2022-169-Order No. 2022-022 Recorded 5/3/2022REVIEWED
MfA/
LEGAL COUNSEL
Recorded in Deschutes County Steve Dennison, County Clerk C,J2022-169
Commissioners' Journal 05/03/2022 4:52:37 PM
061
IIII169
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
For Recording Stamp Un
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Denying Review of Hearings
Officer's Decision in File No. 247-21-001067- * ORDER NO. 2022-022
PS.
WHEREAS, on April 7, 2022, the Hearings Officer found the Applicant's request is an outright
permitted use in all zones, but that additional requirements need to be met before compatibility
can be determined in File No. 247-21-001067-PS; and
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2022, Central Oregon LanclWatch, the Appellant, appealed (Appeal
No. 247-22-000324-A) the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's Decision on File No. 247-21-
001067-PS; and
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2022, Bend Research, Inc, the Appellant, appealed (Appeal No. 247-
22-000325-A) the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's Decision on File No. 247-21-001067-PS; and
WHEREAS, Sections 22.32.027 and 22.32.035 of the Deschutes County Code ("DCC") allow
the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board") discretion on whether to hear
appeals of Hearings Officers' 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 it will not hear on appeal Appeal Nos. 247-22-000324-A and 247-22-
000325-A pursuant to Title 22 of the DCC and/or other applicable provisions of the County land
use ordinances.
Section 2. Pursuant to DCC 22.32.015, the County shall refund any portion of the appeal
fees not yet spent processing the subject application. If the matter is further appealed to the Land
Use Board of Appeals and the County is required to prepare a transcript of the hearing before the
Hearings Officer, the refund shall be further reduced by an amount equal to the cost incurred by
the County to prepare such a transcript.
ORDER NO. 2022-022
Section 3. Pursuant to DCC 22.32.035(D), the only documents placed before and
considered by the Board are the notice of appeals, recommendations of staff, and the record
developed before the lower hearing body for File No. 247-21-001067-PS as presented at the
following website:
https://www.d esch utes.or/g cd/page/247-21-001067-ps-tumalo-sewer-extension
DATED this �--7 day of ao, J 2022.
ATTEST:
Im
Recording -Secretary
B ARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
<--- 1
PATTI ADAIR, Chair
ANTHONY DeBONE, Vice Chair
PHIL CHANG, Commissioner
ORDER NO. 2022-022
247-22-000324-A
C.�v-V E S
•
COMMUNITY OPF A -
APPEAL APPLICATION - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FEE:.
EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE:
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 for 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 responsibility of the appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22.32 of the
County Code. The Notice of 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) or whether an appeal is valid. Appellants should seek their own legal advice concerning
those issues.
Appellant's Name (print): C fin! i aA- -- ORE.6oAj t.aM O WWT 4 Phone: ( 5'11 l q2a- 9q0f.-
Mailing Address: 2843 NW L.01.0 Vtz. 5Tir �.qv City/State/Zip: &EAM 4A IVIO3
Email Address: Pao't & JAu.>,.y taw• raCV c, tAW, 0,rg
Land Use Application Being Appealed: Off-(3tQA( Q C CaUa-rl( 1-..0. 04 Fti! 9 -4 :2q?-21- 001 ntn?- I? 5
Property Description: Township Range Section Tax Lot < t uniaw U t c-
Appellant's Signature: �Q Date: `k1 tgl :2�2
A.ttatytey Var- C••.tr41 Or4le-t La.td�nJa4<!.�
153q j W Roe. Gc zd 6712 9,2 03
By signing this application and paying the appeal deposit, the appellant understands and agrees that
Deschutes County is collecting a deposit for hearing services, including "whether to hear" proceedings.
The appellant will be responsible for the actual costs of these services. The amount of any refund or
additional payment will depend upon the actual costs incurred by the county in reviewing the appeal.
