Loading...
2014-452-Minutes for Meeting August 27,2014 Recorded 9/4/2014 DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS f NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK CJ 2O14`452 connlssloNERS ' JOURNAL 09/04/2014 04:44:26 PM 1111111111111111 00 ❑ Z� oe " < 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 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2014 Commissioners' Hearing Room-Administration Building- 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Anthony DeBone and Alan Unger. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; David Doyle, John Laherty and Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Susan Ross and James Lewis, Property &Facilities; Nick Lelack, Cynthia Smidt, Lori Furlong and John Griley, Community Development; two representatives of the Sheriffs Office; and ten other citizens. No representatives of the media were in attendance. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN INPUT 3. Before the Board was Consideration of Second Reading by Title Only, and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-021, a Sunriver Plan Amendment from Forest District to Utility District. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 27, 2014 Page 1 of 13 Cynthia Smidt gave a brief overview of the item. The word `utility' was left off but this has been added. UNGER: Move second reading by title only. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Chair Baney conducted the second reading by title only. DEBONE: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-021. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was Consideration of Second Reading by Title Only, and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-022, a Sunriver Plan Amendment from Forest District to Utility District. Ms. Smidt explained there are no changes from the first reading. UNGER: Move second reading by title only. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Chair Baney conducted the second reading by title only. DEBONE: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-022. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 27, 2014 Page 2 of 13 5. Before the Board was Consideration of First and Second Readings by Title Only, and Adoption by Emergency of Ordinance No. 2014-024, Amending Deschutes County Code 2.37, Public Contracting Code. Susan Ross explained that in the past few legislative sessions, changes were made to State Contracting Code, which is then followed by the County. The County has to be at least as restrictive but can institute other changes. She has coordinated with other departments in this regard. They cleaned up errors and references that do not apply. The main change is on page 4, regarding competitive sealed proposals and how a committee is appointed to review them. This is not allowed since it is a low- bid process and discretion is not permitted. On page 5, the contract amount allowed by ORS has increased to $10,000. Anything under $10,000 can be directly awarded without solicitation. On page 7, under 080(a), the citation language is not correct. Under (e), it talks about design-builder methods, and criteria can change, so it should just refer to State law. On page 8, it reiterates the contract amounts. Above $10,000, there are other processes to follow. Commissioner Unger asked about the model rules. Ms. Ross said these are the ORS established by the State. Dave Doyle added that they are found in the OAR's as generated by the Attorney General, and are the basis of the ORS rules. Ms. Ross said this change will bring the County into compliance. DEBONE: Move first and second readings by title only of Ordinance No. 2014-024, declaring an emergency. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Chair Baney conducted the first and second readings by title only, declaring an emergency. UNGER: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-024, by emergency. DEBONE: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 27, 2014 Page 3 of 13 VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 6. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on Document No. 2014-482, the Deschutes County Community Development Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual. Nick Lelack gave a brief overview, acknowledging the help of County Counsel and the Sheriff's Office. A PowerPoint presentation was then given (a copy of which is attached for reference.) Lori Furlong said the manual included good ideas that were never implemented. Some items were removed if not practical or appropriate. Others were updated to include warnings prior to a citation, as they spend a great deal of time working with citizens to reach compliance. The Sheriff's Office issuing warnings has been an effective tool. Most citations are removed since citizens usually will comply at that time. Injunctions have also been included formally in the manual, and the County has adopted language on who can issue citations. Code