2010-2648-Minutes for Meeting May 26,2010 Recorded 6/9/2010COUNTY
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,P000NTY CLERKS 1~~I ~0~11.7646
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 0609/2010 11;00;52 AM
111111111111111 IN I IIIIIII I III
2010-2546
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 at the request of
[give reason]
previously recorded in Book _
or as Fee Number
to correct
and Page
r
~C Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.oriz
MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, MAY 269 2010
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney.
Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy
County Administrator; Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack, Peter Gutowsky, Kevin
Harrison and Paul Blikstad, Community Development; Tom Blust and Roger
Olson, Road Department; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; and approximately
25 other citizens. There were no representatives of the media in attendance.
Chair Luke opened the meeting at 10: 00 a.m.
1. Before the Board was Citizen Input.
Seven cadets from the Oregon Youth Authority's upcoming graduating class,
most of whom are from other parts of the State, were present. They explained
what they will be doing in the future, which is either completing their GED,
going back to their high school and graduating, or entering military service.
They said that being involved in the OYA program is a difficult process, but is
a life-changing experience.
There are 128 scheduled to graduate on June 16 at 11 AM at the Fairgrounds,
and they selected the attendees present today to represent the entire group.
No other citizen input was offered.
2. Before the Board was the Reading of a Proclamation Declaring May
"Community Action Month" in Deschutes County.
Commissioner Baney presented and read the Proclamation.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Page 1 of 12 Pages
UNGER: Move approval.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
3. Before the Board was Consideration of Chair Signature of a Notice of
Intent to Award Contract Letter for the Supplying and Delivery of Rubber
Modified Liquid Asphalt.
Roger Olson gave an overview of the item. There was only one bid since there
is only one supplier in the State. He said that ODOT oversees this industry very
well in order to be sure the price is competitive with products that do not
include the rubber ingredient.
BANEY: Move approval.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
4. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2010-
030, Regarding Federal Fiscal Year Elections for National Forest-Related
Safety-Net Payments.
Tom Blust explained the process and how funding for Title II and Title III is
determined. 15% would go to Title II and Title III, which is within the range of
15-20%.
Commission Baney asked about forest health management in relation to the
Road Department, and how this impacts the funding.
Dave Kanner said that Title III funds are very restricted. These funds can be
used only for fuels reduction, search and rescue on federal lands, and
community-wide fire protection projects. It can be used as a match for funding
for similar projects. There are different phases of the funding, and the funds
coming in now have to be spent before the end of the fiscal year 2012.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Page 2 of 12 Pages
Mr. Blust stated that the fourth year of the reauthorization will result in a big
drop-off of funding. This funding has gone from being about 30% of the Road
Department's budget to much less over time.
BANEY: Move approval.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
5. Before the Board was a Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of
Approval of Document No. 2010-339, the Community Development
Department 2010-11 Work Plan; and Discussion of Community
Development Department 2009 Accomplishments.
Chair Luke opened the hearing.
Tom Anderson provided an overview of the item. He highlighted some of the
activities of each division. He said that the ratings on their customer service
surveys for 2009 were at 4.88 on a 5.0 scale, which is very good given the
extreme personnel cutbacks experienced.
They have also been working with other agencies to share services and provide
better customer service in that fashion.
Staff spent countless hours interacting with the public on many land use issues,
including public hearings and outreach of other kinds.
A main goal for the coming year is to do full electronic plans on line, including
approval, to make it a paperless process. Alternative building materials are
being reviewed that might positively impact the environment.
Drinking water and restaurant inspections will be handled through the Health
Department beginning in July.
Big ticket projects include destination resort remapping, an update of the
Comprehensive Plan, the local wetlands inventory, economic opportunity
investments - large lot industrial, and other land use issues.
Feedback already received were recommendations from the Planning
Commission regarding the pre-application process, which they feel should be
moved up and addressed sooner.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Page 3 of 12 Pages
Other comments were received on the Code Enforcement program. Some
suggestions were made on specific areas of the County to focus on. Some
people want the Department to be much more proactive and seek out violations.
Some felt that the practice of not allowing anonymous complaints is not a good
one.
They will be looking at the procedures manual next year and it will be revised
as appropriate.
Commissioner Baney asked about the permitting process if there are pending
violations. Mr. Anderson said that this is explained on page 15 of the work
plan, item #8. It would preclude them from issuing of a new permit if there are
pending violations on the same property.
Commissioner Unger stated that there might be extenuating circumstances and
perhaps they should have some discretion. Mr. Anderson replied that this
change would remove that discretion. This situation is very rare.
Nick Lelack said that this is a work in process. Commissioner Unger stated that
he wants to avoid unforeseen problems created because of this change.
Andy High of the Central Oregon Builders' Association noted that plans need
to be kept fluid to allow for changes. There is some concern regarding the CCB
(Construction Contractors' Board), which is now complaint driven, in relation
to unlicensed contractors. He is somewhat concerned about additional Code
requirements, but for the most part local contractors are proactive in pushing for
positive changes.
He is not in support of the idea of mandatory sprinkler systems in residences.
Although they do not always agree, his group supports what the County does
for the most part.
Commissioner Unger likes the work plan, and does not think that the
recommendations of the Planning Commission can be addressed at this time.
He would also like to see the permitting process streamlined at some point.