Except as provided in section 22.32.024, appellant shall provide a complete transcript of any hearing
appealed, from recordings provided by the Planning Division upon request (there is a $5.00 fee for each
recording copy). Appellant shall submit the transcript to the planning division no later than the close of
1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97103 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
Q, (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes.org ® www.deschutes.org/cd
Paul D. Dewey Attorney at Law
1539 NW Vicksburg Avenue
Bend, Oregon 97703
(541)420-8455
iauj@d.e,weylaw.net
Central Oregon LandWatch Appeal of Hearings Officer Decision of April 7, 2022,
on File No. 247-21-001067-PS (De novo review of limited appeal issues requested)
This appeal concerns the Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) applied for by the Tumalo
Property Owners Association/Kine (Applicant) as part of a DEQ permit procedure and
concerning a proposed sewer (Sewer Project) for the Unincorporated Community (UIC) of
Tumalo. The Hearings Officer found that the County can sign the DEQ LUCS by checking the
"No" box on the form and for "reasons for the decision" can just refer to his Decision and its
findings. He further identified a couple of requirements on floodplain and road issues for the
Applicant to satisfy to establish compatibility with the County Plan/Code to get the LUCS.
This appeal does not challenge the Hearings Officer's conclusion of a "No" for the LUCS (that it
is not currently compatible with the County Plan/Code), but rather the Hearings Officer's
rejection of additional reasons for a "No." This is important because it is expected that the
LUCS application will be amended/renewed and then be claimed to establish compliance with
the Hearings Officer's limited reasons for the "No."
The Board is requested to hear the appeal because:
1. The appeal is about interpretations of the County Plan and Code, not state law. Such
interpretations of local rules is for the Board whose decision receives deference. If the
County elects not to hear the appeal, then LUBA interprets the County rules.
2. There was substantial public interest and opposition to the Sewer Project at the public
hearing, including public concern about whether existing homes would be forced to
connect with it. The Tumalo community at this point wants to address the larger sewer
issues, not an individual Sewer Project application.
3. The proposed Sewer Project application is inconsistent with and undermines the County's
ongoing plan to do a feasibility study for a sewer for Tumalo. Such a plan needs to be
done first with full public participation, and only after that is completed should there be
consideration of particular Sewer Project applications.
The appeal is limited to the following three errors of the Hearings Officer:
1. He mis-applied and mis-interpreted the meaning of "utility facility" in DCC 18.04.030,
including his finding that the Sewer Project is only a "minor facility' and thus is an
outright use permitted in most all zones in the Tumalo UIC. To the contrary, such a
project is a "major facility" where it covers the entire Tumalo UIC.
2. He allowed the Applicant to proceed with his application though the Applicant had not
provided the required approval of affected landowners for the application, as required by
DCC 22.08.010(B).
3. He allowed the Applicant to proceed with his LUCS application to the County despite the
lack of necessary information on the details of the Sewer Project.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Anthony Raguine, Principal Planner
DATE: April 20, 2022
RE: Pending Appeals of a Hearings Officer's decision for a Land Use Compatibility Review
for a proposed extension of sewer pipelines in the Unincorporated Community of
Tumalo (ref. Appeal Nos. 247-22-000324-A & 247-22-000345-A).
On April 27, 2022, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) will consider whether to hear two
appeals of a Hearings Officer's decision (ref. File No. 247-21-001067-PS). The Hearings Officer's
decision included a Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Land Use Compatibility Review
(LUCS) for a proposed extension of sewer pipelines, located in road rights -of -way, throughout the
Unincorporated Community of Tumalo.
I. BACKGROUND
The applicant, Tumalo Property Owners Association, submitted a DEQ LUCS form to the Planning
Division in late 2021. This LUCS form is used by DEQ to determine whether a DEQ permit or approval
will be consistent with local government comprehensive plans and land use regulations. On this
form, the County must determine if the applicant's DEQ project currently complies with applicable
Deschutes County Zoning Ordinances or identify the requirements the applicant must comply with
before compatibility can be determined.
