2010-2723-Minutes for Meeting June 28,2010 Recorded 7/2/2010COUNTY
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,F000NTY CLERKS
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 07/02/2010 10;47:55 AM
1111111111111111111111111111111
2010-2723
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
and Page
to correct
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, JUNE 289 2010
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke and, by conference call, Tammy
Baney and Alan Unger. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator;
Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel;
Tom Anderson, Anthony Raguine, Kevin Harrison, Eric Mone, Peter Russell and
Cynthia Smidt, Community Development; and four other citizens.
Chair Luke opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m.
1. Before the Board was Citizen Input.
None was offered.
2. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2010-038,
Reducing Temporary Restaurant Licensing Fees for Fiscal Year 2010-11.
Erik Kropp gave a brief overview of the item. There are several different types
of fees, depending on the level of inspection and the number of participants.
The Order would reduce the fees by 50% for Fiscal Year 2010-11. The
Environmental Health Division will be reimbursed from the general fund.
Commissioner Luke asked if someone comes in late, would their fee would be
reduced. Commissioner Unger stated that he was on board for reducing the fee
to that of fraternal organizations, which would cost the general fund about
$24,000. Commissioner Baney indicated that she feels discussion should occur
about the time commitment.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, June 28, 2010
Page 1 of 7 Pages
Commissioner Baney said that State law needs to be altered and she would like
to help the community in this fashion for a year and in the meantime help to
figure out a way to make the fees equitable. Benevolent organizations are in
competition with for-profits and can do this all year. They can also request
funding during the year. She is warming up to having the same fee, but does
not like the language regarding event coordinators. Commissioner Unger stated
that he has not seen this language yet and perhaps it can be revisited on
Wednesday.
Mr. Kropp asked if the fee for individuals or for groups of 6 or more would be
the same. Commissioner Luke does not like the idea of subsidizing. They are
established to cover the Department's costs. Commission Unger feels that a
legislative fix is needed.
Tom Anderson asked about the vendors that don't meet the seven day advance
notice. Commissioner Unger feels that if they cannot meet this deadline they
should have to pay the higher amount.
Eric Mone asked about retroactive monies that have already been paid. Mr.
Kropp said they will change the language regarding the 50% amount to set
amounts for clarification.
It was decided that it would be addressed further on Wednesday at the Board's
10 a.m. business meeting.
3. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of First Reading
of Ordinance 2010-014, a Text Amendment to Specify and Distinguish
Conformance to Performance Standards for County Roads and State
Highways.
Peter Russell read the preliminary statement. In regard to prejudgment or
personal interest, the Commissioners had none. No challenges were offered by
the public. Chair Luke opened the hearing at this time.
Mr. Russell said that this would codify essentially what has been done in
practice for the past ten years. The County typically conforms to State law.
This went before the Planning Commission, four to one, with one abstaining.
No public testimony had been offered at that point.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, June 28, 2010
Page 2 of 7 Pages
Commissioners Unger and Baney were satisfied with the Ordinance. No public
testimony was offered.
BANEY: Move first reading by title only.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Chair Luke did the first reading by title only at this time. The second reading
will be held at the Board business meeting on Wednesday, July 14, 2010.
4. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of First and
Second Readings and Adoption, by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2010-
018, Amending Code regarding Parking Ratios and Mitigation for Airport
Uses.
Anthony Raguine conducted the reading of the opening statement. In regard to
personal interest or prejudgment, the Commissioners disclosed none. There
were no challenges. Chair Luke opened the hearing.
The emergency relates to the site plan review criteria and not requiring
mitigation. Commissioner Luke asked why there was a `no' vote at the
Planning Commission hearing. Peter Russell stated that it had to do with traffic
engineer's discretion, which has since been removed.
Laurie Craghead said that because of the construction season being active, she
feels that this should be passed now.
Mr. Raguine stated that this allows codifying what staff needs to do in this
regard. No public comment was offered at the Planning Commission meeting,
and the airport manager was supportive. No testimony was offered.
BANEY: Move first and second reading by title only.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Chair Luke did the first and second readings at this time, by title only.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, June 28, 2010
Page 3 of 7 Pages
BANEY: Move approval.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
5. Before the Board was a de novo public hearing on File No. CU-10-2,
regarding the Hearings Officer's Denial of a Conditional Use Permit to
Establish a Room and Board Arrangement in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone
(Applicant: Anderson).
Commissioner Baney asked if there is a matrix available. Commissioner Luke
said that there are individuals who wish to testify and that can be done today.