enforcement works well with State agencies to protect the rivers and the land. Sometimes it is more appropriate for another agency to enforce a problem. Mitigation sometimes works as well. There can also be a lien placed against the property if it gets to that point. The issue is getting more complex over time. There are a few core issues that the public does not like about the policy, such as the allowable timeline and complaint process. Commissioner DeBone asked when the manual was established. Ms. Furlong said it was adopted in 1996 after the involvement of citizens and various County departments. Commissioner DeBone asked who relies on the manual. Ms. Furlong stated that some citizens have asked for copies, and many jurisdictions have used it to develop their own manual. The Oregon Code Enforcement Association uses a variation of Deschutes County's manual widely. Mr. Lelack said there needs to be consistency and predictability for all parties. The manual helps with that. John Griley spoke about the changes to date. He said they have reviewed the core enforcement procedures, addressing questions and concerns. He developed a decision matrix for reference, and referred to a presentation (a copy of which is attached). Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 27, 2014 Page 4 of 13 He said there is no mechanism to act without a formal complaint. The complainant cannot be anonymous, but some are concerned about ramifications of complaining. Compliance is voluntary and might take longer because of this. Some feel the program should be more punitive. Another issue involves penalties and the amount of the fines. Some people feel that certain or all permits should be restricted if a property is already under a code complaint. The program is citizen complaint driven, and they cannot be anonymous. The County emphasizes voluntary compliance, which requires some flexibility. Citations become a compliance tool rather than punitive. The desired outcome is to resolve the problem. Sometimes, although rarely, this outcome cannot be reached and the courts have to be utilized. He spoke with representatives of other Code enforcement agencies and pooled the information gathered. Most of these agencies were similar in population. He also checked with the other local counties and cities to see how they handle these issues. What they learned is some jurisdictions are similar, especially regarding voluntary compliance and flexibility in timing. They differ in complaint policy; some will take anonymous complaints or will try rigorously to provide more anonymity to complainants. Some use staff- initiated complaints. The biggest difference was in the penalty policy. Some pursue greater fines for repeat or continuing violations. Staff in some areas can cite, while Deschutes County works with the Sheriffs Office. Some sanction violators through an administrative process and not through the courts. Mr. Griley said the manual does not preclude them from using an administrative process if appropriate. He asked if the Board feels they should be allowed to accept anonymous complaints, and whether they should they be more punitive; or should there be more emphasis on sanctions and timelines. He asked if the Board feels fines should differ or be progressive; and if permits should be restricted if the property is already in Code enforcement. This language has been carried over from the previous manual, but it takes a text amendment to do formally adopt and use it. Otherwise, it should be removed from the manual. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 27, 2014 Page 5 of 13 Chair Baney asked how much of an issue this has been. Mr. Lelack stated that it is a small issue overall, but can be a big issue for just a few properties. He surveyed other jurisdictions on this, and this information has been made available in the Board's packet and to the public. He said staff has not proposed any policy changes in the manual; all have been carried forward. Their questions are in regard to procedures, not policy. Staff will open a case if they discover a violation in their normal course of work, if a safety or health hazard. However, they don't go out looking for problems. Occasionally staff will handle the citation if they need to protect an individual. The complainant's information is generally not made available to the public until the case is closed. There were comments from Matt Day and Mary Ann Moore previously submitted that are part of the file. Commissioner Unger asked if someone calls in a complaint rather than coming in person, whether staff fills out the form. Mr. Griley stated they could do this over the phone, or it can be done through a letter or e-mail. Commissioner Unger wanted to be sure there are different ways for individuals to initiate a complaint. Mr. Lelack said the form is available on line. At this point, citizen input was taken. Steven Hultberg asked about the issuance of land use permits. He feels this is problematic and may prevent someone from moving forward, but it could be the complaint may not have enough basis. He does not see this addressed in State law. The County has to issue a final permit in a specific timeframe as well. This is a significant consideration. There are other mechanisms that might be more appropriate. Mary Ann Moore of Sisters submitted testimony in writing, and stated that her view is to support the compliance issue before a new development permit can be issued. The complaint is active but just had not been codified. There are often pre-conditions for developers and the County should not look the other way. This has been done in writing, such as maintaining the 65% open space. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 27, 2014 Page 6 of 13 Regarding Shevlin Park development, at some point they may want to develop part of the required open space. She does not think this should be allowed. Or, perhaps it is attractive for in-fill development. This is an example of why this should be in Code. This is not just speculation but has happened here. The Code complaint should run with the land regardless of the name of the owner or a sale. It must be enforced or it creates problems with neighbors or unwanted development. There need to be orderly rules for development and this should be in Code. Eleven counties responded to this inquiry and eight of them do. Only one allows a new permit if there is an unrelated, unresolved Code issue. She urged this be added to Code, similar to the Multnomah County one. Moey Newbold reiterated that it is appropriate for landowners to be in compliance before new permits are issues. Andy High of COBA (Central Oregon Builders' Association) said he understands that this has to do with a pending violation. There may be no basis for the complaint but it could hold up the permit. He agrees it may conflict with. State law, but if a neighbor does not like the new development, a complaint without basis could hold up work. A permit is needed for a water heater or other small changes as well. There may be no proof of the violation, but it would take time to resolve. This should not be an issue for all when it has been a problem for just a few. He feels this language should be removed from the manual. Paul Lipscomb of Sisters stated that he is shocked to hear a lawyer and developer suggest there is something wrong with following rules and regulations. Rules and regulations need to be respected. He thanked the Board for the principle of voluntary compliance, but they need to remember that total compliance doesn't work with human beings. There needs to be a carrot and a stick. He is a retired judge and knows that voluntary compliance won't work in a courtroom, not even with judges. On a national level it is not realistic to do this with businesses. Developers know this and want other developers to have to comply. Doing less gives the non-compliant developer an edge. It may not take a Code change to gain additional approvals from the County, but Marion and Multnomah counties have good language in place in this regard. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 27, 2014 Page 7 of 13 William Kuhn said that he has been trying to help the Board adhere to Goal 5 commitments. He appreciates the comments in favor of the text amendment. As law abiding public, if he asks to buy a property that is buildable, it should be buildable. If he had known years ago that the County would ignore the plat map and a homeowners' agreement between parties that he has struggled with, and that the County would twist and turn everything in favor of the other party so they can harass him, he would have moved elsewhere. A flexible timeline should not be for years. There is something wrong with this. A text amendment is needed for this problem. He is appalled that someone would bend over backwards to allow someone else to violate law. There should be respect for the law. If a contractor can't measure distances or read a map that violates requirements, there is a problem. Some people don't adhere to regulations. Law abiding people are asking for this. Otherwise, he will want to get out of here. Bill Roble of the Central Oregon Association of Realtors said that he would agree with many speakers today if there was evidence of a serious issue. As he recalls from previous staff reports, the number of Code enforcement issues that end in a citation is about 1%. This change is a draconian step for a problem that does not really exist, and may have unintended consequences. There may be serial Code violators but also some citizens who make an innocent mistake. The County has an admirable record of handling these complaints. He recommends this provision be removed from the manual. Nunzie Gould said she filed a Code complaint in May 2013 and has not received a written reply. She is upset and spent a lot of money on pursuing Code complaints. Public safety also relates to the mental health of the community. She cares about her community and wants to be civil with neighbors, but in her view, the County is the fox guarding the hen house. This is why a text amendment is needed. For the few that are offenders, it is needed. It appears that land use is a lesser priority over other offenses. It is quite complicated and plays in many realms of health and safety, including environment, traffic and others. Within the policy there is a lot of latitude on which complaints will be followed up on. