2017-100-Minutes for Meeting February 01,2017 Recorded 3/7/2017DESCH
TES COUNTY OFFICIAL
UBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKS �d 2017,10NANCY
COMMISSIONERS ' JOURNAL 03/07/2017 1148:53 AM
1111111111111111111111111001111111
2017 -
For Recording Stamp Only
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97703-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Allen Conference Room
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Anthony DeBone and Phil Henderson. Also present
were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Dave
Doyle, County Counsel; and Sharon Ross, Executive Secretary.
Attending for a portion of the meeting were three other citizens. No representatives of the
media were in attendance.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m.
ACTION ITEMS
1. OSU- Cascades Presentation:
Kelly Sparks and Becky Johnson of OSU-Cascades were present to review their plans of
the campus if they are able to acquire the landfill property. A presentation to the Board
was given (see attached slides). New construction was reviewed including the
completion of Tyson Hall and completion of Beaver Lodge, the new resident's lodge.
OSU academics programs as well as proposed programs were reviewed. 70% of
enrolled students are from Central Oregon. Financing was reviewed and currently there
is a funding request submitted to the legislature.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session February 1, 2017 Page 1 of 4
Expansion of housing is planned to add 300 - 400 beds in townhome type unit
structures. The 56 -acre design plan was reviewed including the pit area of the property.
The pit design plan concept would be an integrated terrace. Solar fields are also
planned for the property. A public hearing is scheduled for February 215t to get
additional feedback on the concept of the design. Roadway access points were
reviewed and traffic studies will be done for the development.
Commissioner Henderson commented he is a long term Oregonian and appreciates and
supports Oregon State. Commissioner Henderson asked for clarification on capping the
registration level of the campus to 5,000 students. There was a commitment made to
the residents in the area to cap the students of the university to 5,000 students. if
needing to expand, then space could be reviewed at a campus in Redmond. Discussion
held on the future and contributions to economic development. Discussion held on
funding for construction and remediation of the property.
2. Determination of Whether to Hear the Kine Appeal of a Hearings Officer's Decision.
File No. 247 -16 -000408 -LR (247-17-0000027-A) (Property within the Widgi Creek
Resort Community)
Will Groves, Senior Planner, was present to review the status of the appeal filed by Larry
Kine. The appeal was submitted in response to a January 6, 2017 Deschutes County
Hearings Officer's decision that the applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating
the lot of record status of the property. Discussion held on the history of the file and
whether the Board should consider to hear the appeal or not. Mr. Groves reviewed the
property map of Widgi Creek through the Deschutes County DIAL webpage.
The Board requested a continued discussion on the agenda of the Work Session of
Wednesday February 8th
3. Public Information Officer Priority Areas for Fiscal Year 2017-2018:
Whitney Hale, Public Information Officer presented the concept of an annual work plan
for marketing and communications including four focus areas.
The first area of focus relates to the branding of the County. Departments seem to have
their own styles and her plan is to have consistency so the materials are evident they
are coming from the County. Ms. Hale would like to work with an outside vendor to
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session February 1, 2017 Page 2 of 4
develop a standard template. The second focus area relates to our County website. Ms.
Hale noted the importance of staying on track with evolving technology and ensuring
the site is user friendly. The third focus area is social media. She notes the importance
of a policy or department guideline. A social media policy has been drafted and was
reviewed at a department head meeting. Focus area four will provide additional
education, resources, and training for staff to assist with development of professional
marketing materials.
Ms. Hale gave a thought on expanding engagement in the community by using our
employees as brand ambassadors. One way may be to allow employees to purchase
logo apparel at their own expense rather than earning points over time through the
employee recognition store. Discussion held on the visibility of the County in the
community. Commissioner Baney noted we have 1,000 employees that spend the vast
majority of the day with us and we want to be connected to our team. This is a way to
show your pride of where you work and that we are a part of this community.
Commissioner DeBone noted he proudly wears logo items and also name tags at events.
OTHER ITEMS
• Nick Lelack and Peter Russell, Community Development Department, were present to
discuss the Oregon Department of Aviation public hearing on the Sisters airport is
scheduled for next week. The Sisters Eagle Airport has requested ODA to include them
as identified in the Department's Airport Land Use Compatibility Guidebook as having
the three criteria of providing links in essential safety, emergency services, or of
economic importance. Once the review process is complete the ODA will evaluate and
make a recommendation of approval or denial.
The Board was asked if wanting to provide comment. Discussion held on the critical use
of the airport for emergency services. The Board is interested in providing comment.
Discussion also held on the representation of citizens in a tranquil rural community and
the impact on their lives. CDD staff will draft talking points thanking residents for their
comments and providing facts and present them to the Board for consideration by
Monday.
At this time of 3:10 p.m. the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2)(e) Real
Property Negotiations and ORS 192.660 (2)(d) Labor Negotiations. The Board came out of
Executive Session at 4:38 p.m.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session February 1, 2017 Page 3 of 4
OTHER:
• Commissioner DeBone mentioned during the Joint Meeting with the City of La Pine that
he and the Mayor will do a quick presentation of plaques to the councilors of La Pine in
appreciation of all they have done and continue to do for La Pine. The meeting is
scheduled for Wednesday, February 8th for one hour starting at 4:00 p.m.
• Commissioner DeBone noted the Neighbor Impact board meeting is the third Thursday.
Anne Graham from Redmond is considering taking his place on the board.
ADJOURN: Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 4:42 p.m.
DATED this Day of ri,briktit-r1
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.
ecoriiing Secrtktar
2017 for the
Tammy Baney, Ch '
Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair
Philip G. Henderson, Commissioner
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session February 1, 2017 Page 4 of 4
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1:30 PM, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2017
Allen Conference Room - Deschutes Services Building, 2ND Floor — 1300 NW Wall Street — Bend
Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the principal subjects anticipated to be
addressed at the meeting. This notice does not limit the ability of the Board to address additional
subjects. Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice. This meeting is open to the public and
interested citizens are invited to attend.
Work Sessions allow the Board to discuss items in a less formal setting. Citizen comment is not
allowed, although it may be permitted at the Board's discretion. If allowed, citizen comments regarding
matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing process will NOT be included in the official
record of that hearing. Work Sessions are not normally video or audio recorded, but written minutes
are taken for the record.
CALL TO ORDER
ACTION ITEMS
1. OSU-C Presentation
2. Consideration of Request for 1.0 FTE Management Analyst for Health Services
Electronic Health Record System - George Conway, Health Services Director
3. Determination of Whether to Hear the Kine Appeal of a Hearings Officer's Decision.
File No. 247 -16 -000408 -LR (247-17-0000027-A) (Property Within the Widgi Creek
Resort Community) - William Groves, Senior Planner
4. PIO Priority Areas for FY 17-18 - Whitney Hale, Public Information Officer
OTHER ITEMS
These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of
the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640.
Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda
Wednesday, February 1, 2017 Page 1 of 2
At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS
192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor
negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues; or other executive session categories.
Executive sessions are closed to the public; however, with few exceptions and under specific
guidelines, are open to the media.
Executive Session
1. Executive Session under Real Property Negotiations ORS 192.660 (2)(e)
ADJOURN
LiDeschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and
activities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541) 617-4747.