Cynthia Smidt conducted the opening statement at this time. In regard to
prejudgment or personal interest, bias or conflicts of interested, the
Commissioners had none to declare. No comments were offered from the
public.
Ms. Smidt said the applicant requests a room and board arrangement through a
conditional use permit, at 18540 Plainview Road off Highway 20 near Fryrear
Road. The property is about 40 acres, and the area is one of small farms. When
the applicant applied for a room and board arrangement, staff felt at the time
this was the same as a bed and breakfast arrangement. They asked the
applicants to address the criteria regarding a bed and breakfast. The Hearings
Officer brought up two issues: whether a bed and breakfast would be a form of
a room and board and the use of the private well.
The Hearings Officer found that the two uses - bed and breakfast and room and
board - were distinctly different.
Commissioner Luke said that on page 12, item E, the main different between
the room and board arrangement and a bed and breakfast appears to bet that the
occupancy is indicated as thirty days or less. Ms. Smidt said a bed and
breakfast would limit the stay and a room and board arrangement does not.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, June 28, 2010
Page 4 of 7 Pages
Commissioner Luke asked what the original plan was. The time limit of 30
days is the issue. Ms. Craghead asked if this would qualify for guests fewer
than thirty days. Ms. Smidt said that initially they did not specify limits or
meals or similar issues. It was because of staff's change that they submitted
additional comments.
Commissioner Baney said they had originally requested four rooms usage but
reduced it to three. Commissioner Luke stated that three rooms are allowed in
other zones. Ms. Smidt said that there is no limit on room usage currently. Ms.
Craghead said you can allow uses in a specific zone as long as it is not found in
other zones. Commissioner Luke understands that the words "bed and
breakfast" had been taken out of the EFU zone language.
Commissioner Baney said that the original application was for four rooms and a
room and board arrangement with no specified time frame. Commissioner
Unger asked where room and board is discussed in the Code. Commissioner
Luke said that there seems to be no clear definition in State law or Code of
room and board. Commissioner Unger wants to be fair to the applicants. Ms.
Smidt agrees that staff feels the same way.
Ms. Craghead stated that they have to decide if this is a bed and breakfast or
better fits the definition of room and board. Then they have to decide which it
is, based on a previous Board decision regarding a miniature golf course in
Sunriver. Can it stand alone as a room and board, or is it part of a bed and
breakfast.
On page 5, second paragraph down, Chair Luke said the idea is to determine if
it is specifically excluded. Ms. Smidt stated that a similar use can be
authorized, if not listed specifically in any zone. It seems that a bed and
breakfast can be a room and board, but a room and board can't be a bed and
breakfast, but not having a definition makes this confusing.
Applicant Terry Anderson testified at this time. He presented a statement and
some other documents. (A copy is attached for reference.)
The shared well agreement issue has been satisfied by the two parties. He
explained how they wished to share their property through a room and board
arrangement.
He included a clarification of the well use agreement, which is signed and
notarized.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, June 28, 2010
Page 5 of 7 Pages
Commissioner Luke asked what Mr. Anderson wants to accomplish. Is it short-
term use or longer term? Mr. Anderson said it will probably be both. They are
expanding the operation of the facility for horses and want people to be able to
stay for that reason. They also need the use of ranch hands. People already
stay for a period of time to work with their horses and are not charged for this.
Commissioner Baney feels this is very thorough. It appears that there might
have been a mistake made and wants to find out whether he has been charged
unfairly. Commissioner Unger stated that this is a commercial activity on farm
land that involves farm activities, with guests staying an indeterminate amount
of time, with rooms being rented out and sharing meals.
Commissioner Luke said the original application was for room and board. He
asked if the criteria for that was addressed adequately. If the bed and breakfast
aspect was not involved, would the room and board been allowable. Ms.
Craghead stated that the applicant was asked to address the bed and breakfast
criteria based on the original application. There is nothing defined in room and
board that requires stays longer than thirty days. Little is defined in the law
regarding bed and breakfast.
Commissioner Luke asked if the Board could review the original application
and make a decision on it. Ms. Craghead said that they had to address the bed
and breakfast criteria but had not applied for that.
Ms. Craghead said that the Board has to address the bed and breakfast issue and
make a finding as to whether the Hearings Officer was correct. Commissioner
Luke said that it is clear they meant for it to be room and board.