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 27, 2014 Page 8 of 13 She also read `reasonable time frames', which is not defined. She does not know whether her complaint has been resolved. If an issue is not significant to the County or a priority, some may never get resolved. There needs to be some consideration that violations should not be ignored. There are 85 occurrences of the word `may' in the manual. This provides a lot of latitude. "Must" only occurs six times. The reason this has come up is that people want the process tightened up. She has heard a change of zoning is not a development issue because nothing changed on the land itself. She feels this is a land use action and should fall within this text amendment. Therefore, if someone is going to rezone land, this should be weighed in the permit process. The behavior of an individual regarding a certain property also needs to be considered on other properties that person has. If they are in Code violation elsewhere, that needs to apply to any others. The dots need to be connected. She feels voluntary compliance has some merit, but enforcement staff is not funded sufficiently and two of them are volunteers. She usually cannot reach those people if she wanted to. The Solid Waste Department is prepared to do this, but she is not sure how this is being funded for CDD. The document still needs more work, and the land use component should be a big part of it. She noted that Risk Management event permits also do not go through CDD and many of those get approved. She feels there is a crescendo of these numbers over previous years. Mr. Lelack said there has a lot of correspondence with Ms. Gould over the years, and apologized if one of her letters was not resolved. He stated that there have been questions about the text amendment, and his interpretation of this is finding someone guilty of a violation, and just the filing of a complaint should not stop the permit process. He can check with other counties as to whether this is a big issue there. Mr. Griley provided on paper some statistics on the effectiveness of their policies. Chair Baney asked about the Risk Management permit process, such as for events, and whether this is part of the CDD process. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 27, 2014 Page 9 of 13 Laurie Craghead said there will be work done on this, but Risk Management permits in particular are not land use decisions and those uses are permitted. outright. She has been supportive of holding permits in abeyance but this needs clarification. If a use is permitted outright, a permit is not required, especially on farm use properties. The new use needs to be compatible. The other issue is the timeframe, and there is a 150-day issue to consider. Other concerns from County Counsel are the unintended consequences. A use permitted outright cannot be held up in this way. The Board closed the oral testimony but kept the written testimony open for seven days, and will deliberate on manual in the near future. 7. Before the Board was Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2014-462, Amending an Improvement Agreement between Deschutes County and Weston Investment Co., LLC for the Overnight Lodging Units at the Tetherow Destination Resort. Ms. Craghead said this was held over from Monday's meeting to allow receipt of a letter from Wells Fargo. There has been one change in section 3, regarding site plan numbers since there was language about having a new site plan. This same correction is in section 2. All documents are ready and the agreement needs signatures today. UNGER: Move approval of Document No. 2014-462. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. Commissioner DeBone thanked the Dog Control. Board of Supervisors volunteers for their difficult work. DEBONE: Move approval of the Consent Agenda. UNGER: Second. Minutes of Board Commissioners'd of Commissioners Business Meeting Wednesday, August 27, 2014 Page 10 of 13 VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items 8. Board Signature of Document No. 2014-426, a Deschutes County Sheriff s Office Contract for the Purchase of Vehicles 9. Board Signature of Document No. 2014-442, a Restrictive Covenant to Allow a Building Setback Exception Adjacent to a County-owned Surface Mine Property 10. Board Signature of Document No. 2014-451, Amendment #2 to the Intergovernmental Agreement between Wellness and Education Board of Central Oregon and Deschutes