Loading...
2009-1475-Minutes for Meeting September 16,2009 Recorded 9/28/2009DESCHUTES COUNTYOFFICIAL CLERKS CJ X009'1415 NANCY BLANKENSH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 0928/2009 08.11.31 AM 111111[1~ a 1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII a 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 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger. Also present was Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; George Kolb, Road Department; Tom Anderson, Peter Gutowsky, George Read, Nick Lelack, Anthony Raguine, Dan Haldeman, Will Groves and Todd Cleveland, Community Development Department; Timm Schimke, Solid Waste Department; and approximately twenty other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:35 p.m. 1. Consideration of Notice of Intent to Award Contract for Knott Landfill Cell 5 Construction Area A Closure Engineering Services. Timm Schimke gave an overview of the project. He said that three responses were received, which were reviewed by the selection committee. The winning bidder was selected as the first choice by all of the committee members. The winner came in at $380,364, next was $330,000, but the winner had a thorough and complete scope of work; the others proposed alternative tasks that they did not price. LUKE: Move signature of the intent to award contract letter. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 2. Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2009-060, Annexation of a County-owned Lot to the Existing Deschutes River Recreation Homesites No Shooting District. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 16, 2009 Page 1 of 9 Pages Tom Anderson explained the issue. The order was not prepared at the last meeting and it is ready for approval at this time. Commissioner Unger noted that the reason for approving this is that La Pine State Park is moving forward to make its property a no shooting zone, and it makes sense that the County does not have an island allowing shooting within the area. LUKE: Move signature of Order No. 2009-060. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 3. Consideration of First and Second Readings, and Adoption by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2009-022, Providing for a Variance from Ordinance No. 2008-019 for Replacement of Dwellings for Low-Income Property Owners Due to Catastrophic Events. Mr. Anderson said that a few changes were suggested at the Board meeting of September 9. The property owner was to follow due diligence concerning finance issues. The septic review done by Community Development staff was done because it is required under certain situations. This triggered the potential need for an ATT upgrade. (He distributed a document at this time.) Some additional suggestions were made and it was determined that this only comes into play if the septic system itself has been damaged. Commissioner Baney noted that the septic review is actually a Department of Environmental Quality rule, and not instituted by the County. Mr. Anderson said the language allows some flexibility but would not allow a system that truly needs replacement, such as an old steel tank, to remain. Dan Haldeman said that people have a right to be able to prove that even their old steel tank works. Mr. Anderson said there are existing programs to assist these people, and may be others that can help these individuals. LUKE: Move first and second readings by title only. UNGER: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 16, 2009 Page 2 of 9 Pages VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Chair Baney conducted the first and second readings of the Ordinance at this time, by title only. LUKE: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2009-022, by emergency. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 4. Discussion of Harper Bridge Boat Ramp and County Code. Commissioner Baney reminded the citizens in attendance that the Board is just beginning to discuss this issue and it is not a hearing, so comments would not be taken at this time. (Some written comments have already been received.) Mr. Anderson said the reason this came up is that the Harper Bridge boat launch, located just south of Sunriver and near Crosswater, has been subject to discussion. The original land use approval for Crosswater destination resort has been reviewed, but there is still a question regarding the status of the boat launch. Commissioner Luke said that he thinks people put in the river on the north side of the launch. He asked if it was ever permitted. Mr. Anderson said there is a conservation easement and the land on the north side of the road, where the walkway is, is mostly in the road right of way. The area on the south side is Crosswater property. (He referred to an oversized aerial photograph of the area) People typically launch canoes or kayaks. Some of the land is owned by the Sunriver Homeowners' Association. Nick Lelack stated that in regard to the land use approval, Crosswater was required to include public access to the river. The key is, the condition of approval in the decision was not very specific on how the land would be dedicated or how much would be dedicated. Nor did it require a launch be built. No one seems to be sure who originally built it, as it has been there for a long time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 16, 2009 Page 3 of 9 Pages He met with others about how to handle this situation, which can be hazardous as it is, especially for children. There is a significant wetland involved and it would be very difficult to extend or expand the launch or the parking area. Commissioner Luke noted that the problem is the parking, and people getting out along the road. He understands there are no complaints about the launch, just the parking situation. Commissioner Baney said that some local residents are concerned about the use, and wonder if this is what the County had in mind when Crosswater was approved. Commissioner Unger said that people have expectations that they can use the river, and Sunriver recognizes the impacts and a solution is needed to address concerns. It appears that there are very few places where people can enter the river. Commissioner Luke asked if staff feels that Crosswater has met its obligations; Mr. Anderson stated that they have. Commissioner Baney asked what other options might be. Commissioner Luke said that he does not think the County should be in the business of creating boat launches. He is concerned about the parking, though, which would benefit from working with Sunriver and Crosswater. Chair Baney said that she does not know hw a land use approval was not done without considering parking implications. It should have been clear at the time. Mr. Anderson stated that in 1992 the County wanted to recognize what was already there and not allow