Commissioner Unger stated that they have to come up with findings that clarify
this. He asked where room and board is defined. Commissioner Luke said that
dude ranches were established in Eastern Oregon through the legislature some
time ago, and feels that might have impacted this issue. The language was
changed at that time. Ms. Craghead said it was possibly changed in 1995. Ms.
Smidt indicated that it might have been changed even earlier than that.
Commissioner Luke asked Mr. Anderson if it is his intention to rent out rooms
for longer than thirty days and whether they would serve one or more meals
each day. Mr. Anderson replied that is the intent. Staff agreed.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, June 28, 2010
Page 6 of 7 Pages
Commissioner Luke asked if they rent out rooms for less than thirty days, is that
still room and board? Ms. Craghead said that the Board has to make a finding
in that regard.
Mr. Anderson said that the time could be shorter than thirty days but this is not
known yet.
Commissioner Baney stated that some people may not seek proper approval for
this kind of use, and thanked Mr. Anderson for doing the right thing.
Commissioner Luke asked if the hearing could be continued to Wednesday's
business meeting to clarify a few things and to allow the other two
Commissioners to review the documents.
The hearing was continued to 10 a.m., Wednesday, June 30, 2010.
6. Before the Board were Additions to the Agenda.
No other items were discussed.
Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 11:15 a. m.
DATED this 28th Day of June 2010 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
Dennis R. Luke, Chair
- a6~-41 -
Alan Unger, Vice Chair
ATTEST: ~i
Tammy Baney, Co missioner
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, June 28, 2010
Page 7 of 7 Pages
C E
% a { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest: Date:
Name IA -';-Z G'~
Address c~-r7
Phone #s c5
E-mail address ~Cfi~v
k~l_ 9- (f-
e I-- e tl elv~~ - e-- ~e-'
In Favor Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? [ElYes F]No
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Reducing Fees for Temporary
Restaurant Operators 50% for Fiscal Year 2010-
11.
* ORDER NO. 2010-03 8
*
WHEREAS, there are a number of community based events that are held throughout Deschutes County
each year that provide both economic as well as community benefit to the County; and
WHEREAS, these events are frequently serviced by temporary food vendors which must pay a fee and
pass an inspection to obtain a permit authorizing them to operate at such events within the County; and
WHEREAS, it has been requested by event organizers to reduce the temporary food vendor fee in order
to support community events during difficult economic times; and
WHEREAS, Deschutes County is working with the Department of Human Services Food borne Illness
Prevention Program workgroup to review and make recommendations on changes to ORS Chapter 624 relating
to temporary restaurants that will hopefully lead to a legislative fix concerning these fees and inspections; now,
therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY
ORDERS as follows:
Section 1. The temporary reduction of the fee for all temporary restaurant operators 50% during fiscal
year 2010-11 (July 1, 2010 - June 30, 2011).
Section 2. This temporary reduction will apply to temporary food service permits obtained at least
seven days prior to the event for events that occur during fiscal year 2010-11.
Section 3. Customers will receive a refund for temporary restaurant permits purchased before the date
of this order if the permit pertains to an event occurring during fiscal year 2010-11.
Section 4. For event occurring on July 1, 2011 and thereafter, the temporary food service permit fee
will revert back to the fees charged on June 30, 2010 unless the Board takes affirmative action.
Section 5. The County's general fund will provide revenue to Environmental Health to cover the lost
revenue due to reducing the temporary restaurant fee 50%.
PAGE 1 OF 2- ORDER NO. 20= @
Section 6. This Order becomes effective on July 1, 2010.
Dated this of , 20 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
DENNIS R. LUKE, Chair
ALAN UNGER, Vice Chair
TAMMY BANEY, Commissioner
PAGE 2 OF 2- ORDER No. 20-- @
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
FOR A LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE
THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
This is a public hearing on County File Number TA-10-2, an application proposing
amendments to the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, Title 17 of the Deschutes
County Code. The amendments would revise language in Sections 17.16.115 related
to performance standards for County roads and State highways.
The Board of County Commissioners will hear oral testimony, receive written
testimony, and consider the testimony submitted at this hearing. The hearing is also
being taped. The Board may make a decision on this matter today, continue the public
hearing to a date certain, or leave the written record open for a specified period of
time.
The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The staff will give a report on this
issue. We will then open the hearing to all present and ask people to present
testimony at one of the tables or at the podium. You can also provide the Board with a
copy of written testimony.
Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time at the Chair's
discretion. Cross-examination of people testifying will not be allowed. However, if any
person wishes ask a question of another person during that person's testimony, please
direct your question to the Chair after being recognized. The Chair is free to decide
whether or not to ask such questions of the person testifying.