County Health Services 11. Chair Signature of Document No. 2014-461, a Funds Transfer Agreement between Deschutes County and the Federal. Highway Administration for the Payment of Deschutes County's Share of the Project Costs for the Skyliners Road Project 12. Board Signature of Document No. 2014-458, a Notice of Federal Interest for Sisters Clinic Property 13. Board Signature of Document No. 2014-472, a Bargain and Sale Deed for Approximately 0.82 acres to ODOT for a Right-of-Way at Wickiup Junction 14. Board Signature of Document No. 2014-473, an Acceptance Deed for a Temporary Construction Easement on Skyliners Road from Tad Hodgert 15. Board Signature of Letters Appointing Stan Robson, Carolyn Airriess, Monica Rendon, Samuel Davis, and Donald Knowles to the Deschutes County Dog Control Board of Supervisors for terms through June 30, 2016 16. Board Signature of Letter of Termination to Patricia Moore from the Deschutes County Dog Control Board of Supervisors. 17. Approval of Minutes: • Natural Resource Protection Performance Update of August 12, 2014 Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 27, 2014 Page 11 of 13 CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 18. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District for Two Weeks, in the Amount of$20,073.58. DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 19. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District for Two Weeks, in the Amount of$6,295.79. DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 20. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County for Two Weeks, in the Amount of $3,735,329.12. DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 27, 2014 Page 12 of 13 21. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA None were offered. Being no other items brought before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m. DATED this '' Day of I'�' /J��� 2014 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissions s. Tammy Baney, Cha. Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair ATTEST: G ""_--r (6��J Alan Unger, Commissioner Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 27, 2014 Page 13 of 13 (ti.. ,........, a) 4-1 ca -a Q p 41 CZ ali C duo a ,cro ra... .. ra ,-. 0 c J�,TY V N 0 0o i•• to a ciou 10. `O i = c a Ste° W � a W � w 8 -0 0 a E II , O LI) CL g g s,,. s Oa AU E >4 8 V •SIM 0 OM 4,.. ."i (11 'I, a L 3 CD= a) c V ea 0 2 ci lin -0 CL CU W L. C +/ 3 r0 Id, a) U X U .=. a) o p z a 0. L os _ •- �.. o>4. - V C • •- = 0 O O ++ a a) 3 ••- 0. U 0 cu ...... W a c o 6 CU 0 os oC ,0 c 'gin•c a u -0 • • v) ••— au RI LU o '� Z p V LID -0 •- V V o o 0 0 m o V m .• CO 0. CO 0 • r ,„'P ,...--,...•,i '( W 1 U c/) -+ a) c CO "0 co ? C O fa a--+ C co Q U U +.•+ Q., ate, La n E c O O N =6 N b.0 U Q Q 0 = N CO }' N - C "Q CD cI n Ov o 0. �■■I U ,") CO p v •t O — t� p tZ0 >, VI '� o o —ra, C •- •a) - a o_ cn o •ID ." o- o a v CU E o CU al CL /� W v 0 v Q ate--+ L N _c c •-- U a-'+ bA O S a--' N O O �: c L .+ t aJ Q). w O aD U c O s O •- 0. • � � In N c U •E MUM aJ (/) N a) `�ella (an CIO U -0 0 CU 0 ..-P = Ci)• • 4„,, U •• . E U U Cr a� CD s. 0u = v, M 0 O vi _C " -0 _C a - w 't3 thl •0 Q s— a., 0 • a.., .1-' O •— QP V9 p .2 5 _c c U V V •-■ - V a-+ •� i. by +, N — • •�•, O l • � � a'~ . • •5 . U a O • • • • 'd' 4 1 '-I R6 N CO cli J CU 2 C -C M 0 - r-I 2 . N IA >1 i N d3 U1 -0 N I-1 a) c •- 2 „� E V N °- c� 0 >- 06 a. •I LL U Cl) so PIZ .. o °� `� i a 4.1 CA a) s o ,0 C O al N Q o CU L C 0 •- c CU CO 0. kAti) 0 CD "0 Qa •- L C O + �••� p= ii U O > 0 0. MI •- � CQ o < Q o 0 o C] CO V 0 0 to 0 U U • • • • r—...% C a) U -o O c,n s... C f6 C CO Q (o O N VI +-1 cn a1 •5 cn co co 11° C Qa m +, = -C P 9— a' as 'O O N co "a N O — ••— v) CJ0 .5 a1 O .LZ o O N c N co Q v -0 CO C13 a1 C co v) O N O v.� - 4- C f6 •_ v ) O L cu • 1-_, r E 4-1 O c C U •i a., 1 — c 0l a) - as % •O •— `~ O O woocc VS O � ( 1- E p ca +- U a, C C C WW1 N p i +, L OA • • +-+ t/) U as aj z = y—. C c v, . . E Q c U 0 = O p 0 C -0 p p .0 U im cu aJ + p p 0 0 C Q v m E co � � � -D �" >` LA 0 Wu � •• a) o i •� '? x ± C FRB C O a) o v a) _E c OA co ca — �. > O : 1 = QJ •0- Li ; a� c -0 W _N ,� l ..r C Q.E C:1 (1) C O co ca • _ C 0 'v► c A0 VU C u s- CDC V z .- V) = 0 Or -0 0 _0 CI, • • 0 • CIA 'S 1:10 o � ;ELI 111114 t1141 ctt >41 • >11'1 r1101) CU "514) 41111 CU � V CD 411 IV "Zoini% w 'S CD Cg 1 ' CO C 4--+ o ;114 ro E a) a) U I. >1.11 C11.01 a) = � o E i4 ~ `~ Eil /4 C >im a Z ° a)>m u u .....= V 2 J a) — E o W J a › c = A a a 00W a • ,,„ W c — o E —W Z8ZiO .S a 0 6L1 immli < cn Q V CC >m E.* 0 .1 17- Imme "t3 Q CA w 2 Zcu c a Q Q Q W L X V (..) U an a) V Z (A pi g vi I- a O O � 2 CI Tall W Q W Z V N a > J � Z _ a � W 0 44 1,--0 2 z O a a Z a Z W Q � � 0 2 � 2 CIIIMIll CL O 2 2 CriNZ p4 o >i- ce z ict 0 zr 0 . WZE- ZZcoOU ~ J CA PRI z o Z . . o �J Z > ti 44 CIO • • • • • • 1 0 gem 1..J r■ - .- = C a o E Mx= U) CU o E 0 Qfp■— C .p r.T* Wm Owl PO w E ,= D CL VI) cu O E 7 to •— +�.