FUTURE MEETINGS:
Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.orq/meetinacalendar
(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. If you have questions
regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.)
Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda
Wednesday, February 1, 2017 Page 2 of 2
e-mail address
N
z
0)
0-
4-
0
0)
OC
4-JVI N
N N
N L
C CU
O = v taD >
Q
• E a) =
- v
• Ci
O CDM • E
O L I
Ni _0
•
— 2+2, on COCC's campus
• 2009 —Threatened closure
• 2015 — 4 -year university
• 2016 — New campus
V)
i
a)
c
0
cu *(7
+J V)
Q ,E
D 0
N 0
N
'a 7
v n
N
c6 0
0 0
a `,(D)
O D
V
V)
CU
0
MIiO�LI�WIIY{I�d�tldi'YiIYItl�SYiWW�01iA
Educational Access
W
0
)
a)
OSU Academic Excel
0
W
L
O
L
a
N
co
LL
•
— Over 200,000
— Growing K-12
L
N O 0
U
--...-C (13
Q7:5 O
4— E > E O
0
ON Cll N DO aA
= al N 0 i-
a)
Ln 0 >
ld') I n cu
• Same curriculum
• Same accreditation
• Small class sizes
• Connected to community
• Location, location, location
• 1,100 students in 18 degree programs
Population Impact
o_E
uJ
I • '
•
0
• Smaller at build -out
- 2025
2023
- 2021
2019
113 --?017
than COCC's
c
E
current enro
rt3 I-0
o cc
v —
E c L./ 0
-0
u CO 1=
oOcE 0cg_c
w 0
z
o
0 111
• University spending
• Employee spending
S
1 =
=
E
American Studies
• Social Science
• Kinesiology
0)
E
Q)
ro
CO
2
>-
4-,
a
0
•
Accountan
•
MFA Creative Writing
•
Long Range Development Planning
nnovation Center for Entrepreneurs
• Strong public involvement
— Arts, Culture, Enrichment
— Community Integration
— Health and Wellness
— Sustainability
Land use actions
•
at end of process
Financing Future Expansion
N
L
4-0
cB
Eio
a)
E
O
L
4—
E
E
al
La
t/-
N
co
s
a_
L.. a)
• L
4— O
+'
C
.+7; v
O co =
c L
N
EV (13
0 1
in.
•
— Academic building
— Student building
— Parking structure
co
0
t]A
0_ c
Q O
O 4-0=
C p
-(/).
ra..N
Additional Benefits of Larger Campus
-1--/
L.) a.)
*C. C
C 4—,
V)
0
ra
m C U
L' 0 ....
m •.,
1.... 0
• 0
O u • L._
4-'03 .47, 0
s_ • ._
o _c • D.)
-0 4-' 1.1) V)
• 0 CO
0bi) (I) -0 > 02
Ec
._ E
c c CD. 75
rz - C. . QS
• 0 • *L-
a)
-0 x
as _..1 u..1 _a 4-)
C.)
< I I = 03
0_ 2
•
u)
0
co
a)
Remediation/Reclamation Strategy
•
cn
-c
N
w
co
a_
•
co
•
0
STUDENT LIFE
ACADEMIC
1
PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES
4
n-.
CA
C
0
(1)N
Cf
DATE:
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners Work Session of February 1. 2017
FROM: William Groves, Community Development, 541-388-6518
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Determination of Whether to Hear the Kine Appeal of a Hearings Officer's Decision. File No.
247 -16 -000408 -LR (247-17-0000027-A) (Property Within the Widgi Creek Resort Community)
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE?: No
ATTENDANCE: Groves, Legal
SUMMARY: Before the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) is an appeal filed by Larry
Kine. The appeal is submitted in response to a January 6, 2017 Deschutes County Hearings
Officer's decision that the applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating the lot of record
status of the subject property. The Board will need to decide whether or not to hear this
appeal, in accordance with Deschutes County Code Chapter 22.32. Staff has prepared
alternate draft orders accepting or declining a Board hearing of this appeal.
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff recommends that the Board not hear this appeal.
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Accepting Review of Hearings Officer's *
Decision in File Nos. 247 -16 -000408 -LR (247-17- *
000027-A) *
*
ORDER NO. 2017-003
WHEREAS, Appellant, Larry Kine, appealed the Hearings Officer's decision in application number
247 -16 -000408 -LR (247-17-000027-A); and
WHEREAS, Deschutes County Code Chapter 22.32 allows the Board of County Commissioners
(Board) discretion on whether to hear appeals of Hearings Officer's decisions; and
WHEREAS, the Board has given due consideration as to whether to review this application on appeal;
now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY
ORDERS as follows:
Section 1. The Board will hear the appeal for application numbers 247 -16 -000408 -LR (247-17-000027-
A) pursuant to Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code and other applicable provisions of the County land use
ordinances.
Section 2. The appeal shall be heard de novo.
Section 3. Staff shall set a hearing date and cause notice to be given to persons or parties entitled to
notice pursuant to DCC 22.32.030.
Dated this of , 2017 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Page 1 of 1- ORDER NO. 2017-003
TAMMY BANEY, Chair
ANTHONY DEBONE, Vice Chair
PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Commissioner
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Denying Review of Hearings Officer's
Decision in File Nos. 247 -16 -000408 -LR (247-17-
000027-A)
ORDER NO. 2017-003
WHEREAS, Appellant, Larry Kine, appealed the Hearings Officer's decision in application number
247 -16 -000408 -LR (247-17-000027-A); and
WHEREAS, Deschutes County Code Chapter 22.32 allows the Board of County Commissioners
(Board) discretion on whether to hear appeals of Hearings Officer's decisions; and
WHEREAS, the Board has given due consideration as to whether to review this application on appeal;
now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY
ORDERS as follows:
Section 1. That the Board will not hear the appeal of application 247 -16 -000408 -LR (247-17-
000027-A).
Section 2. The appellant shall be granted a refund of some of the appeal fees, according to County
procedures.
Dated this of . 2017 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Page 1 of 1- ORDER NO. 2017-003
TAMMY BANEY, Chair
ANTHONY DEBONE, Vice Chair
PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Commissioner
Community Development Department
Planning Division Budding Safely Division Environmental Soils Division
P.O. Bo:e: 6005 . ; 7 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97703-6005
Phone: ='5411 382-6575 Fax: (54 .) 335-1764
http:/; oAk.,v.deschutes,org/cd
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 23, 2017
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Will Groves, Senior Planner
RE:
Determination of whether to hear the Kine appeal of a Hearings Officer's
decision. File No. 247 -16 -000408 -LR
Before the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) is an appeal filed by Larry Kine. The
appeal is submitted in response to a January 6, 2017 Deschutes County Hearings Officer's
decision that the applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating the lot of record status of
the subject property.
I. BACKGROUND
The applicant, Larry Kine, requested Lot of Record Verification for ten (10) areas located within
the property identified on Assessor's map 18-11 Tax Lot 2001, within the Widgi Creek Resort
Community.
A Lot of Record Verification is an application that seeks to demonstrate that the configuration of
identified lots or parcels was the result of lawful actions. This requires an analysis of the deed
history of a property.