Chair Luke said that the Planning Commission recommendations can be
considered and perhaps adjusted internally. Mr. Lelack stated that coordination
with other agencies will be instituted as much as possible.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Page 4 of 12 Pages
Mr. Anderson said that the "big look" is important; but the realities of the
staffing situation is that this cannot be addressed at the level the Planning
Commission would like to see. Nothing in the work plan is set in concrete and
priorities, funding and staffing can change radically within the course of a year.
Given other responsibilities, this work will be done as quickly as it can.
Commissioner Baney stated that this is a living document, and she has faith in
Mr. Anderson's leadership and the work plan as presented.
Commissioner Luke said that they have their hands full enough with Code
enforcement complaints without seeking out additional problems. They do not
have the staffing available to do much more at this time.
Being no further testimony offered, Chair Luke closed the public hearing.
BANEY: Move approval.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
6. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2010-
330, a Decision on an Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Denial of a
Conditional Use Permit for a Telecommunications Facility on the North
Cline Butte in a Surface Mining Zone.
Paul Blikstad said that the decision has been drafted based on Board input and
discussions. Most of it is as the Hearings Officer wrote it, since much of the
criteria were already addressed.
Commissioner Unger asked if there would be another road put in just for this one
tower. Mr. Blikstad stated that there is already a road there, which is gated, and it
goes at least halfway up the butte between two slopes. Commissioner Luke
stated that he thought there was testimony in the record that there is a gravel, all-
weather road now, and this was required by the Hearings Officer's decision.
BANEY: Move signature of the decision.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Page 5 of 12 Pages
7. Before the Board were Deliberations and Consideration of First and
Second Readings and Adoption, by Emergency, of Ordinances 2010-001
and 2010-002, Destination Resort Remapping Goals, Policies and
Procedures.
Peter Gutowsky entered the case file into the record, and noted that the public
hearing officially closed on Monday, May 24, 2010. Written testimony was
allowed up to that date. Two letters were received (Van Winkle and Cornforth).
A discussion occurred at a work session after that date to clarify how to handle
notices and other processes.
He referred to a matrix that covered grandfathered status and notification
options. The Board has held five hearings, and the process has taken over a
year. The Board will need to provide direction to staff if the Board does
support the Ordinances.
Commissioner Luke said that there was some discussion about mailings and the
grandfather clause. He stated that the County could open this process again
after the document is finalized. The County could allow someone who feels
they were overlooked as part of an adjustment in three years if appropriate.
Commissioner Unger stated that the object was to simplify the map. In light of
legislation and the economy, the look of destination resorts and requirements
will change as time goes on. He would like to simplify the map and make it
final. He does not think there will be any more resorts coming forward for a
long time, and it can be reviewed again in three years if necessary.
Commissioner Baney feels that the map needs to be more of a true reflection of
reality, that properties should be off unless they are already on. Mr. Gutowsky
said that he can provide context since the `opt in' provision seems to be
supported by some of the Commissioners. The tax bill mailing would result in
enormous savings and everyone would be notified.
How it would work is the County would initiate a tax bill insert, an
informational piece about amending the map; and it would meet Measure 56
eligibility requirements, as some properties will not be eligible due to this. And
it will alert people of the `opt in' factor.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Page 6 of 12 Pages
The first hearing would be in November, and additional time would be provided
until sometime in January to determine if someone wants to `opt in'. The first
evidentiary hearing with the Planning Commission would take place in
November. Testimony could be taken, and the hearing would be continued to
January. This would allow information from the `grandfathered' property
owners to be submitted during that timeframe.
Chair Luke asked how formal it would have to be. He would prefer that people
not be forced to hire an attorney. Mr. Gutowsky stated that there needs to be
some documentation, but it can be kept simple.
Discussion took place regarding scheduling the hearings. Staff will need time
to make refinements to the proposal before it goes to the Planning Commission
in January. The final document should be presented to the Board of
Commissioners in the spring 2011.
Commissioner Luke suggested that a variety of media be used to get this issue
in front of as many citizens as possible. Mr. Gutowsky stated that there are fees
in place for the next fiscal year for those property owners who want to be
added. It is a comprehensive plan map and zone map change.
Commissioner Unger said that most people will be out, and there might be just
a few owners of large properties who might want to be included. Chair Luke
added that there may be those who want to consolidate their properties with
others, and they need to know of this possible option.
Mr. Gutowsky said that staff was asked for a recommendation in April, putting
the map into a condition where resorts are most likely to occur in the future.
This was a dramatic reduction in the map. Two recommendations were made
by the Planning Commission, and staff supports the first one, with additions in
regard to the Redmond urban reserve area, high priority wildlife areas, platted
subdivisions and previous eligibility factors. The recommendation also
includes transportation planning rule requirements. Any State-owned or other
public lands would be ineligible.
Mr. Lelack stated that the State is looking at a complete overhaul of destination
resort rules and policies. Everything is on the table, from acreage and
amenities. Laurie Craghead said that it is the map that cannot be amended more
often than in 30 months. Mr. Lelack stated that mapping requirements may also
be eliminated, as the entire process is being reviewed.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Page 7 of 12 Pages
Commissioner Unger said that the Board needs to address what is in place at
this time. Commissioner Baney asked about subdivisions being included. Mr.
Gutowsky stated that platted subdivisions would be ineligible, but the
grandfather clause might allow for an opt-in provision. Commissioner Unger
said that they need to set the bar and move on.