Crosswater to use that space for something else. There does not seem to be enough area at this location to make parking safe. A representative of Sunriver spoke and handed a document regarding a possible boat launch. He said that future needs should be included, and a land lease was discussed, but it never happened. This discussion included parking and access. George Kolb said that he met with Fish & Wildlife representatives and the Sheriff's Office previously regarding access. They feel that one ingress/egress into a parking area is better than having parking along the road. Chair Baney stated that the various entities and owners, as well as local citizens, Sunriver Anglers, the Paddle Trail Alliance members and others, should get together and work on a plan for this. Commissioner Luke stated that there might be some funding in the parks fund for a portion of this, or for maintenance. Mr. Kolb stated that the Road Department is not in the business of paving parking lots, and that was one of the issues. Another concern is who patrols it, picks up the garbage, and so on. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 16, 2009 Page 4 of 9 Pages Chair Baney indicated that she wants to be sensitive to the workload of Community Development. Commissioner Luke said that is assuming the County takes the lead, which he feels is not appropriate. They should be a participant but not directing a solution to the issue. Mr. Anderson stated that he appreciates this. His Department and staff from the Road Department can convene the first meeting and the lead can be handed over to others to work out the details. Commissioner Luke cited safety, the ramp, launch area and parking as the major issues. Citizen Steve Runner said that most of the adjacent land owned by his group is considered wetlands. They have plans for a launch as well, which might solve part of the problem. Citizens were asked to contact Mr. Lelack if they are interested in taking part in the upcoming meetings. Citizen Rick Upham said there could be another boat launch within Sunriver, and discussions are ongoing. 5. Discussion of Whether to Hear an Appeal - Dowell/Kuhn. Will Groves explained the item. This is a complicated issue with a long history. There is a long-standing dispute between the neighbors. Mr. Groves said that the property, located on Sisemore Road, was owned by Mr. Barton, who wanted to subdivide the land. The winter deer range was beginning to be considered at that time. A couple of partitions were submitted and in 1980, one was approved as two development lots and one open space lot. The development lots were sold off. The Kuhns developed theirs and the Dowells in 1992 applied for a landscape management approval. Fish & Wildlife had requested a setback of no more than 400 feet, and the measurement of the setback was in question. The location of the building was referred to numerous times in the application documents, and some are contradictory. The landscape management application was approved in 1992 for the dwelling. An extension was allowed in 1993 and a permit was pulled in 1994. The Dowells constructed during 1995 and 1996, and completed a portion in 1997. It is more than 400 feet from Sisemore feet from the road, measured from one direction. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 16, 2009 Page 5 of 9 Pages Ms. Craghead added that there is a notation on the paperwork that the dwelling may be more than 400 feet from Sisemore Road. Commissioner Luke stated that if there is a footing approval, the setback is supposed to be determined at that time. The County and City are supposed to inspect the footings and the setbacks. Ms. Craghead stated that there is a question as to whether the setback was required at all at that time. Through 2002, there were a number of issues regarding the side yard setbacks. The Kuhns and Dowells ended up with a private right of action in Circuit Court. It was decided that it was not proven that the Dowells were in violation of the setbacks. In 2007, the Dowells applied to remodel the interior. In the F-2 zone, a lawfully established dwelling is required - a roof, walls, flooring, etc. In this case, there was a question about a land use compatibility study. The record showed permits and a land use permit. The Kuhns appealed this. The Hearings Officer concluded that this was not a land use issue so a decision was not necessary. On appeal to LUBA, it was felt that the Hearings Officer was in error and it was remanded back. The Hearings Officer listened to these arguments, and found that the dwelling was not lawfully established based on the 1992 site plan review and the maximum 400 feet required distance from the road, although it is not yet clear how this would be measured. The remodel permit was not allowed. Both parties have appealed this decision. The Dowells want the dwelling to be declared lawful. The Kuhns feel the Hearings Officer was correct. Both make lengthy arguments. Mr. Groves said the Board needs to decide whether to hear this. Ms. Craghead said there are two appeals; one from each party. If the Board does not hear it, Ms. Craghead added that there is a question of the homeowners' agreement that was a condition prior to sale. There are two homeowners and one will not sign. There is a letter in 1994 in which one party says that the already recorded documents should be sufficient. The other does not agree. The County cannot force them to sign a homeowners' agreement. Since the property had already been sold, there was nothing that needed to be done. The question is, if the Board choose to hear one, will it hear the other, and would it be limited de novo or full de novo. She does not feel there is a reason to have it full de novo, but could include information submitted to the trial court. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 16, 2009 Page 6 of 9 Pages Commissioner Luke stated that even if the Board hears the arguments on the homeowners' rules, it could not decide on this; it is a civil issue. Ms. Craghead said as a condition of approval, the Kuhns feel that the Board should. However, their house would also be illegal as well. Commissioner Luke feels that homeowners' rules cannot be enforced by government. Ms. Craghead said that they feel that they should have been enforced in the first place. It will likely go to LUBA in any case, but this is a matter of weighing the evidence and coming up with what a reasonable person could decide. She feels that the Hearings Officer might go either way. However, hearing this would perhaps keep it from being remanded back to the County. Commissioner Unger said that the road was there first, and it appears the road is not where it was originally planned, or the right-of-way. Mr. Groves stated that it is not unusual for this to happen, especially with road established many years ago. Commissioner Luke said that he would want to hear it on the record with the court action included. What he would like to bring into this is the setbacks on all of the houses in this development, not just the Dowell's. Commissioner Unger stated that he would like to hear it through limited de novo in order to stop wasting staff time on it. Commissioner Baney added that they might want to speak and have a right to do so. The recent trial court documents will be included and information on setbacks on both properties would be considered. Both appeals would be heard concurrently. There could be a rebuttal time allowed to respond to any new evidence that has been submitted. An Order will be drafted for Board approval at an upcoming meeting. 