The project description on the applicant's DEQ LUCS form includes the installation of sewer
transmission pipelines, located in road rights -of -way, throughout the Unincorporated Community
of Tumalo. The Hearings Officer's decision concluded the project is an outright permitted use in all
zones, but that additional requirements need to be met before compatibility can be determined.
Specifically, the Applicant must comply with applicable floodplain provisions of DCC 18.96, and any
applicable provisions relating to road permits, or demonstrate that no such provisions apply.
The scope of the Hearings Officer's decision is limited in the following ways:
11 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
Q, (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@)deschutes.org @ www.deschutes.org/cd
A. The LUCS is not being issued as an approval of any specific development and, instead, is
being provided solely to categorize the proposed use under the County's land use
regulations, and to determine whether the proposed use is not allowed in the applicable
zone, or whether it is allowed without review, allowed with review under certain
standards or upon obtaining certain county permits.
B. The LUCS does not address the approval of any development that could be served by the
Project.
C. The LUCS applies only to the Project, which consists of 2-inch and 4-inch sewer pipe that
extend an existing system. The LUCS does not apply to any pipes of a different size or to
any modifications to the existing waste treatment facility.
D. The LUCS does not provide the Applicant with any authority to construct the Project on
public or private property without the permission of the underlying property owner.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The applicant's request was referred to a public hearing before a Hearings Officer on February 22,
2022. The Hearings Officer's decision was issued on April 7, 2022. Central Oregon LandWatch and
Bend Research, Inc. filed timely appeals of the Hearings Officer's decision on April 19, 2022 (ref.
Appeal Nos. 247-22-000324-A and 247-22-000325-A).
111111. CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH APPEAL
Central Oregon LanclWatch, the first appellant, requests the Board review the Hearings Officer's
decision on appeal to address three (3) key issues summarized below:
1. The appellant believes the applicant's request is a major utility facility.
2. The appellant believes the applicant did not have the approval of the affected landowners to
initiate the application.
3. The appellant believes the applicant's LUCS application lacked sufficient detail for the
Hearings Officer to make a decision.
The attached Notice of Appeal packet details all of the issues raised in this appeal (ref. Appeal No.
247-22-000324-A).
IV. BEND RESEARCH, INC. APPEAL
Bend Research, Inc., the second appellant, requests the Board review the Hearings Officer's decision
on appeal to address eight (8) key issues summarized below:
247-21-001067-PS / 247-22-000324-A / 247-22-000325-A Page 2 of 4
1. The appellant believes the applicant is not a regulated utility provider and, for this reason,
the applicant's proposal does not consist of a minor utility facility that is permitted outright
in all zones.
2. The appellant believes the area served by the applicant's proposal should have been
evaluated by the Hearings Officer when determining if the proposal is a minor or major utility
facility.
3. The appellant believes the Hearings Officer should have considered whether the applicant's
proposal is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
4. The appellant believes a modification of the land use approval for the existing wastewater
treatment facility should have been required.
5. The appellant believes the applicant's proposal substantially changed during the Hearings
Officer's review, which should have required a modification of application.
6. The appellant believes the Applicant has not shown that it has the requisite authority to
submit this LUCS, and a decision cannot be rendered without such procedural compliance.
7. The appellant believes the Hearings Officer failed to address OAR 660-022-005.
8. The appellant believes the Hearings Officer should not have proceeded with the review until
proper notice was provided and all potentially affected parties were in turn afforded an
opportunity to participate in the proceedings below.
The attached Notice of Appeal packet details all of the issues raised in this appeal (ref. Appeal No.
247-22-000325-A).
V. BOARD OPTIONS
There are two versions of Order No. 2022-022 attached to this memo; one to hear the appeals and
one to decline to hear the appeals. In determining whether to hear the appeals, the Board may
consider only:
1. The record developed before the Hearings Officer;
2. The notices of appeal; and
3. Recommendation of staff'
Reasons not to hear
The Hearings Officer's decision is well reasoned and could be supported, as the record exists today,
on appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). In addition, the applicant and appellants were
well represented by land use attorneys.