The subject property was conveyed from the Bureau of Land Management into private
ownership in 1984. This conveyance referred to a BLM document entitled "Dependent
Resurvey, Subdivision of Sections 22 and 23 and Survey" ("Dependent Resurvey") dated
January 12, 1984. The Dependent Resurvey mapped Parcels A, 8, C, and D and these
"parcels" are used to describe the land subject to the 1984 Federal conveyance.
In order to find that these "parcels" were Lots of Record', the Hearings Officer would need to
find that they met the DCC 18.04.030 requirements that the "parcels" "...conformed to all
1 Section 18.04.030 of the County Zoning Ordinance defines a "lot of record" as:
A. A lot or parcel at least 5,000 square feet in area and at least 50 feet wide, which conformed to all
zoning and subdivision or partition requirements, if any, in effect on the date the lot or parcel was
created, and which was created by any of the following means:
1. By partitioning land as defined in ORS 92;
2. By a subdivision plat, as defined in ORS 92, filed with the Deschutes County Surveyor and
recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk;
11.y Seririres I'f'/ » sued it,
zoning and subdivision or partition requirements, if any, in effect on the date the lot or
parcel was created...", and that they were created by one of the means identified in the Lot of
Record definition sections (A)(1-5).
The Hearings Officer found that the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)
allows the BLM to create and convey lots that "a subsequent owner could use and convey".
However, FLPMA does not preempt local requirements and, specifically, Section 718 of the
FLPMA "places the burden of compliance" with state and local land use regulations on the
grantee.
Next, the Hearings Officer found:
I concur with the Hearings Officer in Thompson, and with the applicant, that the
BLM has the authority to create units of land and convey them without regard to
the Oregon Revised Statutes and the Deschutes County Code. Those units of
land are lawful; they can be used and conveyed by the grantee. But that only
sets the stage for deciding whether those units of land are "lots of record" that the
Deschutes County Code recognizes as developable.
The applicant argued that the "parcels" were created in accordance with Lot of Record section
(A)(2), "By a subdivision plat, as defined in ORS 92, filed with the Deschutes County
Surveyor and recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk'. The Hearings Officer found that
the "Dependent resurvey" was not a filed with the Deschutes County Surveyor nor was it
recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk.
Next, the Hearings Officer found that the "parcels" did not conform "...to all zoning and
subdivision or partition requirements, if any, in effect on the date the lot or parcel was
created... ". The Hearings Officer explained:
In 1984 the parcel was zoned FU3 under PL -15 with a minimum lot area of 20
acres. At least one "parcel" — `A' is less than 20 acres; thus the division into four
parcels did not meet the zoning standards at the time. Further, as staff notes, PL -
14 the Subdivision/Partition Ordinance adopted in 1981 required:
3. By deed or contract, dated and signed by the parties to the transaction, containing a
separate legal description of the lot or parcel, and recorded in Deschutes County if
recording of the instrument was required on the date of the conveyance. If such instrument
contains more than one legal description, only one lot of record shall be recognized unless
the legal descriptions describe lots subject to a recorded subdivision or town plat;
4. By a town plat filed with the Deschutes County Clerk and recorded in the Deschutes County
Record of Plats; or
5. By the subdividing or partitioning of adjacent or surrounding land, leaving a remainder lot
or parcel.
B. Notwithstanding subsection (A), a lot or parcel validated pursuant to ORS 92.176 shall be recognized
as a lot of record.
C. The following shall not be deemed to be a lot of record:
1. A lot or parcel created solely by a tax lot segregation because of an assessor's roll change
or for the convenience of the assessor.
2. A lot or parcel created by an intervening section or township line or right of way.
3. A lot or parcel created by an unrecorded subdivision, unless the lot or parcel was conveyed
subject to DCC 18.04.030(B).
4. A parcel created by the foreclosure of a security interest.
Section 2.010. SCOPE OF REGULATION. (1) Before a plat of any
subdivision or the map of any partition may be made and recorded, the
person proposing the subdivision or the partition, or his authorized agent
or representative, shall make an application in writing to the County
Planning Department for approval of the proposed subdivision or partition
in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by this
ordinance.
The Dependent Resurvey was not applied for or approved in accordance with the
requirements and procedures established by PL -14, and thus did not conform to
all "subdivision or partition requirements, if any, in effect on the date the lot or
parcel was created". (Bold in original)
The applicant argues that the four parcels were subsequently left as 10 "remainder" parcels as
the result of subdivision of the Widgi Creek Resort community. However, since the four
"parcels" are not Lots of Record, the Hearings Officer found that later subdivision of adjacent
land does not leave "remainder" lots from the "parcels".
The Hearings Officer concluded:
...the applicant has not met its burden of demonstrating the prerequisite to lot of
record status: conformance with all zoning and subdivision and partitioning
requirements had been met given that the County had such provisions in effect at
the time of the BLM dependent survey, the survey did not conform to those
requirements, and at least one of the parcels may be below the minimum lot size
at the time.
II. APPEAL
On January 13, 2017 Larry Kine appealed the decision to the BOCC.
The notice of appeal describes several assignment of error and argues the BOCC should hear
this appeal de novo. Please see the attached Notice of Appeal, pages 1 and 2 for details.
Staff notes that Lot of record determinations are not subject to the 150 day deadline for final
decision. (DCC Section 22.20.040)
III. HEARING AN APPEAL
If the BOCC decides to hear the appeal, the review shall be on the record unless the BOCC
decides to hear the appeal de novo. The BOCC may hear this matter de novo if it finds the
substantial rights of the parties would be significantly prejudiced without de novo review and it
does not appear that the request is necessitated by failure of the appellant to present evidence
that was available at the time of the previous review. The BOCC may also choose as de novo
review when, in its sole judgment, a de novo hearing is necessary to fully and properly evaluate
a significant policy issue relevant to the proposed land use action (DCC 22.32.027(B)(2)(c) and
(d)).
The BOCC may, at its discretion, determine that it will limit the issues on appeal to those listed
in the notice of appeal or to one or more specific issues from among those listed on the notice of
appeal (DCC 22.32.027(6)(4)).
If the BOCC decides that the Hearings Officer's decision shall be the final decision of the
county, then the BOCC shall not hear the appeal and the party appealing may continue the
appeal as provided by law. The decision on the land use application becomes final upon the
mailing of the BOCC's decision to decline review. In determining whether to hear an appeal, the
BOCC may consider only:
1. The record developed before the Hearings Officer;
2. The notice of appeal; and
3. Recommendations of Staff (See: DCC 22.32.035(B) and (D)).
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff notes that the Hearing Officer's conclusion does not mean that that the subject property is
not comprised of some number of Lots of Record. Rather, Staff believes that it means that the
"Dependent Resurvey" and Federal conveyance are not relevant to the Lot of Record status of
the subject property, which rests on older deed conveyances. However, an analysis of older
deed conveyances was not provided with this application, appears to require extensive
research, would likely reach different conclusions, and, thus, would require a new Lot of Record
Verification application.
Staff recommends the BOCC not hear this appeal. The Hearings Officer decision is consistent
with the prior Hearing Officer's decision, the plain language of FLPMA, and the plain language
of DCC 18.04.030 "Lot of Record" definition.