6. Update Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules. Commissioner Unger said he is attending County College at Oregon State University on September 18. Chair Baney stated she is attending a settlement conference in Eugene on September 18. Commissioner Luke attended an Upper Deschutes Coalition meeting today with the Sheriff and Forester Joe Stutler. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 16, 2009 Page 7 of 9 Pages 7. Other Items. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2009- 510, Amending an Improvement Agreement regarding Overnight Accommodations at Tetherow Destination Resort. Laurie Craghead said that there is a change relating to the reference to the bond instead of an ILOC (irrevocable letter of credit). She is working with the applicant on some minor wording changes. LUKE: Approve document as amended, and accepting the ILOC language to replace that of the bond, in its substantially correct form, subject to legal review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Upon an inquiry from Commissioner Luke about the upcoming destination resort hearing, Nick Lelack said that 1,000 Friends of Oregon feels the language is too broad regarding the legal lot of record issue, especially when it comes to federally owned land. The impacts are not known. some counties have interpreted contiguous lots differently than other jurisdictions. Commissioner Luke stated that this was a hearings officer's decision here but it can be brought up in other areas as part of a case. Ideally, it will be legislated at some point. The League of Oregon Cities should be concerned as well as they all get lands from the BLM. This is an area of statewide concern and needs to be addressed quickly, with clarity. It does not help the City of La Pine to get land for a park from the BLM and not be able to do anything with it. Commissioner Unger pointed out that the destination resort law was written many years ago to stimulate development of the resorts, and things have changed a lot since then. The Board can attend via video conference call on September 30. Staff can draft some talking points but cannot talk about policy. This could be discussed at the Board work session on September 28. The hearing on destination resorts will be on November 19, per Mr. Gutowsky. There will be a dedicated phone line at Community Development as well as recorded information. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 16, 2009 Page 8 of 9 Pages . 8. Executive Session, under ORS 192(660)(2)(h), Litigation. The Commissioners went into executive session at 3: 40 p.m. No formal action was taken. Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p. m. DATED this 16th Day of September 2009 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Tammy Baney, Chair n Dennis R. Luke, Vice Chair a4vu Alan Unger, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 16, 2009 Page 9 of 9 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 1. Consideration of Notice of Intent to Award Contract for Knott Landfill Cell 5 Construction Area A Closure Engineering Services - Timm Schimke 2. Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2009-060, Annexation of a County- owned Lot to the Existing Deschutes River Recreation Homesites No Shooting District 3. Consideration of First and Second Readings, and Adoption by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2009-022, Providing for a Variance from Ordinance No. 2008- 019 for Replacement of Dwellings for Low-Income Property Owners Due to Catastrophic Events 4. Discussion of Crosswater Boat Ramp and County Code - Nick Lelack 5. Discussion of Whether to Hear an Appeal - Dowell/Kuhn - Will Groves, Laurie Craghead 6. Update Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules 7. Other Items 8. Executive Session, under ORS 192(660)(2)(h), Litigation - Steve Griffin PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. 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. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org ADDITION TO WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 Commissioners' Conference Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend CONSIDERATION of Signature of Document No. 2009-510, Amending an Improvement Agreement regarding Overnight Accommodations at Tetherow Destination Resort - Anthony Raguine o N ~i C i 'p Q~ n B r.c 4-: co w N N l C Nll 1 ' STJ L ~ ' N lV N N Q 4 VD Ov- N ' m ~r O -16 Z ll Q~ o 0- 10 i ON O L i D tp l CO V v N L C)$ ~ ~ ~ a go ~ N ~ ,a ~ N~ r N Sz~ \ r u s OQ I L ~OVI l ) 4 J X -1 fly GJ a I O ~ s. 0 L,(1 d1 '`v co v E MIJ ~ blo co I ~ ,>-T Ea ~ wgG 2~ Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board Business Meeti of September 16, 2009 JU try l- --'s Please see directions for completing this document on the next page. DATE: September 10, 2009 FROM: Timm Schimke. Solid Waste 317-3177 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Signature of Notice of Intent to Award Contract for Knott Landfill Cell 5 Construction Area A Closure Engineering Services. PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? No BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Department of Solid Waste solicited for proposals to provide engineering services including design services, production of contract specifications, assistance during bidding and construction oversight for the above referenced project. Three firms responded to our solicitation. A selection committee consisting of 4 people including one from outside the department and one not employed by Deschutes County scored and ranked the proposals using criteria specified in the request for proposals. A number of tables is attached showing the results of the process. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The proposed fee for the serviced specified in the highest ranked response is $380,364.00 Final ocntract negotiations will occur over the next week. Sufficient funds have been budgeted in the current fiscal year for the project. RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REOUESTED: G Friesen Associates, Inc. was the highest ranked firm by each of the selection committee members. They have extensive knowledge and experience at our landfill and provided a very thorough, comprehensive scope of work in their proposal. I recommend approval of signature of intent to award contract to G Friesen Associates, Inc. ATTENDANCE: Timm Schimke DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS: Fax and first class mail copies of the intent to award letter to 3 firms listed at the end of the intent to award doculment. One copy to Solid Waste Department please. September 16, 2009 G. Friesen Associates, Inc. 4088 Orchard Drive Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Sent via facsimile Fax: (866) 533-5543 (5 pgs) & First Class Mail RE: Knott Landfill Cell 5 Construction and Area A Closure Contract NOTICE OF INTENT TO AWARD CONTRACT On Wednesday, September 16, 2009 the Board of Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon, considered proposals for the above-referenced project. The Board of County Commissioners determined that the successful responsive, responsible proposer for the project was G. Friesen Associates, Inc., of Lake Oswego, OR. This Notice of Intent to Award Contract is issued pursuant to Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 137-047-0610. A copy of this Notice is being provided to each firm or person that submitted a proposal for the project. Any firm or person which believes that they are adversely affected or aggrieved by the intended award of contract set forth in this Notice may submit a written protest within seven (7) calendar days after the issuance of this Notice of Intent to Award Contract to the Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon, at the above address. The seven (7) calendar day protest period will expire at 5:00 PM on Wednesday, September 23, 2009. G. Friesen Associates, Inc September 16, 2009 Page 2 Any protest must be in writing and specify any grounds upon which the protest is based. A copy of OAR 137-047-0610 is attached to this Notice. If a protest is filed, a hearing will be held at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 30, 2009, before the Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County Oregon, acting as the Contract Review Board, in the Deschutes Services Building, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon 97701. If no protest is filed within the protest period, this Notice of Intent to Award Contract becomes an Award of Contract without further action by the Board of County Commissioners unless the Board of County Commissioners, for good cause, rescinds this Notice before the expiration of the protest period. The successful proposer on a Deschutes County project is required to execute five (5) copies of the Contract, which will be provided when the bids are finally determined. In addition to the execution of Contract, the contractor will be required to provide a certificate of insurance. All contract copies will need to be returned to the County for execution. After all parties have signed the contract, a copy of the contract will be forwarded to you along with a notice to proceed. If you have any questions regarding this Notice of Intent to Award Contract, or the procedures under which the County is proceeding, please contact Deschutes County Legal Counsel, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701, telephone (541) 388-6625 or FAX (541) 383-0496. Sincerely, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON Tammy Baney, Chair Enclosures: OAR 137-047-0610 cc w/enc: Transmitted by Facsimile and First Class Mail on September 16, 2009, to All Proposers (5 pages) See attached List The Oregon Administrative Rules DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DIVISION 47 Public Procurement for Goods or Services 137-047-0610 Notice of Intent to Award (1) Notice of Intent to Award. The Contracting Agency shall provide Written notice of its intent to Award to all Bidders and Proposers pursuant to ORS 279B.135 at least seven (7) Days before the Award of a Contract, unless the Contracting Agency determines that circumstances require prompt execution of the Contract, in which case the Contracting Agency may provide a shorter notice period. The Contracting Agency shall document the specific reasons for the shorter notice period in the Procurement file. (2) Finality. The Contracting Agency's Award shall not be final until the later of the following: (a) The expiration of the protest period provided pursuant to OAR 137-047-0740; or (b) The Contracting Agency provides Written responses to all timely-filed protests denying the protests and affirming the Award. Stat. Auth.: ORS 279A.065 & ORS 279B.135 Stats. Implemented: ORS 279B.135 Hist.: DOJ 11-2004, f. 9-1-04, cert. e£ 3-1-05 137-047-0740 Protests and Judicial Review of Contract Award (1) Purpose. An Offeror may protest the Award of a Contract, or the intent to Award of a Contract, whichever occurs first, if the conditions set forth in ORS 279B.410(1) are satisfied. An Offeror must file a Written protest with the Contracting Agency and exhaust all administrative remedies before seeking judicial review of the Contracting Agency's Contract Award decision. (2) Delivery. Unless otherwise specified in the Solicitation Document, an Offeror must deliver a Written protest to the Contracting Agency within seven (7) Days after issuance of the notice of intent to Award the Contract. (3) Content of Protest. An Offeror's Written protest shall specify the grounds for the protest to be considered by the Contracting Agency pursuant to ORS 279B.410(2). (4) Contracting Agency Response. The Contracting Agency shall not consider an Offeror's Contract Award protest submitted after the timeline established for submitting such protest under this rule, or such different time period as may be provided in the Solicitation Document. The Contracting Agency shall issue a Written disposition of the protest in a timely manner as set forth in ORS 279B.410(4). If the Contracting Agency upholds the protest, in whole or in part, the Contracting Agency may in its sole discretion either Award the Contract to the successful protestor or cancel the Procurement or solicitation. (5) Judicial Review. Judicial review of the Contracting Agency's decision relating to a Contract Award protest shall be in accordance with ORS 279B.415. Stat. Auth.: ORS 279A.065 & ORS 279B.410 Stats. Implemented: ORS 279B.410 & ORS 279B.415 Hist.: DOJ 11-2004, f. 9-1-04, cert. ef. 3-1-05 Proposers List Knott Landfill Cell 5 Construction and Area A Closure Engineering Services G. Friesen Associates, Inc. 4088 Orchard Drive Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Ph: (503) 635-1233 Fax: (866) 533-5543 URS Corporation 111 SW Columbia Street, Suite 1500 Portland, OR 97201 Ph: (503) 222-7200 Fax: (503) 222-4292 Kleinfelder 62915 NE 18'h Street, Suite 1 Bend, OR 97701 