Commissioner Unger stated that State lands in the common school fund should
be included. Mr. Gutowsky stated that these are properties that are not mapped,
but the agency might like the opportunity to be included in the future. All of
the criteria needs to be met, and this is not an easy thing to do. Commissioner
Luke asked why it would be just State, federal and city lands and not those
owned by the County. Commissioner Baney would like to leave them all out.
Mr. Gutowsky stated that the County is not excluded. This would only allow
these agencies to be eligible to initiate a map amendment at sometimes in the
future.
Commissioner Luke said they should be as eligible to be added to the map as
would any other property owner. Ms. Craghead stated that there are a lot of
other eligibility requirements they would have to meet. They just do not want
to be automatically excluded.
Mr. Gutowsky said that the Department of State Lands bought property near
Thornburgh resort, but at this point this property is not eligible.
Chair Luke stated that he feels they should be treated the same as any other
property owners. This means no special treatment, but not excluded simply
because they are governmental entities.
Mr. Gutowsky will work on a final document to present to the Board at a future
meeting.
BANEY: Move approval of the Consent Agenda.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Page 8 of 12 Pages
Consent Agenda Items
7. Signature of Letters of Appointment to the River Bend Estates Special Road
District: Anna Mae Rhoads (reappointment), through December 31, 2010;
Peter Cecil (reappointment), through December 31, 2011; and Mike Kutansky
(appointment), through December 31, 2012
8. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of Jessica Currier from the
Commission on Children & Families, and Thanking her for her Participation
9. Signature of a Letter Appointing Misha Williams to the Deschutes County
Weed Advisory Board, through December 31, 2011
10. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-031, Transferring Appropriations in the
Public Health Fund
11. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-032, Transferring Appropriations in the Dog
Control Fund
12. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-032, Transferring Appropriations in the
General Support Services Finance Fund
13. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-034, Appropriating a New Grant in the
Deschutes County Public Health Fund
14. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-035, Transferring Appropriations in the
Behavioral Health Fund
15. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-036, Transferring Appropriations in the
Behavioral Health Fund
16. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-037, Transferring Appropriations in the
Property Tax Department of the General Fund
17. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-039, Transferring Appropriations in the
Sheriff's Office Fund
18. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-040, Transferring Appropriations in the
Deschutes County Insurance Fund
19. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-041, Appropriating a New Grant in the
Deschutes County Public Health Fund
20. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-042, Ratifying a Grant Agreement for the
Historical Landmarks Commission
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Page 9 of 12 Pages
21. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-043, Transferring Appropriations in the
Communications System Fund
22. Approval of Minutes:
• Business Meeting: May 5, 2010
• Work Sessions: May 3, 5 and 12, 2010
• Special Meeting: Decision on Appeal of 911 Director Personnel Disciplinary
Action, May 12, 2010
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE
DISTRICT
23. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2010-
044, Transferring Appropriations within the Sunriver Service District
Fund.
BANEY: Move approval.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 911 COUNTY
SERVICE DISTRICT
24. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the 911 County Service District in the Amount of
$53,338.08 (three weeks).
BANEY: Move approval, subject to review.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Page 10 of 12 Pages
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
25. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District in the
Amount of $4,006.29 (three weeks).
BANEY: Move approval, subject to review.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
26. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $8,281,479.22
(three weeks).
BANEY: Move approval, subject to review.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
27. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
None were offered.
Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Page 11 of 12 Pages
DATED this 26th Day of May 2010 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Dennis R. Luke, air
61'a~ U~e7
Alan Unger, Vice Chair
Tammy Baney, Com ssioner
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
Page 12 of 12 Pages
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
10:00 A.M., WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 2010
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
1. CITIZEN INPUT
This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's
discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Citizens who wish to speak
should sign up prior to the beginning of the meeting on the sign-up cards provided. Please
use the microphone and also state your name and address at the time the Board calls on you
to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject
of a public hearing will NOT be included in the record of that hearing.