Reasons to hear
The Board may be afforded local deference and the Board may also want to reinforce or refute
some or all of the decision findings/interpretations prior to Land Use Board of Appeals review.
' Deschutes County Code 22.32.035(D)
247-21-001067-PS / 247-22-000324-A / 247-22-000325-A Page 3 of 4
If the Board decides the Hearings Officer's decision shall be the final decision of the county, then
the Board shall not hear the appeals and the parties appealing may continue the appeals as
provided by law. The decision on the land use application and associated appeals becomes final
upon the mailing of the Board's decision to decline review.
VI. 150-DAY LAND USE CLOCK
The 150th day on which the County must take final action on these applications is July 5, 2022.
VII. RECORD
The record for File No. 247-21-001067-PS and the Notices of Appeal for Appeal Nos. 247-22-000324-
A and 247-22-000325-A are as presented at the following Deschutes County Community
Development Department website:
https://www deschutes.or /g cd/page/247-21-001067-ps-tumalo-sewer-extension
Attachments:
1. DRAFT Board Order 2022-022 Accepting Review of the Hearings Officer's Decision
2. DRAFT Board Order 2022-022 Declining Review of the Hearings Officer's Decision
3. Notice of Appeal (Appeal No. 247-22-000324-A)
4. Notice of Appeal (Appeal No. 247-22-000325-A)
247-21-001067-PS / 247-22-000324-A / 247-22-000325-A Page 4 of 4
APPEAL APPLICATION - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FEE: .
EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE:
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 for 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 responsibility of the appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22.32 of the
County Code. The Notice of 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 rile an appeal (DCC
Section 22.32.010) or whether an appeal is valid. Appellants should seek their own legal advice concerning
those issues.
Appellants Name (print): Bend Research, Inc. Phone: (-911 ) �?$ 3
Mailing Address: 64550 Research Road City/State/Zip: Bend, OR 97703
Email Address; c/o chrostek@bljlawyers.com
Land Use Application Being Appealed: 247-21-001067-PS
Entire Tumalo Community
Property Description: Township Range Section ax Lot
Appellants Signature: A --� O.A- Date: 4/19/2022
By signing this application and paying the appeal deposit, the appellant understands and agrees that
Deschkttes County is collecting a deposit for hearing services, including "whether to hear" proceedings.
s_j-v- r•s...:e _...._j:.t of M:;y iefund or
additional payment will depend upon the actual costs incurred by the county in reviewing the appeal.
Except as provided in section 22.32.024, appellant shall provide a complete transcript of any hearing
lr�iino4 �rn+ri
appealed, from rerf
�„ R ,a• u .y aIi .t+ - a. i r `a yam. _ a. l• . ..._ ii... Qcrecc
1 . i r _C a . v� :�. v: Ji , VU-fiQ0J
Q% (541) 388-6575 @cddodeschutes.org 0www.deschutes,org/cd
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.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
See attached notice of appeal statement
BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
247-21-001067-PS
APPELLANT:
APPLICANT:
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Bend Research Inc.
64550 Research Road
Bend, OR 97703
Tumalo Property Owners Association
ATTORNEY: Garrett Chrostek
Bryant, Lovlien & Jarvis, P.C.
591 SW Mill View Way
Bend, Oregon 97702
LOCATION: The entire Unincorporated Community of Tumalo:
REQUEST: Land Use Compatibility Statement relating to a proposed
extension of community sewer services, located in the road
rights -of -way, to the entire Unincorporated Community of
Tumalo (File Number: 247-21-001067-PS).
I. STANDING:
Appellant appeared in the proceedings below both in writing and at the public hearing.