Ph: (541) 382-4707 Fax: (541) 388-8118 1 ca E E co rn c L O U U) CL U- LL N m U rr~^^ v/ C L C w L cn O U Q ca Q O U L cn c O U LID m U C ca J *11 O C Y v d C a E 0 U 2 O (n ~ gooo ui MrVj r r M R ` U Q ~N NM NM I~M U ~ NMNN r ad+ ~ ~ U E a oooo ,n N N ° M N M N n r 0 C M M N M N c `1 O O i c c d 0 N N 0000 O O N -fit l l 0 M r r c c 0 cu N N '7 Mr w Mr Nr M L N N li ) M M C ) C li a N m ~ E L O N O pn X N O m ~UwmH ~ U , ¢ w U r N M r N M r M N r N M O O O O O O f0 O O O 5 O O O ~ M M N F M M M M N N 01 M M N VJ O O O y O O O co y 0 O O 0 y 0 O O 0 V V N C)0 -'r U) N U 't Cl) U (M W) N y N (n am N N N U N > O O O co m > O O C D N N O O O fO N O O O d y C 00 00 OO cc ~ o o c r = ( co co co ~ ~ U O a+ V O CL V U C U O ct :E 0 (D 0 m O rn y E 1p L C R E x x O 0 o o t U x C. o O w x o O o r co X ° ° o ° w a co L: LU r co a III ao co ao w ° co m m R r L U L U ic U L U O` O O O N W O O O O lf> LO (6 O 0 O - N CO 2 O O O L V ` ~ r C 4 r o ~ C r a c c Q U U U U Q Q Q Q N a N N N N N O LD _Q) U O ej) w U U w U O LD w U E m U) € U) E U) E LL 9 U) a iL d Y li (9 Y Z LL 0 Y Z) LL U` Y REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE THE PEOPLE OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Providing for a Variance from Ordinance 2008-019 for the Replacement of * ORDINANCE NO. 2009-022 Dwellings for Low Income Property Owners Due to Catastrophic Events and Declaring an Emergency. WHEREAS, on June 11, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") adopted Ordinance 2008-019 requiring the installation of nitrogen-reducing onsite wastewater treatment systems for certain property owners within South Deschutes County; and WHEREAS, since the adoption of Ordinance 2008-019, the Board learned of hardship situations that would make the implementation of Ordinance 2008-019 extremely difficult, if not impossible for the property owner; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that it is in the public interest to allow a variance to Ordinance 2008-019 in cases where strict compliance with the ordinance poses an extreme hardship for the property owner and where other potential sources for financial assistance have been exhausted; now, therefore, THE PEOPLE OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. Definitions. ,A. "Median income" means the level of household income defined as median for-Central Oregon by the United States Housing and Urban Development Department. "Catastrophic event"-means an event such as a fire, flood, storm, the destruction by a vehicle or aircraft, criminal act by someone other than the property owner, or other similar event. Section 2. The Community Development Department ("Department") Director ("Director") or, if on appeal, the Board, may authorize a variance from the requirements of Ordinance 2008-019. Section 3. Applications to the Department for variances shall be submitted on a form specified by the Department. Section 4. The application must. Deleted: 1 Deleted: 2 A. --,State fully the grounds for the variance and the facts relied upon by the applicant and- Deleted: s must demonstrate how strict compliance with the standard is impracticable. Formatted: Indent: Left: P', B. *State all other opportunitiesJ'or financial assistance investigated in good faith attempt Hanging: 0.5" to Comply with Ordinance 2008-019. Deleted: The application must also s Section 5. The variance may be granted in the following situation: Deleted: investigated Deleted: demonstrating PAGE 1 OF 3- ORDINANCE No. 2009-022 (09/09/09) The applicant's current household income is at or below 80% of the median income; 2J3 The entire or_a portion of the dwelling must_be replaced because the entire or portion of the original dwelling was destroyed or damaged by a catastrophic event, and if as a result of the damage a septic review is required, and the septic review indicates that a modification or improvement to the septic system is required that would require an upgrade to a nitrogen reducing system; an d C. The applicant demonstrates that no other opportunities are available for financial assistance Ihat would allow the applicant to comply with Ordinance 2008-019.. - _ Section 6. The burden of proof rests on the applicant. Section 7. The Director's decision may be appealed to the Board by filing a completed notice of appeal, on a form prescribed by the Director, no later than 5:00 PM on the twelfth day following the mailing of the Director's decision. Section 8. EMERGENCY. This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage. DATED this day of 2009. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON TAMMY BANEY, CHAIR DENNIS R. LUKE, VICE-CHAIR ALAN UNGER, COMMISSIONER Date of 0 Reading: day of 2009. Date of 2nd Reading: day of 2009. Record of Adoption Vote Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Tammy Baney Dennis R. Luke Alan Unger Effective Date: day of 2009 ATTEST: PAGE 2 OF 3- ORDINANCE N0.2009-022 (09/09/09) Deleted: 1 Deleted: and Deleted:. Deleted: in D c"-°•. y Nh 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/ MEMORANDUM DATE: September 16, 2009 TO: Deschutes County Planning Commission FROM Tom Anderson, Community Development Director Nick Lelack, Planning Director SUBJECT: Harper Bridge Boat Launch Discussion Background: A public boat launch at Harper Bridge has been discussed for nearly 20 years, and one has been in place for about 15 years. However, concerns have been raised over its use. The following land use decisions have required a public boat launch at the bridge: 1. In 1992, the Tentative Plat approval for Crosswater Limited Partnership (TP-92-795) required the applicant "to dedicate land for a public boat launch on the Deschutes River near Harper Bridge." 2. In 1993, the Phase 2 Tentative Plat approval (TP-93-817) placed a timeline by which land for the boat launch must be provided. Specifically, Condition 23, states, "Developer shall dedicate land for a public boat launch facility on the Deschutes River near Harper Bridge prior to recording the final plat for Phase 2." 3. In 1994, Condition 23 to TP-93-817 was modified by MC-94-6 to extend the time period by which land for the boat launch was to be provided. The condition states, "Developer shall dedicate land for a public boat launch facility on the Deschutes River near Harper Bridge prior to recording the final plat for Phase 3 or no later than September 1, 1995, whichever is sooner." 