2. A PROCLAMATION Declaring May "Community Action Month" in
Deschutes County - Nancy Gibson, Neighborlmpact
3. CONSIDERATION of Chair Signature of a Notice of Intent to Award
Contract Letter for the Supplying and Delivery of Rubber Modified Liquid
Asphalt - Roger Olson, Road Department
4. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Resolution No. 2010-030, Regarding
Federal Fiscal Year Elections for National Forest-Related Safety-Net Payments
- Tom Blust, Road Department
5. A PUBLIC HEARING, Discussion and Consideration of Approval of
Document No. 2010-339, the Community Development Department 2010-11
Work Plan; and Discussion of Community Development Department 2009
Accomplishments - Tom Anderson, Community Development
6. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Document No. 2010-330, a Decision on
an Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Denial of a Conditional Use Permit for a
Telecommunications Facility on the North Cline Butte in a Surface Mining
Zone - Paul Blikstad, Community Development
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Page 1 of 6 Pages
7. DELIBERATIONS and Consideration of First and Second Readings and
Adoption, by Emergency, of Ordinances 2010-001 and 2010-002, Destination
Resort Remapping Goals, Policies & Procedures - Peter Gutowsky, Community
Development
CONSENT AGENDA
7. Signature of Letters of Appointment to the River Bend Estates Special Road
District: Anna Mae Rhoads (reappointment), through December 31, 2010;
Peter Cecil (reappointment), through December 31, 2011; and Mike Kutansky
(appointment), through December 31, 2012
8. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of Jessica Currier from the
Commission on Children & Families, and Thanking her for her Participation
9. Signature of a Letter Appointing Misha Williams to the Deschutes County
Weed Advisory Board, through December 31, 2011
10. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-031, Transferring Appropriations in the
Public Health Fund
11. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-032, Transferring Appropriations in the Dog
Control Fund
12. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-032, Transferring Appropriations in the
General Support Services Finance Fund
13. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-034, Appropriating a New Grant in the
Deschutes County Public Health Fund
14. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-035, Transferring Appropriations in the
Behavioral Health Fund
15. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-036, Transferring Appropriations in the
Behavioral Health Fund
16. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-037, Transferring Appropriations in the
Property Tax Department of the General Fund
17. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-039, Transferring Appropriations in the
Sheriff's Office Fund
18. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-040, Transferring Appropriations in the
Deschutes County Insurance Fund
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Page 2 of 6 Pages
19. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-041, Appropriating a New Grant in the
Deschutes County Public Health Fund
20. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-042, Ratifying a Grant Agreement for the
Historical Landmarks Commission
21. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-043, Transferring Appropriations in the
Communications System Fund
22. Approval of Minutes:
• Business Meeting: May 5, 2010
• Work Sessions: May 3, 5 and 12, 2010
• Special Meeting: Decision on Appeal of 911 Director Personnel Disciplinary
Action, May 12, 2010
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE
DISTRICT
23. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Resolution No. 2010-044, Transferring
Appropriations within the Sunriver Service District Fund
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 911 COUNTY SERVICE
DISTRICT
24. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
the 911 County Service District (three weeks)
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
25. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
the Extension/4-H County Service District (three weeks)
RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
26. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
Deschutes County (three weeks)
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Page 3 of 6 Pages
27. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
FUTURE MEETINGS:
(Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of
Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou have questions
regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572)
Wednesday, May 26
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Monday, May 31
Memorial Day - Most County offices will be closed
Wednesday, June 2
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, June 3
9:00 a.m. Quarterly Update with Health and Human Services
10:00 a.m. Quarterly Meeting with the District Attorney
11:00 a.m. Quarterly Meeting with Community Development
1:30 p.m. Quarterly Meeting with the Road Department
2:30 p.m. Quarterly Meeting with Solid Waste
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Page 4 of 6 Pages
Monday, June 7
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
3:30 p.m. Local Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting (LPSCC)
Wednesday, June 9
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Monday, June 14 through Wednesday, June 16
8:00 - 5:00 Association of Oregon Counties Spring Conference (Riverhouse)
Wednesday, June 16
11:00 a.m. Youth Challenge Graduation - Fairgrounds
2:00 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, June 17
10:00 a.m. Quarterly Update with Community Justice
Monday, June 21
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Tuesday, June 23
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, June 24
9:00 a.m. Quarterly Meeting with the Fair & Expo Department
11:00 a.m. Quarterly Meeting with the Commission on Children & Families
2:00 p.m. Quarterly Meeting with the Sheriff
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Page 5 of 6 Pages
Monday, June 28
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, June 30
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, July
8:00 a.m. Meeting with Sisters City Council, Sisters City Hall
Monday, July 5
Independence Day Observed - Most County offices will be closed
Wednesday, July 7
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, July 8
7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with Redmond City Council - Redmond Council Chambers
Wednesday, July 14
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Page 6 of 6 Pages
cri
a
m
E
Yl
O
C
■,,ww
YI
O
w
CL
O
■0
V
O
Z
.V
4w
Y J
W
L
M-
L
r
lJ
C
O_
of
M O
E~
O p~
U
c •m
C7
c=
~a
a
a+
O
O 'C. dl
d u
w
U p,•-
-w m
= O
M z
O O
Z E a
m
Ln CL
'a
it C 47
~
0
Q 0
m .
~
O
0.0
_
4l O
f
c
c
a
i
L
Q1
C
Ira
L
.j
C
00
CM
•
~ 'D
O
ol
O
(A ='O
I Y) t
O
L
r
a
01c
c
a~
E~
C
W.2
O V
°C a
O ul
O
w
c0
i
C7
' O
CU
> o
O N
v
i~ N
4-J L-
(U .n
a a
a~ cn
c
iu.. -
O
1.4
O
N
a~
t
O
:6
-a
+4
c
a
O
0
0
N
O
.n
0
z
0
T-i
0
N
O
o
aa~
cL E E
0
0 O ~0 Z
Z
ro
~0n
fyC i N p1
L O 0 ,i
Q
C
f0
i-ci O QL
0
~--1
N
n
N
N
.Q
Q
N
Cn
0
0
N
co
L
°2
Q
cn
L
N
w N
c ~
ffo v
rn
O
z
" O
a~
> 0
•O N
V
~ N
E E
ro a
C
LL .