Attachments:
1. Hearing Officer's decision
2. Notice of Intent to Appeal
3. Draft Orders
HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION
FILE NUMBER: 247 -16 -000408 -LR
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
LOCATION:
STAFF:
Lot of Record Verification for property identified on Assessor's Map
18-11 Tax Lot 2001
Larry Kine
1133N.W.Wall Street, Suite 1
Bend, Oregon 97701
BMmkO.LLO
18707 S.W. Century Drive
Bend, Oregon 97701
The subject does not have an assigned addrmoa. It is shown on
Assessor's Map 18-11 as Tax Lot 2001.
William Groves, Sr. Planner
HEARINGS OFFICER: Dan R. Olsen
SUMMARY OF DECISION:
L APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
Title 17 of the Deschutes CouCode, the SubdOrdinance
Chapter 17.08, Definitions And Interpretation Of Language
Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions
Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Development Procedures Ordinance
Chapter 22.04, ntroduction and Definitions
Chapter 22.20, Review of Land Use Action Applications
Oregon Revised Statues
Chapter 92 — Subdivisions and Partitions
U. BASIC FINDINGS:
A. Location. The subject property is identified as Tax Lot 2001 on Deschutes County
Assessor's Map 18-11-00.
B. Zoning and Plan Designation. The subject property is zoned Resort Community (RC)
and Seventh Mountain Widgi Creek Resort (SMWCR) District, and is within the
Landscape Management (LM) Combining Zone associated with Century Drive. The
property is designated Resort Community on the Deschutes County comprehensive plan
map.
C. Lot of Record. In File Nos. 247 -14 -000395 -TP, 247 -14 -000396 -SP, 247 -14 -000397 -
LM, portions of the subject property were identified to contain two legal lots of record.
Legal Lot 1: That portion of Tax Lot 2001 on Assessor's Map 18-11-00 that is east of
the Cascade Lakes Highway (also known as Century Drive), and south and west of
Seventh Mountain Drive; Tax Lot 3600 on map 18-11-22A; Tract A in the Seventh
Mountain Golf Village Subdivision; Tax Lot 1800 on map 18-11-22DA; Tract B in the
Elkai Woods Townhomes Phase I Subdivision that is west and north of Elkai Woods
Townhomes Phase I, II, and IV Subdivisions, and west of Elkai Woods Townhomes
Phase V; and "Replat of Lots 21 thru 28 and Common Areas 6 & 7 Elkai Woods
Townhomes Phase III", that is north of the Points West Subdivision, north of Tax Lot
9000 on map 18-11-22C, and east of Tax Lot 1701 on map 18-11-22C. The staff report
states this legal lot is approximately 40 acres in size.
Legal Lot 2: That portion of Tax Lot 2001 on Assessor's Map 18-11-00 that was left as
a remainder lot following platting of the Seventh Mountain Golf Village Subdivision and
that is surrounded by Tract A, Tract B, and Lots 77-85 and 87-107 of that subdivision.
The staff report states this legal lot is approximate 26 acres in size.
D. Site Description. The subject property consists of the Widgi Creek Resort Community
golf course, club house, restaurant, golf maintenance facilities, and sewer pump station.
E. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses. The subject property is located within Widgi
Creek which consists of a mixture of residential and recreational facilities, including
single-family detached and attached dwellings, a golf course, club house, tennis courts,
pool, and private roads, bicycle paths and golf cart paths.
To the south, the Seventh Mountain development consists of approximately 240
condominium units as well as resort facilities including conference facilities, two pools, a
restaurant, and an ice skating rink.
Widgi Creek abuts Cascade Lakes Highway on the north and the Deschutes River
canyon on the south. The Deschutes National Forest (DNF) surrounds Widgi Creek and
Seventh Mountain.
F. Land Use History. The Seventh Mountain resort was established prior to the county's
adoption of land use regulations. The Seventh Mountain/Widgi Creek/Elkai Woods
developments have a long land use history dating back to at least 1983 when Widgi
Creek received its original land use approval (Z-83-7, MP -83-1, CU -83-107). The
following land use permits and approvals are applicable to Tax Lot 2001:
Modification Of Conditions For The Golf Course At The Inn Of The Seventh
MC8922 Mountain
MC9021 Modification Of Conditions For The Expansion To The Inn
Modification Of Conditions For The Inn Of The Seventh Mountain's Subdivision
MC9014 Plat
PA908 Extension Of City Sewer Line To Inn
TP90735 Tentative Plat For 107 Lots At The Inn Of The Seventh Mountain
Modification Of Conditions To Allow A Sales Office For New Lots At The Inn of
MC9018 The Seventh Mountain
2
MC9024
VS112
|
/59137
SP9121
59136
[AD8428
SP
5
AD9516
FP951
MP9519
SP9672
SP9674
TP96857
8P9610
SP965
FPA9714
FPA9749
SP9731
SP9752
SP9857
SP9842
FPA997
FPAOO11
UN05110
SP0534
LL0842
SP0915
Modification Of Conditional Uso Permit
Varance To Sign Code Permit
Sgn For Seventh Mt. Golf Village
Clubhous? Site Plan
Sign For Seventh Mountain Gof Viflage ----
Ad For Widgi Creek
Minor Alteration For Sales Office At Restaurant
Declaratory Ruling For Status Of Widgi Creek/Seventh Mountain Golf
And Condo Site
Village,
| Financial Segregation
Partition To Divide Remainder Lot At Widgi Creek/Seventh Mountain Golf
Village
Site Plan Review For GoIf Course Clubhouse
Site Plan Review For Amenities Complex For The Eike' Woods Townhome
Developrnent Within In Widgi Creek PUD
Tentative PlatlMaster Plan For 86 Townhouso Lots--Elkai Woods
Site Plari For 8 Townhouse Units --Phase 1 Elkai Woods
Site PIan Approval For lmprovements To Mantenance Facility.
Final Plat Approval For Elkai Woods Townhomes At Widgi Creek
Final Plat Review For Phase |i Elkai Woods
Site Plan Review For Elkai Woods Phase 11
Site Plan For Permanent Restrooms To Replace Temporary Restrooms
Golf Course
Site PIan For Phase 111 Of Elkai Woods At Widgi Creek
Site PIan For Elkai Amenities Buildings
Final PlatReview For Elkai Woods Phase 111
Final Plat Review Of TP -96-8 7
Landscape Management Site PIan For Sign,
Site Plan For New StoragBuilding For Widgi Creek Golf Course
Lot Une Adjustment
Site Plan Review For Addition To Storage Building
G. Procedural History: This application was submitted on July 12, 2010. An incomplete
letter was sent August Q.201O.This application was acceptedbvtheonunhu*omzmpkete
on August 29, 2016. Lot of record determinations are not subject to the 150 day
deadline for final decision. DCC Section 22.20.040.
The hearing was conducted on October 11, 2010. At the outset, / provided the
statutorily required notices and outtined the hearing process. / indicated that | had no
conflicts of interest, had received no ex parte contacts and had not conducted a site visit.
| asked for but received no objections to my hearing this matter nor did | receive any
procedural objections.
A continuance was requested and the record remained open for submittals until
5:00 p.m. on October 25, for rebuttal submittals until 5:00 p.m. on November 1, and for
final applicant rebuttal until 5:00 p.m. on November 8, 2016. There was a concern that
3
the applicant's rebuttal had not been received timely. Staff confirmed by email dated
November 9, and copied to all counsel of record, that there was an error in the time
stamp and the material had, in fact, been received timely by fax. There was no further
objection and the rebuttal is received.