4. In 1994, the County issued a land use permit for the bridge and a conservation easement was placed on the property to satisfy this condition of approval - it dedicated the land for limited public access for the boat launch. However, it is important to note that the condition did not (1) specify the amount of land to be dedicated, (2) the means by which the land would be conveyed for this purpose, nor (3) require the applicant to build a boat launch. Today, a conservation easement remains in place for public access and the boat launch exists. Quality Services Perfonned With Pride Issue: The Board has recently received correspondence and questions from the public about the boat launch. Specifically, public communications to the Board have indicated that the site has become unsafe due to heavy usage, traffic and parking issues and people unsafely crossing Spring River Rd. In response to these communications, CDD staff researched the boat launch at Harper Bridge with respect to the original Crosswater land use approvals (discussed above). Staff also met with Steve Runner from Crosswate r/S u n river at the site and learned of additional relevant information pertaining to the boat launch. The attached map/aerial photo and photographs show the location of the boat launch on the south side of Spring River Rd. and the kayak/canoe launch on the north side (not part of the Crosswater approval). Parking is limited on both sides of the road and there are no mitigating improvements such as turn lanes, acceleration/ deceleration lanes, crosswalks, etc. Based on staff's research of the prior land use decisions, permits and conservation easement, staff believes Crosswater has complied with the condition of approval by allowing land owned by Crosswater to be used as a boat launch. CDD records show that the final plat was approved and recorded, although it is not known to what effort staff went to verify compliance with the condition at that time. Thus, the County's ability to require additional dedicated land for the launch site may be limited. Given the proximity of a tee box on the Crosswater golf course and abundant wetlands adjacent to the launch site, along with the County's approval of the final plat, Crosswater has indicated they are not able to provide additional land for a launch site expansion or related facilities (i.e., parking, additional lanes). Other Information: Staff has also learned that the Sunriver Owners Association (SROA), the land owner to the north of Harper Bridge, has considered building a new public boat launch on its property using State Marine Board funds. The idea was ultimately tabled due to concerns of neighbors in the area along with liability and legal questions. The effort was sponsored by the Sunriver Anglers Club, in partnership with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. It is not known whether the proposal could be resurrected. Despite announcements and news reports to the contrary, the Sunriver resort marina has remained open to the public this summer. The resort is also considering leasing land to SROA for a canoe/kayak launch site adjacent to the marina. There are at least three additional boat launch sites available to the public in the general area-- one across the river from Sunriver on forest service land, and two in the vicinity of Benham Falls. There are two additional launch sites upriver from Harper Bridge-one at La Pine State Park, and one within the Deschutes River Recreational Homesites, although it is not certain if the latter is open to the general public. Reauested Action: For discussion only. s 0 ~s t. ~ o s i' J_ A A z o. z n ~ 13~~'3N 3NId ~rw f~ A 1>~ i a 7 E CL 4) 2 cr- m j fi f ~ Ar ` 3 , a t 4 D a - t , .i ~ t 1 ~d 2~ - a 141, to ',y, AV O.3 "tM.*" 3 N~ ~r~5e fy ~ ri• °c „s gy 44 c a AWN, -.r e a 'tH? ♦.SM_a'~s 6 ;~id.+✓ \ 'Vf ''->df.3 a Al,k Lf) P ti Robert Bolle 56635 Lunar Dr. Bend,-OR 97707 September 13, 2009 Dear Deschutes County Commissioners, This letter is being written to comment on issues being discussed at the county hearing scheduled for Wednesday, 9-16-08, at 1:30 pm- an impossible time for working Deschutes County taxpayers to attend. A few years ago, a consortium of river users from Deschutes County set out to find a better way to access the Deschutes River from the Sunriver area for recreation purposes. This heavily used area is specifically south of the Sunriver area near Harper Bridge. As you should know, when the homeowners in this area of Sunriver were approached, they made it very clear that they did not support using their land to solve this problem. This group then attempted to solve this dilemma by encroaching on property rights into the area just to the south, across the Deschutes River. This area, Deschutes River Recreation Homesites (DRRH), is privately owned property. In other words, it is a neighborhood. Last summer and fall the citizens in this neighborhood joined together- getting many agencies involved in this issue. This included county officials, Ted Wise at Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, and the US Forest Service (being a Federally designated Wild and Scenic River). Letters and petitions were sent regarding this river issue to these agencies as well as to Deschutes County Commissioners. We made it very clear that DRRH boat landings, clubhouses and other areas were not public, but for private use only by DRRH homeowners. This became a very contentious issue for all involved. Early in this summer of 2009, Sunriver Resort, Sunriver Marina and The Trout House chose to close the only easily accessible boat launch area for those families renting property within Sunriver. The homeowner's park remains gated as well as the river launch area. The claim was made in the Sunriver Scene Paper that " Local Joes from Bend" are coming to use the launch and causing problems for those residents who use the area." But, after closing the area and looking at who wanted to use the launch, the Sunriver Board found that the families using the area were mainly in fact their own renters. They have yet to address or solve this problem. All of these actions have caused problems for those renting the properties in Sunriver and for taxpayers in the surrounding communities who now have greatly increased traffic, usage and trespassing on their private lands and roads. So, the question is, what should be done? SEP 1 6 2009 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ADMINISTRATION ~l 1. Sunriver properties should provide access to the river for those who use their resorts, at their (Sunriver Properties') expense and on their properties, without encroaching on neighboring Deschutes County taxpayer's monies and property rights. It should be developed to handle the numbers of families who WILL need river access as they expand their resorts. 2. Alternate accesss areas, such as Besson Camp Boat Launch, should be improved and made more user friendly, including improving roads, and providing better signage so that tourists can find it. This was suggested to the Deschutes Nat'l. Forest Representatives in 2008. I Access to other Sunriver Properties' community areas along the river should be a part of the resort/rental experience within Sunriver and provided at their expense. 