0
1-1
O
N
a~
O
v
O
v
v
O
fu
N
~o
N
V)
c
1-4
0
0 0
N N
O M
E c
>
0
z
4-
O p1
L
i c c
N
cv c
m
c
-r- -
~
m
cn
crap 0
O
-p " •E O
O
00~
O-
+-+N
d r-4
QO
fo fp .0
O
ON
m
4, E
0 cm
a
fl
.Q
6
E
(A c
L 'n 'n
-
c M W ~ aj
4-1
0
c n
0 GJ
v
Z r
-0
U
3
O {A L
L
1
0
r-1
0
N
n
N
aj
0)
Q
N
0
r-I
0
N
M
C
L
fu
E
a,
2
_rZ
n.
i!l
(n
C
N
N
L
N N
Ln
4~ N
c 'fu sn
co
O -0
O
c
CL m
L
O
O (D
a
Ln
a~
v
a~
L
L
w
c
fo
pl
c
fu
N
N
.c
rn
O
V
v
0
O
N
M
(O
c
LO
O
V
7
C
C
O
U
N
C
a~
3
Ol
c
fo
N
L
0
cu
U
Q
O
c
Y
N
d
L
7
u
0
L
CL
c
N
AD
.2
G
IL
H
C
(D
E
C
d
E
Q
01
.Q
Q
A
E
d
O
y
O
m
w
H
0
d
U°
o
x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x
N
G N
0
U
c
o
rn
°
R
'O
N
c
d
E
d
E
O
IX
~
xX
x x x x x X X X x x x x xX X
X X X x x x
x x
~
a
m
c
0
0
U
~
C
G
0 d
of
o,~
xx
xxxxx x x x x x x
x xxxx x
c ;
d
x
w w
N
C
d
E
a
xx
xxxxxx x
x
x
d
Q'
d
is
Vl
C
N
N c
E
E CO
~j m
m
C d
a)
E
O m
o
L
a y rn
° UO
d O
m c m d m
-m
~E
C -
LM C~
T
c E- c
7
O c m
~y N
CL
O E'E 10d
E
>
c o 0
~
O .c d d
o (n ac
- O d L
p 3 _ o
a)
O m U
Q m
c C p
C 00
O
T
O to C
H
E
d y
> a
L.. 3 d T
m o c a)
fN
a) 00
a ad
m
c
O
N
7 y 7 d 1! U
c o
`0
O) y N m
d E>
a
•3 U .p m 9
a E m
a 3
d
w
c
o
0 ~
c L ~ m a
o o o a w
o -
d c m= d .OL
c o a
c
N
m d r
o 0 C
U
°
a ° o a
r-
°
N
N o> E o d
c T
n~
S
°
v
•
o
Cl)
v o o ~
a m f0
L
'
m L o y o
a a) U
C
- E m GO
a O c
G
G
IL
c
O -p d
y
c
m d
a
y L C m a)
o
°
D°
U m d m .d.
n
°
E
W
C
c
m
0)
> o
L c N G ° m 6 U
-
a
°1 C Q) -a) Y
o
.
-
aNi
co d 7
m
a N
C
cc to O O L c d
'3
O N a m j
R C 3 c d
0°
E N N dC
C 7 C an d
N
d
d
N V)
N
` Q1 `1 c r O L U
X
U(D > .N. c
m E
N
U N •O
7 O E
3
Q m
= 7 r
43)
E
W
V
d O
O
O. m 5 to c O d
Wa7
X
d
O)
7
G
_0) C a p U_
E
O
d
d C
aC
p p m v1 d 0 -p V
d y C d .N.
°
m t y
(D
O No 61
O
d E
m
l0 E Ol
rn
E N
o
L z ur w m LL E t
E m a
0 N 'C 0 0 0 C
O a m p d
c
U 7
U
0= ` m c N O
_
LL
C) m
m
G a) m to L
0) 1
U
p
d S m'fg6 C
C O
V
-r
p d
y a) C c d E C
c
> m 7 a d
r a7 d L d 0
0
m v)
(n E U O .N .O C "~O
.0 0
m
Q CLL
A C~
7 N
O.GOC (D tv
c
°
~
c ul d. _ 0 O~ N
m 7° In (
m
x
Z
U
y w = C O
.2
r
>
° c m
d o C
8. CL
m
n
,
d
~
U
d~
~m_rn
r
~ a
utm T
" W M J
O
3 mv,
y wdo
O
Xm°
~rn
'
-0 G F-
m
O
7
m a)
U o o 0 C9 m m m m p o~3 mNU
d U
N .T.
Q C m.rnon" a
p
a) y
~vma)m
-0
(b ca.>-[no E'U GWa 2c-0
0
c m
N Q
C U •
-
r
u m c~wE - Uy
N
= n 0 ~
O Wwc2
4)
C d
CL
t
a
I/1 C
Eo
0 In
N
Z,
Vl
Q
c N
o->maYm ow~?o
U,
N O
Z)
O
NNw~oo~oQp
d .
„ p. ~
cg3camm~
n~
m a)
a m m ~ aa) tE cdr c o ~ (D
m 0 y O fn
y. O c p U y a
~ d c~ mo'nv>~
:C a m d d N to d
° i03f°D na
E S2 G o E m_
-
a
n
TN E E a m o a w v) ° o
c o M .v
~ m
°
I `U o oa c
T w
a `gym
°
~
c na? U Nr M
m a y v
-
p
m
c
N _
y o-a m a~ m c m E mS
~ oE~N0rno
~mm
LL
-
y
0) w."4 Ed dL
-o-cO°c~3
x
mu,-0 Za.
4oomQOU)
m
m
a Q W Q Q Z LL~ a LL
aa)
= LL Q = Z~ Q U LL 0
LL U J @ N CL d -o
m
-
Q
m
Q fD
Q CD U w LL. Z Q
Q m o O UJ LL (.9 2.