II. STATEMENT DESCRIBING SPECIFIC REASONS FOR APPEAL:
Appellant concurs with the Hearings Officer's decision to the extent it confirms that the Land
Use Compatibility Statement ("LUCS") submitted by the Applicant under the above -reference
planning file number is not compatible with the County's Comprehensive Plan as required by
OAR 600-031. However, Appellant objects to several of the conclusions reached by the Hearings
Officer and to the Hearings Officer's overall determination including, without limitation, that
sewer lines installed by a private homeowner's association is an outright permitted use in all
zones or that such a conclusion can be determined in light of the procedural shortcomings
presented by this LUCS. Accordingly, Appellant asserts that the decision is in error for the
following reasons:
Notice of Appeal
Pagel of4 (00063733-01465135;1}
1. The Hearings Officer erroneously found that the Applicant's proposed project consists of
a "minor utility facility" that is an outright permitted use in all zones. To be clear,
Appellant does not, by virtue of its prior comments in these proceedings or this appeal,
oppose the notion that underground utility infrastructure, including pipe with diameter of
2-4", installed by public or private (if regulated by the public utilities commission) utility
providers within rights -of -way and that serves immediately adjacent properties (e.g.,
local service lines and not trunk lines) be outright permitted in all zones, subject to
applicable right-of-way permitting in the case of public rights -of -way and approval from
the applicable owner in the case of private rights -of -way. However, the Hearings Officer
did not address the Applicant's status as a private association and not a "public, private or
cooperative electric, fuel, communications, sewage or water company". See Deschutes
County Code ("DDC") 18.04.030. Applicant has provided no basis for which a private
association may submit, let alone obtain a determination on, a LUCS Application for a
community -wide utility project notwithstanding that the Applicant is not a regulated
utility provider.
2. In any event, a determination of whether the subject Project is a "utility facility" (major
or minor) must consider the totality of the proposed development/system. Here,
Applicant in effect seeks to expand a previously approved wastewater facility (per File
No. 247-17-000917-SP) through the entire Tumalo community under what the Applicant
itself described as a "master plan". Such an expansion has drastic implications this poses
under OAR 340-071-0160(4)(f) that warrants greater analyses. The Hearings Officer
erred by effectively limiting the analysis to the diameter of pipe.
3. The Hearings Officer's decision is in error for failing to consider whether the proposed
Project is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan (including, without
limitation, the Tumalo County Plan). The LUCS form specifically asks: "Is the activity or
use compatible with your acknowledged comprehensive plan as required by OAR 660-
031?" The County's Comprehensive Plan, including the Tumalo Community Plan, is not
irrelevant as suggested by the Hearings Officer nor silent on the topic of sewer systems in
Tumalo. To the contrary, the Comprehensive Plan includes language demonstrating that a
community -wide sewer system operated by a private association is incompatible with the
Comprehensive Plan. Section 3.6 of the Comprehensive Plan specifically identifies sewer
districts as the default providers of rural sewer systems. When service is proposed to be
provided by private entities within an unincorporated area, the Comprehensive Plan
specifically authorizes those private service providers, such as Sunriver Utilities
Company in Comprehensive Policy 4.5.32. No such policy or authorization is in place for
the Tumalo unincorporated community and such omission for the Tumalo unincorporated
area must be considered as intentional. See ORS 174.010. Furthermore, Public Facility
Policy #8 of the Tumalo Community Plan promotes creation of a sewer district. If the
Tumalo Community Plan supported private association sewer systems, the plan would
have included express language to that effect. A text amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan and Tumalo Community Plan is necessary to allow for a private association to be the
community sewer provider within Tumalo.
Notice of Appeal
Page 2 of 4 (00063733-01465135;1}
4. The Findings & Decision for 247-17-000917-SP describes that proposal as follows: "The
applicant is requesting a site plan review for water system improvements to existing
water system utilities located on the subject property, and for new sanitary sewer
improvements to add capacity to the Laidlaw Water District's existing facilities".
(Emphasis added.) The Hearings Officer's decision errored by failing to require any
modification of Applicant's existing wastewater facility approvals to allow for the
community -wide facility that Applicant is now proposing.