Prior to the commencement of the hearing any party may challenge the qualifications
of any of the County Commissioners prejudgment or personal interest. This challenge
must be documented with specific reasons supported by facts.
Should any Commissioner be challenged, the Commissioner may disqualify himself or
herself, withdraw from the hearing or make a statement on the record of their capacity
to hear and decide this issue.
At this time, do any members of the Board of County Commissioners need to set forth
any information that may be perceived as prejudgment or personal interest?
I will accept any challenges from the public now.
(Hearing none, I will open the public hearing). STAFF REPORT
June 28, 2010 Opening Statement for TA-10-2 (Ord. 2010-014)
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
FOR A LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE DESCHUTES
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
This is a public hearing on County File Number TA-10-1, an application proposing
amendments to the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, Title 18 of the Deschutes
County Code. The amendments would revise language in Sections 18.04.030,
ci
18.116.030 and 18.124.060, related to
Tr -
,0.71 0, -f V I N Or- The Board of County Commissioners will hear oral testim6ny, -f receive written
testimony, and consider the testimony submitted at this hearing. The hearing is also
being taped. The Board may make a decision on this matter today, continue the public
hearing to a date certain, or leave the written record open for a specified period of
time.
The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The staff will give a report on this
issue. We will then open the hearing to all present and ask people to present
testimony at one of the tables or at the podium. You can also provide the Board with a
copy of written testimony.
Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time at the Chair's
discretion. Cross-examination of people testifying will not be allowed. However, if any
person wishes ask a question of another person during that person's testimony, please
direct your question to the Chair after being recognized. The Chair is free to decide
whether or not to ask such questions of the person testifying.
Prior to the commencement of the hearing any party may challenge the qualifications
of any of the County Commissioners prejudgment or personal interest. This challenge
must be documented with specific reasons supported by facts.
Should any Commissioner be challenged, the Commissioner may disqualify himself or
herself, withdraw from the hearing or make a statement on the record of their capacity
to hear and decide this issue.
At this time, do any members of the Board of County Commissioners need to set forth
any information that may be perceived as prejudgment or personal interest?
I will accept any challenges from the public now.
(Hearing none, I will open the public hearing). STAFF REPORT
S:\CDD\planning\Staff\Anthony\TA\TA-10-1 Hangar Parking & Site Plan Traffic Mitigation\BOCC Opening Statement
Legislative, TA-10-1.doc
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FOR A
LAND USE ACTION HEARING BEFORE
THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1. INTRODUCTION
A. This is a de novo hearing on the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's findings and
recommendations on conditional use permit CU-10-2.
B. The applicant requested room and board arrangements in the Exclusive Farm
Use zone. The review of this application is in response to the Board's decision
to initiate review of the request via Order 2010-032, which is based on Planning
staff recommendation.
C. This application was previously considered by the Hearings Officer after a public
hearing held on March 30, 2010. Evidence and testimony were received at that
hearing. The Hearings Officer apthe applicant's request.
D. The Board takes notice of the record below and includes that record as part of
the record before us.
II. BURDEN OF PROOF AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA
A. The applicants have the burden of proving that they are entitled to the proposal
sought.
B. The standards applicable to the application before us are listed in the Hearings
Officer decision. Copies of the Hearings Officer's decision are available on the
table near the door.
C. Testimony and evidence at this hearing must be directed toward the criteria, as
well as toward any other criteria in the comprehensive land use plan of the County
or land use regulations which any person believes apply to this decision.
D. Failure on the part of any person to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to
afford the Board of County Commissioners and parties to this proceeding an
opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of
Appeals on that issue. Additionally, failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or
other issues relating to the approval with sufficient specificity to allow the Board to
respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
III. HEARINGS PROCEDURE
A. Evidence to be reviewed by the Board.
The Board's decision on this application will be based upon the record before the
Hearings Officer, the Hearings Officer's decision, the Staff Report and the
testimony and evidence presented at this hearing.
IV. ORDER OF PRESENTATION
A. The hearing will be conducted in the following order.
1. The staff will give a report.
2. The applicant will then have an opportunity to offer testimony and evidence.
3. Proponents of the proposal then the opponents will then be given a chance
to testify and present evidence.
4. The applicants will then be allowed to present rebuttal testimony but may
not present new evidence.
5. At the Board's discretion, if the applicants presented new evidence on
rebuttal, opponents may be recognized for a rebuttal presentation.
