Loading...
2017-256-Minutes for Meeting September 15,1988 Recorded 5/19/2017Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2017-256 Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 05/19/2017 12:23:19 PM For Recording Stamp Only Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Bend, Oregon DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Audio Cassette Recording Titled: PUBLIC HEARING ON BRIDGE DRIVE September 15, 1988; 10:00-11:00 AM. A meeting of the Board of County Commissioners was held on September 15, 1988. Commissioners present were Lois Prante, Dick Maudlin and Tom Throop. Also present were Rick Isham, County Counsel; County Administrator Mike Maier; and other staff. This meeting followed a public hearing regarding an appeal of the Hearings Officer's decision on the access road issue in Lazy River South. Any additional appeals were due yesterday, and there were none submitted. The Commissioners began deliberations at this time. The only public input to be accepted would be if and when the Commissioners have any questions that require clarification. Ms. Prante explained that the County has real constraints relating to time and money, but have to consider fire and safety issues. If they insist on the previous access, they face a minimum of nine months of land use appeals. After that, they would face six months or longer for condemnation proceedings. Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, September 12, 1988 Page 1 of 4 If the County loses, it could end up paying damages and court costs. The bridge is due to be built in the spring after years of delay. They must provide a second access prior to construction of the bridge, and she does not want to postpone this and lose the County's place in line for even more years. The most logical thing to do is to provide access where there is an easement, to connect with the existing road, and not depend on an LID. She would like to consider grading Howard Road to graded and gravel standards, but this is not a decision for today. She was comfortable with the original recommendation, but reality is they may get nowhere doing so. The delay could leave the area without access for years or a bridge. Mr. Throop said there are three options. They can go ahead with the original plan to see how far they can push it. There is also the Howard/Dike Road option. And third is no option at all. His preference is to stick with the original decision. It is clear to him after working with land use at the State for years, that if they do attempt to build the preferred alternative, it would be appealed to LUBA. This would take nine months. If the opponent loses at LUBA, it may go to the Court of Appeals, and that could take another year. At that point, they may well have lost the bridge access. There is an alternative to reconstruct the one bridge, and get a temporary access to the north. This costs up to $40,000. Even then, they won't know the outcome at Court for two years. The Howard/Dike option does not have the level of support of the other location. Ms. Prante said they have to support the Hearings Officer's decision regarding the easement, or not. Whether they deal with Howard Road is not part of the decision today. They need to decide the trade-offs on each one. A second access would take years. Mr. Maudlin feels that the Hearings Officer erred, since he was to decide whether this road met the criteria, and not to compare it with another road — which he did. Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, September 12, 1988 Page 2 of 4 The County might win, but if so, it also loses. However, that could take forever. No one has said that Mr. Mulhurly? will appeal to LUBA. They are talking about splitting a piece of property 240 acres from one corner to another. No one says he is willing to give us the access, and the 'reasonable' cost might be high. This could end up in the courts forever. There was not a lot of discussion about environmental impacts or retaining scenic qualities. The owner pays his taxes. This is a no-win situation regardless how it goes. The decision today is to uphold the decision or deny it. The quickest and fastest way is to uphold the Hearings Officer's decision. They may not end up with the best route. Something needs to be done now. They have all the information they require and don't need another hearing. They don't need to go on and on with this. They need to find an access where they can make do, that meets the criteria of the transportation plan, a conditional use permit and whatever else. They have looked at this politically when they probably should have looked at it based on the facts. They need to determine what they can do, and do it. There was a lengthy discussion among the Commissioners at this time regarding the value of the easement. Mr. Throop asked if there is a spokesperson from the public to answer a question. It appears if they go for the preferred alternative, the odds are against them in getting a favorable determination from LUBA, and this could take years. He asked if the folks in Lazy River South feel this alternative is worth pursuing, or if they prefer nothing at all happen. A woman replied that they have worked for the fastest response possible. She cannot speak for hundreds of people, however. Personally, this is better than nothing. Mr. Throop is convinced that the preferred alternative will not stick at the State level. He knows the system too well. Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, September 12, 1988 Page 3 of 4 Mr. Maudlin noted that they should not take another route into consideration with this decision. The Hearings Officer should not have taken this into consideration, either. Mr. Throop asked if LUBA would accept information on alternatives. Mr. Isham replied that the original requirement was for alternatives, but this was later removed. They could present this, however. Policies and objectives are broad enough to do so. This is only one of many issues involved. Mr. Maudlin said that it has been years already. Mr. Throop asked if the Board went for the original alternative and it was to be appealed to LUBA, in order to represent the opponent's interest, it could take an attorney and thousands of dollars. He asked if this would happen. Ms. Prante said that people are still paying for their LID and feels that it is not reasonable to collect legal fees from people in the Lazy River South area. Even though she would like to pick the first alternative, tying it up in court is a big risk. The County doesn't have funds for this battle and she doesn't think it is a responsible decision. It would take too much money, time and has the potential of not getting there anyway. This would mean an extended period of time without adequate fire and emergency access as well. She would like to see them grade Howard, but that is not a part of today's decision. They need to meet transportation criteria in any case. A lengthy discussion continued. Ms. Prante moved that they uphold the Hearings Officer's decision. Mr. Maudlin seconded. The vote was unanimous. I certify that the above is a true and accurate record of a meeting, as reproduced from a cassette tape identified as Minutes of a Public Hearing of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners, held on September 15, 1988. This record was completed subsequent to the presiding Deschutes County Board of Commissioners' tenure. Bonnie Baker For the Board of County Commissioners Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, September 12, 1988 Page 4 of 4