2r Q co
U
N
J-res ~
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
a -c
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest: Date: 5
Name
Address
Phone #s
E-mail address
u~
In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided F-T Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 7 Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
11 April, 2010
Rich Van Winkle
16915 Hwy 126
Sisters, OR 97759
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St.
Bend, OR 97701
Re: Destination Resort Remapping, Related DCCs, and the testimony of others...
Honorable Commissioners:
As I have previously offered written testimony in regard to this matter, I will not repeat that
content here. However, as the matter has moved forward and others have offered additional
testimony, I feel compelled to reply to some of the changes and much of the commentary. I
appreciate the opportunity to be heard via this written testimony.
First, the motions offered during the February 25th meeting are cogent and well considered. I
find that the general approach indicated by Liz Fancher's letter (of March 31S) to be
appropriate, fitting, and even necessary: the Destination Resort Map should not try to delineate
destination resort properties based upon non-statutory requirements or statutory
requirements that are plainly intended for the application process. A primary function of the
mapping is to provide some notice of which property within the County might qualify for a
destination resort - if properly applied for and approved. It is not intended to show all the
properties where a destination resort could not be sited under some legal criteria.
As I mentioned in prior testimony, it is distressing to see testimony from several individuals and
groups that is base-less, erroneous, or ill-considered. As key examples, I offer the following:
1. Pam Hardy and 1000 Friends claim that "As you are well aware, the majority of the
public is not in favor of increasing the number of acres eligible for the location of destination
resorts in Deschutes County." If they polled the public or have some vote they're relying upon,
they didn't cite such. I could just as easily claim that the majority of the public believe that 1000
Friends of Oregon is a bunch of whacko - radical - demagogues who oppose fundamental rights
and the rule of law. (Only half of which is true).
2. The Cornforths (supposedly representing a homeowner association in their letter of
April 1st) contend that the Planning Commission submitted two motions (#s 2 & 4) "written
specifically to support the efforts by [its] Chairman, Keith Cyrus, to convert the completed rural
clustered subdivision of Aspen Lakes into a destination resort." While it seems clear that Mr.
Cyrus favors such conversion, the suggested relationship between the offending motions and
that goal is irrational. Mr. Cornforth supposes that the motions "completely disregards [sic] the
property rights of the many hundreds of property owners on platted subdivisions... who bought
their properties because they were protected from future developments by the Land Use laws
governing such developments." Obviously, the Cornforths understand the concept of "property
rights" as only including their property and their rights. They appear to think that Land Use
Laws create "property rights" for their protection instead of seeking a balanced approach to
optimal use of limited resources. Besides, the Cornforths ignore the "rights" of those property
owners who may have invested in property with the intent of developing in accordance with
the law as it existed at the time of purchase. Would they consider it fair if the County changed
the law such that they couldn't keep their residence on their property?
3. Ms. Marlinghaus has some legitimate concerns and proposes that you "focus on a
proposal directed at producing thoughtful, planned, sustainable growth: with a diversified,
stable base." (Letter of February 16th). I would certainly agree with that. She suggests that
allowing new destination resorts "will only feed the boom & bust cycle of the real estate based
economy that has had devastating impact on this area." What I think she misses is that the
County probably wouldn't have had the "boom" without its destination resorts and the "bust"
affected counties without destination resorts (and more diverse economies) just as much.
4. Diane Jacobs says: "The emphasis should be on long-term livability, not shortsighted
development." (Letter of 16 February). Think about it - shouldn't the "emphasis" be on finding
a proper balance between livability and development; and isn't economic growth and
prosperity part of livability? Nobody wants "shortsighted development" and we should resist
the notion that all development is shortsighted.
5. Mr. Brittingham uses the word "tyranny" to describe onerous land use regulation
(which he has apparently experienced more than once). (Letter of January 22nd). "Tyranny" is
too strong a word for any realistic result of this process, but it does reflect the feeling created
when the government over-steps its proper limits. When it comes to land use regulation,
Oregon has some of the most "oppressive" laws in the country. The County doesn't need to add
even more oppressive extensions to state law than those that currently exist for destination
resorts. Indeed, I propose that it is your mandate to do whatever you can to encourage
development (in the broad sense) which complies with state law and the statewide land use
goals.
6. On April 4th "Mad" (Madeleine Landis, the "yurtwoman") wrote to ask you to "vote
NO on destination resort status for Aspen Lakes." This letter reflects the ignorance and
virulence of most of the "naysayers" who think that you are nothing more than "good old boys
doing questionable business for private gain." "Mad" obviously hasn't followed the process or
read any of the actual materials submitted by staff. The only thing she offers is a glimpse into
the "campaign" being run by some group whose interests don't involve the facts or the law.
Luckily, these folks don't represent the bulk of the citizens - even though they may write more
letters than most.
7. Doug Hancock (April 4th) accuses Mr. Cyrus of "misuse of public process" and believes
that "abuse of his position as a public official undermines the credibility of our entire local
government." Apparently, Mr. Hancock does not think that open acknowledge of a possible
"conflict of interest", recusing oneself from related votes, and plain-open-honesty is inadequate
to protect us from "the old-boy network run amok." He suggests that the Planning Commission
has demonstrated an abject disregard for "governmental processes" and "public meeting
rules". Wow! If I had any indication that these allegations are true, I'd be right there with Mr.