6. At the conclusion of this hearing, the staff will be afforded an opportunity to
make any closing comments.
7. The Board may limit the time period for presentations.
B. If anyone wishes to ask a question of a witness, the person may direct the
question to the Chair during that person's testimony, or, if the person has already
testified, after all other witnesses have testified but before the Applicant's rebuttal.
The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the witness.
C. Continuances
1. The grant of a continuance or record extension shall be at the discretion of
the Board.
2. If the Board grants a continuance, it shall continue the public hearing to a
date certain at least seven days from the date of this hearing.
3. If, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Board leaves the record open for
additional written evidence or testimony, the record shall be left open for at
2
least seven days for submittal of new written evidence or testimony and at
least seven additional days for response to the evidence received while the
record was held open. Written evidence or testimony submitted during the
period the record is held open shall be limited to evidence or testimony that
rebuts previously submitted evidence or testimony.
4. If the hearing is continued or the record left open, the applicant shall also be
allowed at least seven days after the record is closed to all other parties to
submit final written arguments but no new evidence in support of the
application.
V. PRE-HEARING CONTACTS, BIASES, CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS
A. Do any of the Commissioners have any ex-parte contacts, prior hearing
observations; biases; or conflicts of interest to declare? If so, please state the
nature and extent of those.
B. Does any party in the audience wish to challenge any Commissioner based on ex-
parte contacts, biases or conflicts of interest?
(Hearing no challenges, I shall proceed.)
3
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: June 28, 2010
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Room and Board Proposed by Anderson (CU-10-2), Use Comparison
Below is a table that depicts the difference between a "bed and breakfast inn" as defined by
County Code and "room and board arrangement" as conditionally allowed under state statute in
the EFU zone.
Bed & Breakfast Room & Board
Maximum number of allowed
8 5 unrelated
persons
Maximum number of allowed
3 -
rooms
Maximum number of days to
30 consecutive
rent
Allowed meals to be served
Breakfast only
Owner-occupied residence
Yes
Note: Under the "Room and Board" column, the dashes indicate there is no known limitation in
county code or state statute for the particular criterion under review.
Quality Services Perfonned With Pride
Good Morning! June 28, 2010
Deschutes County Commissioners, Chairman Luke, Vice Chairman Unger, Commissioner Baney,
Re: CU-10-2 -Appeal of Hearings Officer decision
I want to thank the commissioners for the opportunity to review the issues of
Conditional Use application CU-10-2 by reviewing the decision of the hearings officer.
The hearings officer concluded a reasonable decision but was not based on what our
original application and intentions were when we applied for the CU-10-2 application.
But first I would like to review briefly the basis and history of our application:
We have a home constructed on almost 40 acres. We have irrigation on 38.5 of those acres. We
moved onto our property in 1998 and constructed our home over the next 3 years. Our
property is fenced with 5 strand horse/livestock fencing, electrified. We initially had cattle and
horses on our property. The cows were escape artists! We now have horses. Candice and I have
a love of horses and conduct many activities around there use. We were Reserve Deputies in
Multnomah County and performed patrols on horseback. We raised our 6 children on this
property and have our youngest still at home. Raising our children around animals has been
very positive.
This portion of Plainview Road is a county Maintained (no outlet) gravel road. The County does
an excellent job maintaining this road both in summer and winter.
The neighborhood consists of (7) larger land parcels of over 20 acres with only ours and a small
5 acre Alpaca Operation adjacent to our property in use as farming or ranching. The other
parcels have either too much surface rock and/or have not been farmed in the last 10 years.
The remaining (8) parcels range in size between (5) acres to just over (7) acres in size. They are
typical country properties while only (2) of the parcels have a couple horses for recreational
use.
Two (2) individuals from our neighborhood objected to our application. Mr. Seidler objected
based on a shared well issue. This issue has been resolved with an agreement for us to vacate
the use of that well. We will be using our Ag Well for domestic use which I contacted the
Deschutes County Water Master who said that this was allowed without a permit. Mr. Seidler
no longer objects and has stated that he supports our application.
The second objection was by the Tomjacks who own (2) second homes in our neighborhood.
They stated that the road was inadequate and that property values would be diminished. They
provided no evidence of either and the County Road Department stated the road was more
than adequate. The hearings officer thought that teenage drivers and the family use of the
property would have a far greater impact than our proposal.
The Hearings officer found only (2) Major concerns regarding our application, otherwise we had
met all other conditions of approval.