H. Proposal. The applicant has requested Lot of Record Verification for ten (10) areas
located within the property identified on Assessor's map 18-11 Tax Lot 2001,
Public Notice and Comments. The Planning Division mailed individual written notice of
the applicant's proposal and the public hearing to the owners of record of all property
located within 250 feet of the boundaries of Tax Lot 2001. In addition, notice of the public
hearing was published in the Bend "Bulletin" newspaper, and the subject property was
posted with a notice of proposed land use action sign.
III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
Section 18.04.030 of the County Zoning Ordinance defines a "lot of record" as:
A. A lot or parcel at least 5,000 square feet in area and at least 50 feet wide, which
conformed to all zoning and subdivision or partition requirements, if any, in effect
on the date the lot or parcel was created, and which was created by any of the
following means:
1. By partitioning land as defined in ORS 92;
2. By a subdivision plat, as defined in ORS 92, filed with the Deschutes
County Surveyor and recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk;
3. By deed or contract, dated and signed by the parties to the transaction,
containing a separate legal description of the lot or parcel, and recorded in
Deschutes County if recording of the instrument was required on the date
of the conveyance. If such instrument contains more than one legal
description, only one lot of record shall be recognized unless the legal
descriptions describe lots subject to a recorded subdivision or town plat;
4. By a town plat filed with the Deschutes County Clerk and recorded in the
Deschutes County Record of Plats; or
5. By the subdividing or partitioning of adjacent or surrounding land, leaving
a remainder lot or parcel.
B. The following shall not be deemed to be a lot of record:
1. A lot or parcel created solely by a tax lot segregation because of an
assessor's roll change or for the convenience of the assessor.
2. A lot or parcel created by an intervening section or township line or right of
way.
3. A lot or parcel created by an unrecorded subdivision, unless the lot or
parcel was conveyed subject to DCC 18.04.030(B).
4. A parcel created by the foreclosure of a security interest.
Section 18.04 contains the following additional definitions:
""Lot means a unit of land created by a subdivision of land."
"Parcel means a unit of land created by a partitioning of land."
4
"Partition means an act of partitioning land or an area or tract of land partitioned as
defined under `partition land'.
"Partition land means to divide land into two or three parcels within a calendar year" with
exceptions.
"Partition plat means the final map describing parcels created by partition and other
writing as specified in the subdivision and partition ordinance containing all other
descriptions, locations, specifications, dedications, provisions and information
concerning a major or minor partition."
"Plat means a final map or diagram concerning a subdivision or partition, Includes a
subdivision plat."
"Subdivide lands means to divide land into four or more lots within a calendar year."
"Subdivision means either an act of subdividing land or an area or a tract of land
subdivided."
"Subdivision plat means the final map and other writing containing all the descriptions,
locations, specifications, dedications, provisions and information concerning a
subdivision."
Chapter 17 contains similar, but not exactly the same, definitions for these terms.
Finally, ORS 92.010 provides the following definitions:
(4) "Lot" means a single unit of land that is created by a subdivision of land....
(6) "Parcel" means a single unit of land that is created by a partition of land...
(7) "Partition" means either an act of partitioning land or an area or tract of land
partitioned.
(8) "Partition plat" includes a final map and other writing containing all the
descriptions, locations, specifications, provisions and information concerning a
partition.
(9) "Partitioning land" means dividing land to create not more than three parcels
of land within a calendar year, but does not include:...
(10) "Plat" includes a final subdivision plat, replat or partition plat...
(16) "Subdivide land" means to divide land to create four or more lots within a
calendar year.
(17) "Subdivision" means either an act of subdividing land or an area or a tract of
land subdivided.
(18) "Subdivision plat" includes a final map and other writing containing all the
descriptions, locations, specifications, dedications, provisions and information
concerning a subdivision.
DCC Section 17.08.030 and ORS 92.010 (3) (a) each state that: "Lawfully Established Unit of
Land" means:
1. A lot or parcel created pursuant to ORS 92.010 to 92.190, or the provisions
of this code; or
2. Another unit of land created:
5
A. In compliance with all applicable planning, zoning, and
subdivision or partition ordinances and regulations; or
B. By deed or land sales contract, if there were no applicable
planning, zoning or subdivision or partition ordinances or regulation
The area at issue consists of the property shown with the notation "not in plat" on the Seventh
Mountain Golf Village subdivision plat dated September 19, 1990. The property was conveyed
by land patent from the Bureau of Land Management dated October 9, 1984. The area is shown
on the "Dependent Resurvey, Subdivision of Sections 22 and 23 and Survey" dated January 12,
1984.
Before proceeding to the merits it is necessary to address some disagreement and confusion
about what the applicant is alleging.
The application contends that Tracts A, B, C and D were lots of record when they were created.
It alleges that the BLM satisfied all laws applicable to it in 1984 and that the 1984 "Dependent
Resurvey" subdivided the property into four parcels. Thus, Section 18.04.030 A. 2 was satisfied.
The application also contends that the land patent satisfied Section 18.04.030 A. 3. Finally, the
application contends that "even if those tracts were not Tots of record in 1984, the area shown
as "not in plat" in the 1990 Golf Village plat consists of 10 lots of record under18.04.030 A.S.
In his October 25, letter, Mr. Koback, counsel for the applicant, states that the applicant is not
taking the position that Parcels A -D met the lot of record requirements in 1984 "when they were
created, although they may very well have," He states that the applicant no longer is asserting
that the 1984 Dependent Resurvey qualifies as a subdivision in compliance with ORS Chapter
92 that was recorded with the county clerk. He argues that the 1984 Dependent Resurvey,
however, was a subdivision that created 14 lots and four parcels. These are "lawfully
established units of land" and that the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
(FLPMA) allows the BLM to create and convey lots that "a subsequent owner could use and
convey". He then alleges, as did the application, that "the developer [apparently via the Seventh
Mountain Golf Village Plat dated September 18, 1990] complied with all applicable regulations
and further divided the Parcels A, B, C and D leaving remainder tracts that were not part of the
new subdivision." Those are "lawfully created units of land" that qualify as lots of record
"remainder tracts" pursuant to DCC 18.04.030 A.S.
In his November 8, final argument, Mr. Koback first states that the applicant does not request
that I find that the four parcels are lots of record. But then he states, because the four tracts
conveyed were lots of record, the remainder 10 parcels qualified as Tots of record because they
resulted from the further subdivision of Tracts A, B, C and D." He states that "it is obvious that
the applicant's position is that the Resurvey created four legal lots of record, not 10 legal lots of
record." He asserts the 10 lots were "separate legal lots and parcels." The 10 parcels were
created when the four Tots of record were further subdivided under local regulations."
Although he does not again reference "lawfully created units of land" he asserts that the FLPMA
permits the BLM to "create parcels of any size and convey them". The four tracts were created
by a subdivision and "were rezoned to permit the further subdivision that occurred in 1985,"
There is nothing in the record indicating that anything happened to this property in 1985, so I
assume he is referring to the 1984 Dependent Resurvey and/or the 1984 patent or the 1990
Golf Village plat. He cites DCC 18.04.035 (5) presumably in relation to his argument in the
October 25, letter that the 14 lots must be recognized as lots of record under that provision
because they "were remainder tracts that were not part of the new subdivision." Neither the
October 25 or November 8 letter asserts that the patent created lots of record.