Hancock in protesting. Instead, I have followed the proceedings closely, have participated in the
process, and have attended some of the meetings. What I have observed is exactly the opposite
of Mr. Hancock's irresponsible and obnoxious accusations. The very fact that his letter is made
part of the lengthy public record in this matter demonstrates the existence of some valid public
process. A cursory review of the hearings and the testimony show a varied and lively open
dialog between the public and their elected representatives. And, even someone as
unconcerned about the facts as Mr. Hancock should recognize that the bulk of the
Commission's decisions to date have been contrary to Mr. Cyrus' stated positions. (Mr. Cyrus is
as entitled to his views as anyone).
8. Ms. Moore, writing on behalf of the local Sierra Club (April 5t"), asks that the Board to
consider eight factors in updating "the resort map". She has provided a good outline for each,
but I would add just one sentence to all eight factors:
i. "The new map should include only those areas where state and local
resort statute and development rules can be met." While that is basically
what the law provides and requires, your challenge is to decide the
manner in which the rules can be met - such as by combining parcels to
meet the 160 acre minimum (see the Fancher statements).
ii. "The resort map shouldn't include developed subdivisions or paper
subdivisions [...since the DLCD has already stated] that such
developments are not eligible for destination resort conversion."
However, state law does not specifically address the matter and the
"weighing in" by DLCD was merely an opinion by Doug White, a community
services specialist with DLCD.
iii. "The resort map shouldn't include cluster developments with at least
50% of their site dedicated to permanent open space [as proposed in the
Planning Commission's motions]." Indeed, a "housing subdivision is not a
resort" and a "cluster development" is not a "destination resort,
however, a cluster development of sufficient size that was initiated as a
resort and has sufficient dedicated open space is logically eligible to apply
for destination resort status and make its case for qualification.
iv. "The resort map should not grandfather in all lands on the map as
recommended by the Planning Commission." It is patently clear that
some form of grandfather clause is essential to fairness; the question is
how to implement such:
a) have previous eligible property owners apply for inclusion,
b) automatically include previously eligible properties and allow
owners to opt-out, or
c) include all previously eligible properties that could remain
eligible under the new laws and have an opt-out provision (which
makes the most sense).
V. "The resort map should not add in new lands [EFU]... [do] not ignore the
public record." The "public record" is neither a vote nor inherent
reflection of public will - especially when many of those testifying clearly
have not read the reports, recommendations, laws, or other testimony.
You should ignore those who have no idea what the issues are and who
misstate the record. Removing the existing ineligible EFU criteria does not
make all EFU lands eligible for destination resort consideration.
vi. The law (ORS 197.445) states that to qualify as a "destination resort",
"The resort must be located on a site of 160 acres or more..." It says nothing
about parcel size, number of owners, or combining properties to make the site a
minimum size and it would be unreasonable for the County to read the statute
as equating "parcel and "site".
vii. "Resorts... have damaged natural resources... will strain water resources...
overstretch public facilities... and burden taxpayers." Every house and business
in Oregon does the same - we have laws that require property owners to get
permission (under extensive restrictions and rules) before they build on their
properties and the public interest is more than adequately protected under
those laws and processes without trying to make every planning action a
complete bar to building.
viii. "[T]his resort map process has not incorporated new research on current
habitat and wildlife needs..." Bull-pucky! Deschutes County Planning Staff and
Officials have demonstrated thoroughness and a broad balancing of priorities in
its recommendations (although I don't always agree with their conclusions or
interpretations). Ms. Moore clearly misunderstands the intent of the re-
mapping project and the process of land use planning and permitting: her
environmental considerations are well addressed in other parts of the process.
9. Attorney Paul Dewey (on behalf of "Central Oregon LandWatch", March 1, 2010)
contends that the County's analysis "understates the impacts" and its findings "fail to
acknowledge the development potential of the new 'multiple ownership' provision"... contrary
to Goal 2. Mr. Dewey suggests that we might suffer "gerrymander[ing] of lands" and some form
of "irrigation land with pods of residential development." Again, State law (ORS 197.445)
requires only that "The resort must be located on a site of 160 acres or more..." The multiple
ownership provision merely clarifies this requirement and requires no "findings" at all. Likewise,
protections for irrigated lands are clearly stated in the statutes (ORS 197.455 and 460).
Mr. Dewey's legal analysis is generally lacking in legality and his conclusions are repeatedly
illogical. Nothing in the multiple ownership provision "undercuts DCC 23.84.030(d)" (perhaps
mis-referenced???). The basis and reason for the grandfathering provision is basic fairness (as
identified in both Measure 37 and 49) - and the County should wisely choose to avoid needless
lawsuits. As Mr. Dewey correctly suggests, eligibility for destination resort development could
be reasonably assumed from the eligibility maps. However, eligibility does not equate to
qualification.
Mr. Dewey is disappointed that "the County is investing so much effort to address an industry
that does such harm and offers so little for the future of this county." I would think that a
lawyer would recognize that the County is complying with State law, that far too much of the
effort involved is dealing with lawyers, and that his over-generalized and unfounded opinions
about destination resorts directly conflict with Oregon Law:
"The Legislative Assembly finds that: (1) It is the policy of this state to promote
Oregon as a vacation destination and to encourage tourism as a valuable
segment of our state's economy; (2) There is a growing need to provide year-
round destination resort accommodations to attract visitors and encourage
them to stay longer. The establishment of destination resorts will provide jobs
for Oregonians and contribute to the state's economic development..." ORS
197.440).