The (2) major issues that the hearings officer raised; the Bed & Breakfast criteria of our
application and the Shared Well Issue.
The shared well issue has been resolved by a monetary agreement and our vacating the
use of the shared well.
The initial application we made was for a Room and Board Arrangement not a Bed and
Breakfast. The Bed and Breakfast restricts us from providing housing for ranch help while we
further develop our horse facility. We also felt that we could provide for student housing and
the needs of others whom might need temporary, longer term housing such as individual in
transition moving to Central Oregon who may or may not have animals and others that may be
here for seasonal work. Other uses may be for individuals bringing horses for extended stay use
of our house and ranch property.
I would ask that the Commissioners view our application as a Room and Board
Arrangement as provided in Chapters 18.16 EFU-TRB
Chapters 18.16.030 T
OAR-660-33-120
And without criteria provided section 18.128.320 Bed and Breakfast Inn or the
conditions provided by the hearings officer that makes the Room and Board Arrangement look
and feel like a Bed & Breakfast Inn.
Terry & Candice Anderson
18540 Plainview Road
Bend, Or 97701
Candice Anderson
From: Terry Anderson [terryander@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 9:04 PM
To: Candice Anderson
Subject: Fw: WELL AGREEMENT CU10-2 AND ANDERSON R&B APPL.
On Thu, 6/17/10, ray seidler <rayseidleraAsn.com> wrote:
From: ray Seidler <rayseidler@msn.com>
Subject: WELL AGREEMENT CU10-2 AND ANDERSON R&B APPL.
To: Cynthia smidt@co.deschutes.or.us
Cc: "Terry Anderson" <terryander@a yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, June 17, 2010, 7:36 PM
This is fine, are you going to send it onto Cynthia?
On Thu, 6/17/10, ray seidler <ravseidletf&msn.com> wrote:
From: ray seidler <rayseidler@msn.com>
Subject: TERRY, DRAFT OK? WELL AGREEMENT CU 10-2 AND ANDERSON B&B APPL.
To: "Terry Anderson" <terryander@yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, June 17, 2010, 6:38 PM
JUNE 18, 2010
TERRY, CYNTHIA,AND DAVE:
I WRITE TO LET INTERESTED PARTIES KNOW THAT TERRY ANDERSON AND I RAY SEIDLER
HAVE REACHED AN AGREEMENT OVER THE SHARED WELL ISSUES I HAVE BEEN CONCERNED
WITH.
ON JUNE 18 (FRIDAY) WE ANTICIIPATE HAVING SIGNATURES IN PLACE THAT WILL PROVIDE
FOR THE ANDERSON'S TO VACATE USE OF THE "SHARED" WELL LOCATED ON MY PROPERTY.
THEREFORE, AFTER SIGNATURES ARE IN PLACE, I WILL NO LONGER OPPOSE THE ROOM &
BOARD APPLICATION OF TERRY AND CANDICE ANDERSON.
SNCERELY,
RAY SEIDLER
CLARIFICATION
OF
WELL USE, PAYMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
DATE June 17, 2010
RECITALS: The Well Use, Payment, and Maintenance Agreement executed July 17, 1997
was recorded in Deschutes County Records at Vol 452, Pages 834-838. The Owners
referred to as Parcel Owner #1 (Terry and Candice Anderson) wish to clarify that Owners
of Parcel #1 relinquish (vacate) all ownership, use, and maintenance of said well.
AGREEMENT: Any ownership rights and obligations of owner #1 is relinquished to Owner
#3, whose real property is described as Parcel #3 of Partition No 1995-35, Recorded in
Deschutes County Records (also known as Tax Map 15-11-34D, Tax Lot 200) as modified
and recorded in document 2009-34868.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this clarification of Well Use, Payment,
and Maintenance Agreement, the date and year first above written.
PARCEL #1 OWNERS
Terry And son
~ ~"Aiv 4 1),
Candice Anderson
STATE OF OREGON, County of Deschutes, ss: f7-
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of June, 2010 by
TERRY ANDERSON
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires: M ~,Y GN Z~j -2-013
STATE OF OREGON, County of Deschutes, ss:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I day of June, 2010 by
CANDICE ANDERSON
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires: P'1A✓C--k Z~~ Zbl 3
OFFI IAL SEAL
ANDRE' L PERKS
COMMISSION NO R4~3D7828
COMMISSION IXPIRES MAR 27 2013
IY
W
a
W
0
z
a