6
By letter dated November 1, Mr. McGean argued that these letters the
application to obtain a different determination, i.e. that the areas are "lawful units of land" rather
than lots of record. He objected that this requires a modification of application.
| disagree, The application listed 18.04.030 5 as a basis for establishirig the 10 alleged lots of
record. The staff report listed Section 17.08.030 as an applicable criterion. Although the
applicant has shifted the focus of his argunients, the key criterion and the result sought remains
the same. This shift in focus does not rise to the level of a modification as defined in DCC
122.20.020.
Having so concluded, however, it must be noted that 1 find the applicant's arguments confusing
and difficult to foflow. Some of this may be use of the various terms, For example, it is not clear
what is meant by the new subdivision" or the 1985 subdivision. It appears to jump back and
forthfromlawfully parcels are Iots
of record. The applicant has the burden of clearly articulating its remsmning.ncondinQly, my
decision is based on my best understanding of the applicant's position in relation to the facts as
appiiod to the standards,
The applicant reUes heavily on the preemption analysis and conclusions in theThompson lot of
record determination, LR -07'02 (2008). In that case, the BLM owned "lots" 1-4. It transferred
"lots 3 and 4" to Crown Pacific in 1999. Crown sold the property to Thompson. Thompson
argued that the transfer created a lot of record because it was transferred pursuant to the
FLPMA, The Hearings Officer concluded that the transfer did not follow the partitioning
provisions of ORS 92. Further the property transferred did not meet the county's minimum lot
size of 80 acres. The Hearings Officer concluded that, the resulting lot or parcel appears to
have been created and sold in compliance with the FLPMA and without interference from the
state or Deschutes County." In short, the FLPMA preempted state and local law to the extent
that the conveyance to Crown Pacific was lawful. He nto:seod, hnvvever, that the effect of
federal preemption terminated in 1999 when the conveyance to Crown was complete. Further,
Section 718 of the FLPMA "places the burden of compliance" with state and local land use
regulations on the grantee.
At this point the facts and the arguments in this mppea, diverge significantly from Thompson.
There was no allegation that the BLM created a subdivision. The Hearings Officer did not
address the definition of "lawfully established unit of land". The applicant did not argue that the
property met the DCC definition of a lot of record. Further, atthough two "Iots" were transferred,
it does not appear that the applicant argued that they were separate lots. The decision only
rafonancea"|ot^s|ngu|ar. Nevertheless, the Hearings Officer concluded that, Although the BLM
actually did partition the lot from a larger ponco|, that partition was not accomplished in
compliance with ORS Chapter 92. The lot was not created through a subdivision of land."
Accordingly, it "does not qualify as a lot of reoond" under the DCC. AUguob|y, this analysis is
dicta in that the appticant did not argue this point. But it appears to have been important to the
Hearings Officer's decision. He, in efent, concluded that although the BLM had the authority to
convey the lots and the applicant was entitled to use them, to be a "lot of record" the property
must either meet the definition in DCC 18.040.030 or, in that case, the specific lot of record
provision in the F-1 zone, notwithstanding the FLPMA.
| concur with the Hearings Officer in Thompson, and with the applicant, that the BLM has the
authority to create units of land and convey them without regard to the Oregon Revised Statutes
and the Deschutes County Code. Those units of land are lawful; they can be used and
7
conveyed by the grantee. But that only sets the stage for deciding whether those units of land
are "lots of record" that the Deschutes County Code recognizes as developable. Because I do
not clearly understand where exactly the applicant ended up on each standard, I will address
each.
1. By partitioning land as defined in ORS 92.
ORS 92.010 states that "Partitioning land" means dividing land to create not more than
three parcels of land within a calendar year". No one is arguing that fewer than 4 parcels or lots
were created so this criterion is not applicable.
2. By a subdivision plat, as defined in ORS 92, filed with the Deschutes County Surveyor and
recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk.
ORS 92.010 states "Subdivision plat means the final map and other writing containing all
the descriptions, locations, specifications, dedications, provisions and information concerning a
subdivision." Subdivision means either an act of subdividing land or an area or a tract of land
subdivided. Subdivide lands means "to divide land into four or more lots within a calendar year."
I agree with the applicant that the Dependent Survey constitutes a subdivision under this
definition, or perhaps recognition of a prior subdivision. It describes what the BLM calls "parcels"
and "lots The definition of subdivision in the Glossary of BLM Surveying and Mapping Terms
includes: "subdivision of a section into...lots". The scope of this subdivision is unclear, however.
The field notes state that the Depended Resurvey accomplished "a resurvey of a portion of the
subdivisional lines, the subdivision of sections 22 and 23, the resurvey of Century Drive Market
Road and a metes -and -bounds survey" of certain parcels in Sections 14, 14, 22 and 23."
(Emphasis added). The Document is entitled Dependent Resurvey, Subdivision of Sections 22
and 23, and Survey. As staff notes, it appears, therefore, that BLM actually "subdivided" only
Sections 22 and 23. Sections 14 and 15 either were subdivided previously or not subdivided at
all. The effect of this is unclear as it appears that all of the Section 14 and 15 "lots" described in
the resurvey are in the right of way, except lot 2 of Section 14 and lot 1 of Section 15.
Ultimately, however, I do not need to decide if the Dependent Resurvey created multiple lots.
The applicant asserts only that it created four parcels of land to convey. I agree that the
apparent intent was to enable BLM to convey at least these four parcels, either separately or to
one grantee. The latter is what occurred.
Nevertheless, to create lots of record, the subdivision must have been recorded with the
surveyor and clerk. This was not done. As discussed in Thompson, this is not an issue of
federal preemption. The FLPMA extends only to the creation of lots or parcels for conveyance
and use. It does not address and certainly does not purport to require that local governments
deem those lots developable or grant them any special status under local development codes.
3. By deed or contract, dated and signed by the parties to the transaction, containing a
separate legal description of the lot or parcel, and recorded in Deschutes County if recording of
the instrument was required on the date of the conveyance.
The land patent conveys the property by separate reference to each of the four parcels.
There is an issue as to whether the land patent "created" any parcels. As staff notes, the
Dependent Resurvey only explicitly references the "subdivision" of land in relation to Sections
22 and 23. If that is the extent of the BLM subdivision, then presumably the areas in Sections 14
and 15 were created by the patent. But the applicant, other than a brief mention, in its
application narrative, does not further assert that this standard is relevant, perhaps because it
would appear to recognize at most one lot of record since the subdivision was not recorded as
provided in DCC 18.04 A.(3). Accordingly, I find that the applicant has failed to meet its burden
under this standard.
8
Finally, before turning to (5), as staff notes the Lot of Record dnfinition, at the outset, requires
that the lot or parcel conform to "all zoning and subdivision or partition ,oquiremenhm, if any, in
effect on the date the lot or parcel was created". In 1984 the parcel was zoned FU3 under PL -15
with a minimum lot area of 20 acres. At least one "parcel" — 'A' /s less than 20 acres; thus the
division into four parcels did not meet the zoning standards at the time. Further, as staff nntee.