+ O CU - = C V •— CD — •- .w 15 •- ca v GJ In!MI MCI E �` °5. .� A ° "� 0 V + v ,_ ■� 7• _ co tap . 7- O = 5 Cili) o O A 2 i V o • 3 ° 0 p o > w _ a a E — cv 1=1 a o. 4 > ° a° W o '> a .L CD E 2 CU 3 C O s •E *, u EL ._ •- i :_ 0. 0 Es! ry a s ESE © ' IJ Q .fi E o }' o i o 0 k 8 • 0 • • • , , '""'"'1. •("IN,• 0 a rin R3 — CO = 0 •0 C 0 b.0•Z .- O a.. C u Q .�CO) C ° a 114 Pli= >. v o ;170 CU L ,- cu VI C 0 ,�° a) Iv.� 0- w,co — CU Jimi 4o.1. a.) c) a) 3 o O 3 IA s ‘Iml = .4... cu 0 " •I■■I i• �O C • C 0 U CI = s 0. cif can CD 'v `n ' o CU C isCU . PIP CUe4 4:1) fQ •2 ++ 121 C CD 0 ou I CI •- o V — \� •— 7ci -c _In tf) cu g 0- (a.1) �" 4C C '� 0 O ro ii•C Q = 2 4-1 2 '_ . = . .veri k (3) (/)a 4,,, :"_1 CJ V) D 0 r_. o E -o 0., O O c E U ±-+ U CO it ct, >1. t, u ._ —0 a-) r" a Li C U • r...� '�' U - 0 °' O Cali 0 +, o CL C = 0- w � � C . -� �, = Z o 4 c 0 0 0 Q -0 ro -0 z0 to r...0 a o o o • ;II=N4 2 c� °v n ' 4.—J 1 71 Ct 0 U c .J Q) U c co L_ •_ QJ S.. CNI L) ru it >I L (1) QJ a--, _o E V 4 U J O _c cn a, +' C C ■ pima' 0 c 73 O ifi j all CL 0 D It) 7:5-- v) o W '( - � 2 r,0. co v)� i. , w r,... w u Z ES ° w to .0 -c c Qw V) -I-1 CZ -o c6 CD -0 = �.. I CL • O U El O E 1_ ..0 (:) ;••=4 (J') C1) c./) U 2 Citir5 0 U CI El r----N 4- O >. 0 CU au -I-) E ID -0 +-I � ate+ O a) (1) w E cso v) •- 75 C -a E c „._it O ti) v)_a Q V 1 CU a) —a, c "CMII) V) Q -I-0 O O • ri a a _ .0 Clo L- a)� 0 ( . . 14- 4 � a) -' O a) 4-; >• O CUM" U cu v7 au -0 0a •� O c E a) '— E 2 X a Z� .� O V),„.% . 0- C ■ r1 >m n CO tu0 (/) 2 w ` 4_ ;-11 I- O 14') C:C V) > 0_ i 71 71 z CIC5 W a CI r- 141' -• ) CA -E :Li U • • CD i nimi a as CA cu 44-+ �` L � Q 2 o ... CI) a) .c c • Ilk tti MO Z 4-11 CU a E i pia W ._ 49 3 ._ - fhi. -. C Q 0.0 ° •� CO y1 , 1 C C -D C ._ . s. CD 0 Ca U ca C13 CD dA 'i 4A "0 i = GJ t '... .0 CU 0 •_ Q u a, a s CS •!mg a)1 Ilimi ._ - - 0 � =Li a.; .0 }' a, 0 .0 CD Q U LI) = .0 0 t Q 3 C Ls) c cu . . .., ot cu 0 0 0 _ a ._ in ca +� a V V O CO rl N M te BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda enda Item of Interest ( L.X11MP �IA�., Date l �- g Name ',,, e �� WOelt Address 41) e 7 Phone#s E-mail address 5‘4AeY• 4,- cA.14,-- ■ U. • C - ___ In Favor Neutral/Undecided 2-4 Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? n Yes KJ No �v-«s e Q,' yZ{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING "' REQUEST TO SPEAK .--:,--C Agenda Item of Interest .0(- e 0 \ 5\C) \ I 1 Date 2,71 ] - Name Pcy-- ,'` \lq V C✓� Address C,\'\ P---t- ,.,(_, is 1_ ---s) Phone #s . !I 1 ---5 LC —GCDC)6 E-mail address U r C- J In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 'es No t 4 �,vv V 1 ` 1 t vTES % 1G/4":1: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest C o'Q., c \t fr\ - Date 8/2:4///. Name voe}-11 eit , -k{ Jc Cf✓ 0 -+Cam. Address DO Ski >O Phone #s ,(=-;21 ( _ ' _ E-mail address nYY0 07` V Y In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes n No E et a f { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest Date \eril I Name 1\h cin , Address (©ci C v 54- 4,44,41 97.70 Phone#s iS E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? n Yes No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest p Date___44)/(7/ Name PpLv ' ;Co 1/ Address 0 , Za,< LC' q c)(Q_ Phone#s ���( -3 " ��"�— r C (cei/ E-mail address du,)j,.._ /r Sc In Favor n Neutral/Undecided Li Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? nn Yes To 1 Es 1.'4.14,1 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING � �✓ REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest *‘, Date 2-41105 t2.7- Name 1) 1(1C.q,, ? k u L Address * 6 917.0e -V Phone#s E-mail address G t�� • e _ In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No u evi BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest (J Nth(:/Lk( Date '4> 67 11 1 Name 1 \1\ V,A.1 Address L C- AA) 0 Ado k V� }� �, a 7) Phone #s 9.A!r 5-15 2O(6 E-mail address k1'\ , war,(b 1 In Favor I I Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes iVNo '"z{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest -- ( �k� •� t 1 Date Name � . 6-,0/LA ..; _ ' Address ,I D .�n..) ,, I (),/ '(? 0 I Phone #s 9111- "/ iu 3 3 2 . E-mail rest --Y lark) `y, o" r (.J.. (0 1\0 ,... - . (` ).N ,?�,..,` ' ,,',` ^-Q n C r 1 sL rY Pt, < � m. , 7 In Favor Neutral/Undecidd Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No e c in m . 0 2 • -0 't i m ec ra W ai Cam? "i '8 2 fi g 1 oq c, c -0 ;' m 4 'v 4i •' •"r O r M0 c ? z as n a t.' © i c flLH UI d °� "., §a z to vi , 1 r , ..... 1 , A & 9 w Q fi. 1 t;,-. . - w is g ja . 04- / 4- Il = d ,. ..' 0, 2 it t$ v2 v 112 t , 4 e . . IlIhI gJk 2 4 c � � ro P 70 49. 4 u..._ , _ t . ., E v 46 i 't It tV 1 g c ;05' 6. 4, a �1Ii ! ifl b E 01 03 12 , � >ya b ti,i tj .S w 402 .4 � ° u t 12 t " µ r�r •ro ra 1 .21, 2 " E 1 ES al 1 A I PhJ. h •dfbhflh a . H 24 Vliv A ,. , ,. , .- . . .„,g. 4 ,,,, M 1 . § A .., .., t . v Ci �' ", ° E can r- t n U►vU I1) 44 . . 0 to c IrI4Jh1 I l ■ Z a i 0 . rhr r t4 g ` )> ,v , Y p. use ? iit)I t: c w 0. 