10. Dick Staab of Trout Unlimited (don't we wish) hits the nail on the head when
he proposes that we "need a clear destination Resorts map which meets state laws and
is easy to interpret." But then he bends the nail regarding "water rights" on Whychus
Creek. Even those of us who fully favor the protection of our streams and their fish don't
confuse water rights with resort mapping. NOTHING in the destination resort mapping
process grants, confers, expands, or changes anyone's water rights. Any individual or
entity wishing to build (or expand) any resort (or other development) is required to
demonstrate availability of water along with acceptable environmental impact. On the
other hand, those fortunate individuals who OWN water rights either have the privilege
of properly exercising those rights or having the government properly compensate them
for abridgement of same. The folks at Trout Unlimited are on the right mission using the
wrong approach.
11. It is hard to address a letter like Dennis McGregor's (April 6th) without
wondering what really motivates him. We should all be sick of "special interest groups
eroding the democratic process in this country." I am. But to view the County's process
as a "sham... against the will of the majority" is to reflect ignorance of how a
representative "democracy" is supposed to work. Has some bribe been secretly paid?
Has the Cyrus family broken any laws or hurt anyone? Is there something wrong with
believing that it might "all work out in the end"? I'm sick and tired of Americans who
gripe about the wrong things, ignore the facts, and disregard basic decency - as Mr.
McGregor has.
12. Regarding the testimony of Wendy Holzman (April 6th), I can only say
"Hooray"! If Charlie Ringo said it, it must have been good (Ha). Indeed, if you end up
producing a map that "includes only lands which meet current state and local statutes
and development rules for resorts" and is "legally defensible and realistic in terms of
which lands can actually be sited," then you will have done an amazing thing. Ms.
Holzman speaks of a commission that is "well balanced" as well as the balance between
growth and quality of life. Like her, "I applaud the Commissioners and our county
planners for doing just that."
13. Nunzie Gould (letter of April 7th to Nick Lelack) is an owner at Deschutes
River Ranch who is opposed to "new DR criteria that would further allow DDR [DRR?] to
morph into a DR" as the "subdivision should remain a subdivision." Since state law does
not address subdivisions in the context of destination resorts, the County has no reason
to add (or delete) language regarding subdivisions in its destination resort ordinances. If
a platted, but undeveloped subdivision otherwise qualifies to become a destination
resort, there is no basis for treating such differently than any other potential destination
resort applicant. Developed subdivisions would have great difficulty meeting state
requirements or complying with statewide planning goals, but if they did, why would
the County treat them as unqualified for application? Ms. Gould seems to already have
the law on her side.
I regret that I find myself disappointed with my fellow citizens. Unlike those who see
corruption without indication of such, gerrymandering where such makes no sense, or
failed political process where it is working just as designed, I hope that all this
distraction does deprive us of the desired Destination Resort Map which helps planners
and citizens make wise decisions about growth and preservation. I hope that those
people who would waste the time of others with uninformed diatribes and baseless
assertions will find the will and integrity to actually read the law and its proposed
changes before trying to shape it into something it was never intended to be.
This process is NOT about approving or denying destination resorts - it is
about creating a map, a tool, to be used as an aid in implementing the
law. Even if the County creates a map showing every acre in the County as
being destination resort eligible, such does not create or approve the
creation of anything. Conversely, if the County creates no map or creates
a map that improperly designates property as ineligible for destination
resort CONSIDERATION, then it subjects itself and its citizens to undue
confusion and litigation.
As always, I appreciate the opportunity to be heard and hope that I have earned that right
through diligence, integrity, and brevity (well, not so much the later).
Thank you for your kind attention and patience.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Van Winkle,
Friend of the Board
Nug,getNewsxom '1--he ~~u-gg-et: ~,Jewspaper
To the Editor:
In your April 14 article concerning the controversy over the possible retroactive conversion of Aspen Lakes to a
destination resort, I believe that there are factual inaccuracies ("Cyrus family's resort efforts stir continuing
controversy," The Nugget, April 14, page 16).
Statement: "The master plan for development of the Aspen Lakes complex has always included a resort."
The master plans submitted to the county do not refer to a future resort. In fact, a resort is specifically excluded
from the permit issued to the Cyrus family in 1989. Conditional use permit CU89/70 allowed the developer to
convert land zoned as RR-10 to a cluster development. This allows up to 35 percent more homesites on the
property in exchange for the developer "clustering" the homesites to create larger parcels of permanent open
space on the remainder of the land. The intent of this land use ordinance is to preserve a rural environment.
After having finished the cluster development, the Cyrus family now wants to develop another 300 closely
spaced homesites and a hotel on the permanent open space. This would create a large urban subdivision and
totally abandons the original agreement. It would be a "double dip" - wonderful for the finances of the Cyrus
family but trampling on the property rights of neighbors who bought their properties on the understanding that
there will be no further development on the designated open space at Aspen Lakes.
It also reinforces the beliefs of many others who think that destination resorts provide an excuse to develop
large subdivisions outside urban growth boundaries.
The 10 lots designated for Section 35 were part of the Phase V development. This has long since lapsed so these
lots cannot be developed without going through the planning process again.
My recollection is that the word "golf" was deleted from the approval of Phase V. It would require a new
application and hearings before a golf course could be built on this land. It is not "approved" at present.
Derek Cornforth
Editor's note: The assertions Mr. Cornforth questions were made by Matt and Keith Cyrus.
000