PL -14 the Subdivision/Partition Ordinance adopted in 1981 required:
Section 2.010. SCOPE OF REGULATION. (1) Before a plat of any
subdivision or the map of any partition may be made and recorded, the
person proposing the subdivision or the partition, or his authorized agent
or representative, hH make an application in writing to the County
Planning Departmentrmrapprmvmmrone proposed subclivision or partition
in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by this
ordinance.
The Dependent Resurvey was not applied for or approved in accordance with the requirements
and procedures established by PL -14, and thus did not conform to all "subdivision or partition
requirements, if any, in effect on the date the lot or parcel was created".
So, to summarize, at the time of recording the Golf Village subdivision, the owner had four units
of land that were lawful in the sense that the conveyance from the BLM was lawful and the
grantee could own and use therm They may be "lawfully established units of land" pursuant to
DCC Section 17.D8.O30B. Butthey are not "lots of record" as discussed above, They appear to
have no legal status in the context of land use, Le. whether they are separately developable
parcels without regard to other code standards. See e.g. Kishpaugh v Clackamas County, 24 Or
LUBA 164 (1992)
4. Subdividing or partitioning of adjacent or surrounding land, teaving a remainder lot or parcel.
In his November 8, final argument, Mr. Koback states that there is no claim that the 1985
subdivision violated any local regulation. "The result of the subdivision was the creation of 10
parcels that alt were derived from the four lots of record the BLM conveyed." First, | can find no
evidence of a 1985 oubUivioion, so assume the reference is to the 1990 Golf Village plat.
Second, as | have found obowa, the four BLM parcels are lawful, but are not lots of record. The
applicant appears to argue that the Golf Village subdivision divided these four lots of record into
10 lots and that each is recognized as a tot of record under DCC 18.04.030 A. 5. The applicant
does not ctearly articulate how this occurred.
It is not clear how the Golf Village subdivision could create lots that explicitly are marked.
"Not In Plat". Subdivision lots are created by inclusion in a plat. The plat does not label them as
"lots" or "parcels" and shows their "boundaries" only by dashed section lines. There appears to
be no reference to the BLM parcels on the plat. See DCC 18.04.080 B. 2 (section or township
lines do not create lot of record.) It is at least as likely that this means that listing these as one
"not in plat" area effectively consolidated those lawful parcels into one. See e.g. Weyerhauser
Real Estate DexCovPolk County, LU8ANo. 2011'D22(2011)
As regards DCC 18.04.030 A. 5, note that it is written in the singular, "leaving 'm'
remainder lot or parcel." So at most, it would recognize only one lot of record consisting of all of
the "not in plat" areas. The only guidance | found on this provision is in Decision 247-15-
000633-A (2016) at page 6, in which the Board of Commissioners seems to state that this
provision recognizes only remainders created prior to "modern day" subdivisions. This is
consistent with my understanding of 'modem" subdivision provis|ono, only those portions in the
plat become lots.
Finally, as discussed above, the applicant has not met its burden of demonstrating the
prerequisite to lot of record status: conformance with all zoning and subdivision and partitioning
requirements had been met given that the County had such provisions in effect at the time of
the BLM dependent survey, the survey did not conform to those requirements and at least one
of the parcels may be below the minimum lot size at the time.
W. CONCLUSION
The applicant has not met its burden of establishing that the area at issue constitutes a
lot of record, or multiple Tots of record as defined by the Deschutes County Code. The
application is DENIED.
Z7a.e, 4 D&
Dan R. Olsen, Hearings Officer
Dated this 4th day of January, 2017 Mailed this 6th day of January, 2017
THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL TWELVE DAYS AFTER MAILING UNLESS TIMELY
APPEALED BY A PARTY OF INTEREST AS PROVIDED IN THE DESCHUTES COUNTY
CODE.
10
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division
P.0, Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue BendOregon 97708-6005
Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764
http://www,deschutes,org/cd
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
FILE NUMBER: 247-16-000 408 -LR
DOCUMENT/S MAILED: Hearings Officer's Decision
MAP/TAX LOT NUMBER: 18-11 Tax Lot 2001
I certify that on the 6th day of January, 2017, the attached notice(s)/report(s), dated
January 6, 2017, was/were mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the person(s) and
address(es) set forth below/on the attached list.
Dated this 6th day of January, 2017.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
By: Sher Buckner
Larry Kine
250 NW Franklin Ave, Suite 401
Bend, OR 97703
Hearings Officers:
Liz Fancher
Stephanie Hicks
Michael H. McGean
Francis Hansen & Martin LLP
1148 NW Hill Street
Bend, OR 97701-1914
Christopher R Koback
520 SW Yamhill St. Suite 235
Portland, OR 97204
Ed Kennell
60548 Elkai Woods Dr.
Bend, OR 97702
Lynne Hager
60601 Golf Village Loop
Bend, OR 97702
BHELM, LLC
18707 SW Century Drive
Bend, OR 97702
Carl Stromquist
Elkai Woods Homeowners association
P.O, Box 5792
Bend, OR 97708
Edward R. Coulson
1522 Thorndyke Ave. W.
Seattle, WA 98199
Steve Kimple and Brenda Pace
60738 Golf Village Loop
Bend, OR 97702_,
Kirk A & Janet E Sandburg
18805 Peony Pi
Bend, OR 97702
Ted & Ruth Thoren
60709 Golf Village Loop
Bend, OR 97702
Quality Services Perprmed with Pride
Jim and Jan Guettler
60568 Elkai Woods Dr
Bend, OR 97702
Charles Hammill
60656 Golf Village Loop
Bend, OR 97702
Cheryl and Dennis Cone
60572 Elkai Woods Drive
Bend, OR 97702
Mary Myers
60829 Currant Way
Bend, OR 97702
Robert Selder
60512 Elkai Woods Dr
Bend, OR 97702
Thomas Clifford
60757 Golf Village Loop
Bend, OR 97702
(Vo ' b 1- A
Community Development Department
Planning Division !Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division
P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005
Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764
http://www.deschutes,org/cd
APPEAL APPLICATION
EVERY NO f SCE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE:
FEE:
41 1,, al)
1. A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal.
2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating
the reasons the Board should review the lower decision.
3. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request
;or de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de novo review as
provided in Section 22.32,027 of Title 22.
4. If color exhibits are submitted, black and white copies with captions or shading delineating the color
areas shall also be provided.
It is the resporvsli?iiity of the appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22.32 of the County Code.
The Notice a appeal on the reverse side of this form must include the items listed above. Failure to complete all of
the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be included on the Notice of Appeal.
Staff cannot advise a potential appellant as to whether the appellant is eligible to file an appeal (DCC Section
22.32.010) o. whether an appeal is valid. Appellants should seek their own legal advice concerning those issues.
Appellant's Name (print): Larry Kine
Mailing Address' 133 N.W. Wall Street, Suite 1
Land Use Application Being Ap , - led:
Property Description: Towns j.'• R;n+ Section
Appellant's Signature:
247 -16 -000408 -LR
Phone: G 1
City/State/Zip; Bend, Oregon 97701
Tax Lot 2001 Deschutes Co. Assessor's Map 18-11-00
EXCEPT AS PRSECTION 22.32.024, APPELLANT SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE
TRANSCRIPT OF Y HE ING APPEALED, FROM RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES PROVIDED BY THE
PLANNINC DIVISION UPON REQUEST (THERE IS A $5.00 FEE FOR EACH MAGNETIC TAPE RECORD).