4. Harper Bridge Launch should be further developed and enhanced so it can be accessed by all. This includes old and young, handicapped, fly-fishers, and general recreation boaters. The river belongs to the public, it is not privately owned. Those choosing to use it should be allowed. I ask that you require Sunriver Properties, (Sunriver, Crosswater and Caldera Springs LLC's) and the Sunriver Homeowners Association to be held responsible for their guests and users. The ubiquitous growth and expansion of Destination Resorts affect all of Deschutes County's and Oregon's taxpayers (recall the legislative halting of the Metolius area resort). This is truly a problem Sunriver Properties has created and it is unfair to burden the county and citizen taxpayers with their problem any further. Thank you, 44j&,E 12 Robert Bolle 541 2-12-o - 71 V ®ECEjWE S EP 1 6 2009 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ADMINISTRATION N /(W-y LFGE~WE SEP 1 S 2009 D~ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ADMINISTRATION Kathi Smith-Bolle 56635 Lunar Dr. Bend, OR 97707 541-419-3243 September 13, 2009 Dear Deschutes County Commissioners, Approximately one year ago a group of homeowners from Sunriver, Crosswater and Caldera set out to find a better way to access the Deschutes River from the Sunriver area for recreation purposes. This area is specifically south of Sunriver along the Spring River area and the Harper Boat Ramp. As you know when the homeowners along this area of Sunriver were approached, they made it very clear there was no support for this idea. It was a NIMBY. This group then went to the area just to the south, across Spring River Road. This area, Deschutes River Recreation Home sites (DRRH) is privately owned subdivision land. In other words, it is a neighborhood. Last summer and fall the citizens in this neighborhood joined together getting many agencies involved in this issue. This included Ted Wise at Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Wild and Scenic Rivers and the US Forest Service. Letters and petitions were sent regarding this river issue to the agencies as well as to Deschutes County Commissioners. We made it very clear that our boat landings, clubhouses and other areas were not public, but for private use only as DRRH homeowners. This became a very contentious issue for all of us. Later this summer 2009, Sunriver Resort, Sunriver Marina and The Trout House chose to close the only easily accessible boat launch area for those families renting property within Sunriver. The homeowner's park remains gated as well as the river launch area. The claim was made in the Sunriver Scene Paper that " Local Joes from Bend are coming to use the launch and causing problems for those residents who use the area." But, after closing the area and looking at who wanted to use the launch, the Sunriver Board found that the families using the area were mainly in fact their own renters. They have yet to address or solve this problem. All of these actions have caused a problem for those renting the properties in Sunriver and for the surrounding communities who now have greatly increased traffic and trespassing on their private lands. So, the question is, what should be done? Sunriver properties should provide for those who use their resort local access to the river within the boundaries of the resort. It should be developed to handle the numbers of families who now raft, float and use the river. Many families own their own craft and choose to use the river as a fun, family activity nV dLd s"neF way they use all of the bike paths. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS j L ADIWNISTRATION _ _ 2. Alternate launch areas such a Besson Camp Launch should be made better accessible and signed so that tourists can find it. This was suggested to the Deschutes Nat'l. Forest Representatives in 2008. 3. Access to other community areas along the river should be a part of the resort/rental experience within Sunriver. 4. Harper Bridge Launch should be further developed and enhanced so it can be accessed by all. This includes old and young, handicapped, fly-fishers, and general recreation boaters. The river belongs to the public, it is not privately owned. Those choosing to use it should be allowed. I ask that you require the Sunriver Resort and the Sunriver Homeowners Association be responsible for their guests and users. This is truly a problem they have created and it is unfair to burden the county and citizen taxpayers with their problem any further. Thank you, Kathi Smith-Bolle C0~~7Cl~ BOARD OF CONWISSIONERS AD MI NiSTRAT ICIN 0 ^^C~ L d Y M~ W C O m E U Q~ U N E c~ L U U c L Y U C FL -E 3 O Q. 'IT rn 0 O N 00 aa) E N Q a) U) LL m OL d O LL U H N O c c f6 N O i~ L -1 N p 7 > N tC > _ t]A a ) 4 O m f0 c - U L N a~ ~ E t (O O 3 C L C -a v m p N 0 (p U i1 Q ~ Q M O L LJ !A O LL N 3 t]A z " 7 tS aJ Q c } v a- L C - ' c Vf O N tw N "O c c m CA O c N t Q N N a) M Q) _C 4- p L, N m ~ QJ 3 C 0 O U c L M M v U O f0 ~ ~ N ~ a.+ N N C L -a 3 ca L H O > L 'i f0 -c 7 c U c U c a.J c 3 O L O 0 N p > O a- = LO -0 C 3 t > ° N N O N i 'a v1 L U t c c N ftf 4-1 Ln H to f6 m c ° cu v 3 ° E C ..C E L _ Q a 0 N ai ° a-+ d C C G v L ~ N F_ ~ y U C C L a p v L w M 3 v E U > L 4- L N L > au v O v N y o M 3 E O _ c c m Q 0 C o n o E v c o N E L O W = N v (U tn O Y > c O L a-+ U N f0 O N GJ a of ° a, a fl 3 0 a) CL O -0 In N E C v ( n O 4~ E 4N L) N - O CL au 4 0 c co U '7 - co E i ° 1 a) r- of N L 0 a O N ft3 i > v y Q 4- U E L L ( a, o v c ° 3 > C v = t'o E c c a r o tll E r° a tpO (n c u O a) ° ' r+ 4 7 cu m > N - to a. m C , J ) 4 L a - a L (v v M a Q a~ U c ° CO) M N UO v L o > > N L N 40- a- y U c ~ L.L -p C L 4J O O L Y m N > N 3 N L c p 00 N_ Z N to 01 Page 1 of 1 Bonnie Baker From: Stephen M. Day [smkmday@bendbroadband.com] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 4:12 PM To: Board Subject: River Access Site at the Harper Bridge Deschutes County Board of Commissioners, The boat launching site on Spring River Road at the Harper Bridge over the Deschutes River is very important to paddlers traversing the section of the river past Sunriver down to one of two takeouts above Benham Falls. The Sunriver Marina does not allow the public not renting their boats to launch from the Marina. Furthermore, the Harper Bridge access site is used as the takeout for paddlers traversing the section starting at Big River Campground. Consequently the Harper Bridge access site is critical for the Deschutes Paddle Trail. The Bend Paddle Trail Alliance (BPTA) received a major grant from the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department to develop the Deschutes Paddle Trail in Deschutes County. As Chairman of the Paddle Trail Committee of the BPTA I request you to do what you can to maintain the Harper Bridge access site as a viable and important putin and takeout for paddlers on the Deschutes Paddle