2 q, ( ro f g 14 11 _ u. w+ + ru ` f 0' "' a C lei ' 0 '" - v i I � °° ' �" ' 3 Et li 0 a 04, Zj 'CS < 0a 5. 7 ,1 Z 0 ? il 212- 8w a 3 `` z* 144 .z 0. 0. , i .0.1 An, -7 � g eR r 1 i ; � _ � +� i a v 8, 1 . a--. c. c a �' ' ' " 0 ' ri 1 E4; c E i s. atn = / K 1 I !41.11 1 5 o. cr -,‹ ! V li, t 1 Lk)* I t p »g. 11 0 ;= ? b • d ..� ty j a ft. 0 SI rl '° a n ,. ft 3 it: or a ,o s m .. 44 i 6" i i '6 L II° ► X ac eD I- a IIIJI1IIuuJ 0 ; p 1111 wIt 6 k § ,t-o. 8V18 .- uf,$ N -3 E *-c 8 2 § 4 ' 1111 c 2 ' z ' a i 3 6 g i c , c 4 a 11IDH1410 JIIHH i ''' g il 4 2, 1..1 t ..4° , 26 E . 's - al � ,u 3 •5� 8 to 1 ° '"- ' iI Sr s9 I ;ALI 11 tai h1iUh .IQ••UhiiUfl1ih i11t [a to 1.)-- 0 4 1 2a -, b.) ..# I gig seg = -41 ,0 2t .g lat .cv . 1,,,-2 g E $ ' Itl g g34g . , 14: ea" i ''''' .6 '''' ' ' g g e f 4 EtvIt- 2 , 1 „4 .1 itit ' 4" 6 ' ro i 'l a ti 10 ,,s x c4, 2. , E .1.,. 5 ia, -o S 1 . * co 5,0_ -5 x, .5 c �i rvi 4 E iv .it a- Cop Z > C Q , 5 U i ni w a 4 W LI N w Ca yy e.i VI 0 i c 0 4 VI g . . . ,t, of crrv+ rt N m Pi o2 iZ2. q : . ., �' lijif ' RU _ . C ro GL fD �±04 3 j phi t UI. , , , t, , 4 ,... . gg g. 5 — s eS� -. ,..� C! .. 0 fir f fl g Y• a .•r p A w ° I:, -�v. s.., I & .r+ 4f G - rN i 7 g W' 0 'gy lb, , .,z- 1111 ° 0- k '0 -• i I W — — 0. 0 11) st -‹ El ft• f0 • 4" , ( .2., 0 ag,... 0 0 L, rD , n © fi $: 41 e> ro .i„ rr ro T % t o a g , % Q� ro 5 Is 2- N z = en K 5 n - Ci Hf • ik .I C3. in s. g g ro 0- 0.; , .0, ; C � ra �' < co o g a :LT gam. I, c ( ro 2r '2, n, o eL n> -. m a m y °+ S, ' ° '' 0 =00 m H r1. August 27, 2014 Dear Board of County Commissioners, I urge the County to formalize its longstanding policy obliging property owners to comply with county code BEFORE they can get a new development permit on the land in question. The county often requires developers to comply with certain preconditions before they get a permit. The issue before you is, if the developer doesn't comply with these requirements, should the county look the other way when the developer asks to do something new with the property? Or should the county enforce these requirements, like retaining 65% open space in a cluster development in perpetuity or until the land is brought into an urban growth boundary? You now have a perfect example of this unfolding, the proposed Miller cluster development near Shevlin Park. The developers are proposing to preserve 75%of the land for the development as open space in perpetuity. These are very reputable businesspeople, but even so, what if, in ten or 20 years,the developer comes on hard times? And there is a great deal of pressure to develop additional lucrative housing on this land? Or the county decides that the open space is the most logical place to do infill development? Clearly, building on this open space would violate the county's cluster development restrictions, which requires the developer to hold at least 65%of that land as open space. But without an enforcement mechanism that's formalized as part of county code, there's little resort but the legal system to prevent future policymakers from allowing a reversal of the open space commitment. This is a very real scenario with a precedent. I also urge you to include a statement that a code complaint should run with the land. Even if the owner changes the name of the owning entity of the property, or the property is sold, a development that is in violation of county code must be brought into compliance before any new permits are issued. When the county does not enforce what is required when a new development is approved, you create conflict among neighbors, false property values, unfair advantages for developers who don't comply, and a cynical citizenry who is more strongly inclined to oppose projects for fear they won't turn out to be what we're told they'll be. It comes down to simple fairness and orderly rules for development: if something is required as a condition of development,then this requirement should be enforced. And compliance can be evaded unless this policy is put into the county code. It's important to note that your Planning Department's research shows that of 11 counties responding, eight have such a formal policy in code, one is undecided, one has a hybrid policy, and only one allows a new permit on property with a code violation so long as it's unrelated to the new request. Please add the language on restricting development permits on properties with pending code violations to the county code. Please model this language on Multnomah County, which includes the provision that this policy applies to any permit approvals previously issued by the county: • 310NO COdc n an app ns. • The County shill not sl pC vc any '► Hestia' for a pmt or other aPPrOvslo InCl '!