APPELLANT SHALL SUBMIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN THE
CLOSE OF THE DAY FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FOR THE DE NOVO HEARING OR, FOR
ON -THE -RECORD APPEALS, THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN RECORDS.
(over)
Quality Services Performed with Pride
CAN
G
10/15
Notice of Anneal
A. Background.
The applicant is appealing the hearings officer's decision in File No. 247 -16 -000408 -LR, denying
applicant's request for Lot of Record Verification on 10 parcels of property identified in his
application. Each parcel was once part of four tracts of land created in 1984, by the BLM for the
purpose of exchanging with a private owner so they could be developed into a resort. The BLM
complied with all laws and regulations required of it to create and convey those four tracts and
then, did so in 1984 in a federal land patent.
After lengthy local process, the Seventh Mountain Golf Village was approved by the county and
a plat was recorded creating over 100 lots. The plat left 10 remainder parcels that were part of the
four tracts conveyed by BLM, but were not included in the plat for the resort.
Two of the parcels included in the application had already been declared to be lots of record by a
County hearings officer in File No. 247 -14 -000395 -TP, 247 -14 -000396 -SP, 247 -14 -000397 -LM.
Bas'd w,on that decision, the applicant applied to have other remainder parcels that resulted from
the same process determined to be lots of record.
B. Assignments of Error.
The applicant asserts that the hearings officer erred in the following ways:
The heerings officer erred in concluding that the four tracts created by the BLM do not qualify as
lots of record under DCC 18,04.030 and then concluding that the remainder parcels do not qualify
as lots c,i record under DCC 18.04.030.A.5.
Th; hearings officer erred in rejecting the alternative argument that even if the four tracts were not
lots of record under DCC 18.04.030, they were lawfully created parcels that could be further
divided, and when they were divided, leaving remainder parcels, those parcels qualify as lots of
record.
The hearings officer further erred in apparently concluding, contrary to a prior hearing officer
decision, that under DCC 18.04.030, if a subdivision of surrounding property leaves more than
one remainder parcel, only one of those parcels, even though there are no distinguishing features,
can qualify as a lot of record under DCC 18.04.030.A.5.
C. Reasons the Board Should Hear Appeal.
The Board of County Commissioners should hear this appeal because it involves an important
interpretation of the lot of record provisions in the County Development Code to property that is
or was owned by the federal government. This matter raises significant questions over what local
provisions the federal government must comply with to create individual parcels of land that
constitute lots of record that can be conveyed to private ownership as such.
1
It is also important to reconcile two inconsistent hearings officer decisions. In File No. 247 -14-
000395 -TP, 247 -14 -000396 -SP and 247 -14 -000397 -LM, the hearings officer concluded that two
parcels that were formerly part of the tracts the I3LM created in 1984 and conveyed to private
ownership were legal lots of record. That hearings officer did not go into detail as to the basis for
her decision, but she had to have concluded one of two things: (1) that the four tracts the BLM
created were lots of record and thus, the resulting remainder parcels (after the golf village plat
recorded) were also lots of record lots; or, (2) that the four BLM tracts did not have to be lots of
recd d themselves, but that they were lawfully created parcels and that the remainder parcels
resulting from the plat recording were lots of record. Either way, her decision would apply to all
ten (10) of the parcels included in the current application.
The hearings officer decision in this matter, if allowed to stand, would de, facto reverse a prior final
deciz,ion. He concluded that even if DCC 18.04.030.A.5. applied and could be used to declare a lot
of record, only one parcel could ever qualify. But, the prior hearings officer already declared that
two of the parcels were legal lots of record. That decision was not appealed and is final. The
Board should review this matter because such review is likely to result in a more uniform and
consistent application of the County's lot of record provisions.
1) Request for De Novo Hearing.
The applicant requests that any appeal hearing before the Board be de novo. The applicant believes
that the Board will benefit from receiving additional material relevant to how the BLM creates
parcels of land for conveyance to private ownership, the requirements that apply to the BLM in
that or9cess and the reasoning behind the hearings officer's conclusions on the two lots of record
in File No. 247 -14 -000395 -TP, 247 -14 -000396 -SP and 247 -14 -000397 -LM.
2
DESCHUTES COUNTY:
{ MARKETING/COMMUNICATIONS PRIORITIES, FY 2017- 2020
INTRODUCTION
Deschutes County is committed to enhancing communication with residents, local businesses,
the media, our partners and visitors. We place a special emphasis on open and transparent
communication, because we understand that it benefits our community by encouraging
understanding and awareness of programs and services, optimizing informed participation and
increasing public confidence in government.
These draft priority focus areas were identified as part an effort to elevate our current marketing
and communication practices. By addressing them, we hope to increase community
understanding of, and engagement with, County services and programs.
CURRENT COMMUNICATIONS PRACTICES
Who Are We Trying to Reach?
Our audience is anyone who lives, works or plays in Deschutes County. This audience represents
a diverse group of people with varying needs and interests.
How Are We Communicating Today?
Currently, the County communicates through the media and directly to the public a variety of
methods, including: face-to-face interactions, marketing materials (brochures, flyers, posters),
website content, news releases, social media, newsletters, warnings/alerts, presentations and
op-eds.
FOCUS AREAS: RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION STEPS
The following recommendations and action steps were developed with recognition that
departments and programs need autonomy when developing marketing and communications
materials. However, at a County -wide level, increased uniformity and consistency is needed to
support a cohesive brand identity.
FOCUS AREA #1: ESTABLISH A COHESIVE BRAND IDENTITY.
Because materials are being developed at the program level, various identities ("brands") exist
across departments and across the County as a whole. Because materials are developed
independently, they do not always clarify that these entities are part of the County family, and
for most, serving under one elected body - the Board of Commissioners. See samples below and
note the variety of styles, structure, color palates and fonts that are/have been used across
County materials:
DESCHUTES COUNTY MARKETING / COMMUNICATIONS PRIORITIES - FY 2017 - 2020
FOCUS AREA #4: PROVIDE EDUCATION, RESOURCES AND TRAINING TO ENSURE SUCCESS.
Multiple marketing products are developed at the department and program level. The PIO will
provide resources to assist departments in the development of professional marketing materials.
ACTION STEPS:
• Provide training tools/resources to assist with the creating of high-quality communications
products
• Create stock photo accounts for departments that routinely create marketing materials
• Create an internal resource site for employees to access communications resources
FOCUS AREA #5: INCREASE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE OF COUNTY SERVICES AND THEIR VALUE
THROUGH ENHANCED BRAND PRESENCE, COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND PROACTIVE
MEDIA RELATIONS.
We recognize the value in and need to continue to engage employees, the public and the
media.
ACTION STEPS:
• Embrace employees as brand ambassadors. Encourage departments to purchase logo
apparel for employees.
o Expand the ability for employees to purchase logo apparel outside of the
employee recognition program.
• Continue to look for ways to engage and strengthen the County College Alumni Network
• Create an online press room on Deschutes.org that offers expanded resources for the
media
DESCHUTES COUNTY MARKETING / COMMUNICATIONS PRIORITIES - FY 2017 - 2020