Trail. Thank you for your consideration, Stephen M. Day Paddle Trail Chairman of the Bend Paddle Trail Alliance 541-610-6769 9/15/2009 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/ MEMORANDUM April 28, 2008 To: Deschutes Board of County Commissioners From: Will Groves, Senior Planner Subject: Board consideration to hear or not hear appeals (A-09-4, A-09-5) of a Hearings Officer decision reversing the Planning Division's decision to issue a LUCS and building permit to remodel the Dowells' existing dwelling on the subject property (A-07-9). BACKGROUND The Kuhns appealed (A-07-9) the County's issuance of a Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) and building permit (B65731) authorizing an interior remodel of the existing dwelling on property belonging to Jeff and Pat Dowell. On March 26, 2008, the Hearings Officer issued a decision dismissing the Kuhns' appeal on the grounds that the Kuhns are not authorized to appeal the 2007 Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) and building permit issuance under either state law or the county's land use procedures ordinance. The Kuhns appealed (A-08-6) this decision to the Board, which declined to hear the appeal. On May 29, 2008, the Kuhns appealed the Hearings Officer's decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). On March 11, 2009 LUBA issued a decision remanding the Hearings Officer's decision dismissing the Kuhns' appeal for further county proceedings. LUBA concluded the LUCS and building permit at issue in the Kuhns' appeal constituted a land use decision from which the Kuhns had the right to appeal. On August 17, 2009, the Hearings Officer issued a decision on remand reversing the Planning Division's decision to issue a LUCS and building permit to remodel the Dowells' existing dwelling on the subject property. The Hearings Officer found that the Dowells' dwelling was subject to a 400-foot maximum building line, measured from Sisemore Quality Services Perfonned With Pride Road as identified on the original partition plat and on the Dowells' 1992 Landscape Management site plan. She also found that the existing the dwelling was constructed beyond that 400-foot building line. Therefore, the Hearings Officer found that the Dowells' dwelling was not "lawfully established" for purposes of obtaining approval for an alteration of the dwelling under Section 18.40.020(M). Accordingly, the Hearings Officer found that the county erred in issuing a LUCS and building permit for an interior remodel of the Dowells' dwelling. On August 28, 2009, the Dowells appealed (A-09-4) this Hearings Officer Decision on three grounds: 1) a County Hearings Officer may not overturn a decision of the Deschutes County Circuit Court that was upheld by the Oregon Court of Appeals; 2) the reliance on a document that is inconsistent on its face fails to show that the Applicant or the County thought that the dwelling could only be constructed within 400 feet of Sisemore Road; and 3) case law supports the proposition that a County cannot grant an approval of a dwelling and later revoke the approval without cause. The Dowells also requested a de novo hearing. On August 31, 2009, the Kuhns appealed (A-09-5) the Hearings Officer Decision, requesting a hearing on the record. Although the Kuhns support the Hearings Officer's decision overall, the Kuhns argue that the Hearings Officer erred in finding that a homeowner's agreement between the Dowells and Kuhns is no longer required. According to the Hearings officer, the original condition of approval required such an agreement only as a condition of the sale of a property and not as a condition to further construction on the property. Therefore, although the Hearings Officer found the existing deed restrictions did not constitute the originally required homeowners agreement, since the lots in the cluster development were sold without that agreement, the hearings officer held that condition is no longer applicable. The Kuhns object to that holding. STAFF DISCUSSION Whether or not to hear the appeal. As stated above, the Board declined to hear this case previously, preferring instead to have the issues decided by LUBA. The Hearings Officer found the facts and legal analysis to be a close call in this case. That may be a reason for the Board to again decline to hear the case and allow LUBA to determine if the Hearings Officer's decision is to be affirmed, remanded or reversed. On the other hand, because it is a close call and a reasonable person could conclude the same or differently than the Hearings Officer, if the governing body issues a final decision in this case, LUBA will likely not reweigh the evidence and, thus, defer to the governing body's interpretation of the facts and legal consequences of that fact interpretation. Thus, the decision is less likely to be remanded again, whichever way the Board decides the case. Type of hearing. If the Board decides to hear the appeal, the staff recommends either a hearing on the record or a limited de novo hearing. The parties, in particular, the Kuhns, have submittal numerous documents repeatedly in this case. The only possible documents not included are some documents that were submitted at the 2003 private right of action trial and the trial transcript. LUBA also noted the lack of those documents. Thus, the Board could hear the appeal as a limited de novo hearing in which the hearing would be on the record except for the addition of the record submitted to the trial court in the 2003 case and any excerpts from the transcript of that trial that the parties wish to submit. FINAL DECISION CLOCK ORS 215.435(1) provides that the county has 90 days from the date of LUBA's final order on remand to issue a final local decision on the land use matter subject to the remand. Because the Dowells agreed to extend the written record from May 21 through June 18, 2009, under ORS 215.435(2)(b) the 90-day period was extended for a period of 29 days and expired on July 23, 2009. Although the 90-day deadline has passed, the Dowells have agreed to give the county to September 16, 2009 to decide whether or not to hear the case and, if the Board decides to hear the case, whatever time, within reason, the county needs to hear the case and write the final decision. Thus, should the Board decide to hear the case, the exact deadline by which to issue a final decision should be established and included in the record. DOCUMENTATION A copy of the Hearings Officer decision and relevant previous documents are attached for your review. SCHEDULE This item is scheduled for a work session on September 16, 2009 in order for the Board to decide whether or not to hear the appeal prior to the absence of Laurie Craghead, Deschutes County Assistant Legal Counsel for three weeks beginning September 19, 2009. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.