_g applications, for any privettf that is not in full-Com- pliance with all applicable provisions of the Milt- potash County, Land .Use Code. ttadloar any permit approvals prevtouslY.issucd;by the.County. A peamit. or other approval, lachng building permit. applica- tions, Way be- 'o zed if it results in.:rim..parcel coming into full compliance with all applicable pro- oftboldulinonnth.County Cam. Thank you for considering my views, Merry Ann Moore 69225 Hawksflight Dr. Sisters, OR 97759 FW Public comment on Code Enforcement Manual .txt From: Nick Lelack Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 5:45 PM To: John Griley; Lori Furlong Subject: FW: Public comment on Code Enforcement Manual Lori , John, I do not recall if I forwarded this message to you. Please create a record for the CE Policy and Procedures Manual update public hearing late next month, and include this email in the record. Thank you. Nick Lelack, AICP, Director Deschutes county community Development Department PO Box 6005 117 Nw Lafayette Bend, OR 97708-6005 Office: 541.385.1708 / Cell : 541.639.5585 / Fax: 541.385.1764 www.deschutes.org/cdd From: Matt Cyrus [mailto:Matt @aspenlakes.com] Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2014 12:59 PM To: Nick Lelack Cc: Matt Cyrus Subject: Public comment on Code Enforcement Manual To: Nick Lelack, community Development Director From: Matt Cyrus, President of Deschutes County Farm Bureau Re: Comments on Draft code Enforcement Manual I respectfully request that the new Code Enforcement Manual include provisions from DCC 19.12 (Right to Farm) ; especially with regard to DCC 19.12.130 and 19.12.140. Page 1 c 0 0 0 o� N -..,-, O C 0 . Yro o ° W E c 22 .Eo Z v O �+a N O 1y N ? 0 E C O a O °4 ry n z m az p 4 p w G v 8 a.. . 5 v A .a O a. o N d 8 p v a, - v 3 ° °c c v a▪ E •n E c° rn`° ° v p « ° ° Y 40 Q. '� o 8 a p a E ° `ti Y c a .3 c ❑ p p C y U ``tic o ,. 4 a ° a 3 ai c c w ❑ 3 a ° 3 p0 % ¢ a 'E o tr, o 4, ;� o a a. 8` v q a' v v a t o w d o a s a -E. b a a 4, .` o w o 1 v - y , b x .ys a a d 3 4 b w O . t o o n b n b 2 . ,. b 4 c a 41. 'ti p d o q a - a o - '0 o O 4 W U 9 c a Z L p C b 0.0 E ta 4 v C c i 4 t -6E- 8 ° G _ o a ti c °, 3 7. a •C C G v Q p O L 2 o y °e b a U . W ' C C w N D tea.p y , ❑ 2' h 3 3 C vi `E ' O O ti k a b '2 b O v , a .7 Cr • s ° ° ° r , ° ,, w o 5 ° E °` A .� o v a O r 0 t, ° - �. O °a a -h ❑ a o 3 a -- `2 o E v - a v • 5 Y a ,- d ° v v o Z c E o E ti 4 ..E - a e o V b -9- ',;!, '..: e a g v v d ° d q N ° y V a q w o y o°. o ° `b c c, a 2 a,•A a .c E c o q w ry C d D a N � q d C d C c k. ° N . N c o 26 a II a0y .d.. i C E ,, O . q h V a.n y- -- c 0 a c ;`. ° a d b tti v a a'1:s' c 0 4 $ W .�C W po b `,' 'ti b ~ g a C H 0 5 ,C, 0 a •a p b v a c ° N N b E. } C o C N -z j b 04 x fi C -r-0 n' Ory ti O C] v `c e w c ° a~ a v o v w o N -� o n .°c a v a v o n i 7 i w 2 a U ..9, ;F. , v ‘&' aT 3 -N Z b su. b c O r w vG L V 'a- t 8 h -0 � ^ E e a x a v C 3 v x d c o a -F„..' v t L b p .❑ ? -a d p C U b M a . t o ; W b a S' E q h b i ° v C a N 0 a U• ~ ~ c 3 ° = ' v o a Z a p a O b O Q 0 O c a C •° E c °• 4 9 4 W w a) G a ° s.1' p y >. E E ❑ a rn ¢ v a E 0-w ❑ E E -8 v a E a .,, o ° g ° a s m a ° ° 2 i w z a a `❑ 'a -8 o a o f o. D 9 m q a O a E C t r 4 a o . E o 0 E A o 3 a y a 0: a) Oc ° a C a a D L j � L.. O ti, Q a O m p` c o 'm A 5 ro o S E M. •n c E a a. c E '0 � ° a a •c 8 E o �+ = a a . m y 2 a s w ° % o ° N o a ° E c m q •g d h 7 a u a o a ° 8 E a F v O . o, -6,71,n- E'_' ti 'u' y T o w = a a486 -2, vi .h O 0 C N CO O S mti v a "> C o P' �, °� o O ti o U N °r v o $ " E o - a a 3 _ a r t m p ? j %) LA C 7 C C L' h . C G c N W ` P�„a cu , I � b` ❑ a O w t 'o -0 o' W; v r a° 1 ° o v m$ o ''t � o b E c d a d.4 v v m o u ._ mau E o v c m v o D o o H m c � .c m cri . a c a o � - � y , a , Ea.R g o EA , m a ? m 2 m C •on 2 m d a . 2j -§-' U t �ro a ° x r, $ u-M w 2 2 L I v ,a 21) i_,3 E `.12.7,-,F m o : i 0 E ” `v _ .° _ E GC • 4 s C V Z m m o O 7 w r, CB D o E P. co %. ° a?.-o a y S ❑ Q. m ° 3 E o E a E e c h o v a ° 4 w q c v a q ° c, o a $v no . a d o a v L. � 5c8 a c 'codtca3vw � aw-02 ,34 . C O 4 n o w x $ a ° o 4 v 'a�.Sy C a ti ,M1 !� a C° C v n d n ° a a d E o ❑ L u a .� C lc o n o o o ,o 3 a L� ° c ''Z'E r:' ° = ° v,° E v ° .o a.-Z-; E o b rn oi c v a y ti 4 a o m " , a o f } a z a a n, , 3 c t b b � 2 -13. k c -, °i o 0' m U ❑ °ti c C �o`i " ° c a a a p a o w a a tl d b a 4 N o v o `8 -E, o a a g a m E ° a n, o ,- ti d o N p a • N , ...-,O,�` a C p a-R a > C ti a ❑« O C `n v C N g a 0 `� ?.V p ❑--c- „”- .0 G U O ❑ y V -a ?.ti 4 4 c 2,-E W j °u ... ., --,t c a•C ° v n ¢a 0. 'm 4 - a ? -0 is ddcgZg� a 4a a o ° a a ° e a a ati h °' °' a v .n v c - a yK 2 N,,,L1', k v -0 a y a u •a o v Q 0 t a w• a ❑ y .c -c - E a c Q b:'�Q u C W p a ❑ N`ti.N a 0 v� V 4 V Cti' 4..; F- 40 n C x C A-9. "b 'C ti b U r.: b E v a 0 .0 M c '0 b a Q. 5 ❑ ' 5 4 E o d E ; 4 0 .o d 1 C ❑o a o, M"v^a 1,2v c� w s 01 C . a u ❑ E o ? w a §o a V b. ¢ y o r v .0 , p a a$ ni .. a 5 . 0 m t0 2 o °u a E c a H a C z O e 5r S a 7.Q a w m a. °a E S.v 2 m v z a y ,: 2_ ? ,E - c o °a. a 2 H 9 a c g� F.5 c p c` o .� r o `a Z c 5 E '" _ E a 7` � E ❑. 8 4 o • . o o •S O � E c o S 3 a c o A E u° v « F° d E 3 2 % v v c w a E O C ('1 > n y pai C Q u 2 w