5. The Hearings Officer's decision is further in error by concluding that Applicant has not
engaged in an improper modification of an application under DCC 22.20.055. The
Applicant added information throughout the proceedings that would require a
modification of application.
6. The Hearings officer erred by allowing the LUCS to be assessed notwithstanding
Applicant's failure to show that it was a property owner or had secured written
authorization from property owners as required by DCC 22.08.010(B). Specifically, the
Hearings Officer ruled that "the County accepted the [LUCS] on and deemed it
complete" and that a decision on compliance with DCC 22.08.010(B) was therefore not
necessary or appropriate at this time." However, County Staff expressly reserved this
question so that the Hearings Officer may issue just such a determination. The March 1,
2022 Memorandum from Caroline House, Senior Planner, to the Hearings Officer makes
this clear: "Staff asks the Hearings Officer to make specific findings on whether the
Applicant has the necessary property owner authorization to initiate this review." The
County therefore did not waive this issue as seemingly suggested by the Hearings Officer
(nor could the Hearings Officer otherwise deprive parties to these proceedings from
making such a challenge). The Applicant has not shown that it has the requisite authority
to submit this LUCS, and a decision on this LUCS cannot be rendered without such
procedural compliance.
7. The Hearings Officer failed to address OAR 660-022-0050. To the extent implicitly
addressed, the Hearings Officer erred in his conclusions.
8. The Hearings Officer erred in finding that any deficiency in Applicant's posting of
notices was "a harmless procedural error". The Hearings Officer makes this
determination on the presumption that the notices the Applicant alleged it did effect
"were apparently sufficient to generate public comments on the [LUCS]". But there is no
indication that public comments were submitted by all interested parties or that all
interested parties were made aware of the Application as required. DCC 22.24.030
requires the Applicant to post notice along all of the sections of proposed piping at the
minimum intervals. Furthermore, the County was obligated to provide notice to all
properties within 250 feet of the "property that is the subject to the notice", which would
be all lands subject to the proposed development including those properties comprising
private road tracts. In many instances, this notice buffer would extend beyond the
boundaries of the Tumalo unincorporated community and would not otherwise be located
within 750 feet of the property on which sewer treatment facility is located. It is
Notice of Appeal
Page 3 of (00063733-01465135;1}
important that these properties outside of the Tumalo unincorporated community receive
notice because the Applicant is apparently proposing to extend lines outside of the
Tumalo unincorporated community boundaries. The Hearings Officer should not have
proceeded with this Application until proper notice was provided and all potentially
affected parties were in turn afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings
below.
III. REQUEST FOR REVIEW:
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant requests that the Board of County Commissioners hear the
appeal de novo. De novo review is appropriate to allow introduction of additional evidence
related to the identified conclusion of the Hearings Officer and to rebut the assumptions and
arguments made by the Hearings Officer, which in several instances were not raised during the
course of the public hearing below.
The Board should hear the appeal because it will resolve plain error in the Hearings Officer's
decision and resolve matters of community -wide, if not county -wide, concern.
IV. TRANSCRIPT:
Appellant requests that the Board waive any transcript requirement as the proceedings were
recorded with video.
SUBMITTED this 19`h day of April, 2022.
BRYANT, LOVLIEN & JARVIS, P.C.
By:G-`''
GARRETT CHROSTEK, OSB#122965
Of Attorneys for Applicants
Notice of Appeal
Page 4 of 4 (00063733-01465135;1 }
\)T E S. COG�,a
BOARD OF
L®Ii/ MISSI®NERS
MEETING DATE: April 27, 2022
SUBJECT: Board Order 2022-022; decision whether to hear two appeals of the Hearings
Officer's decision for a Land Use Compatibility Review for a proposed extension
of sewer pipelines in the Unincorporated Community of Tumalo.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move approval of Order 2022-022 an Order accepting review of Hearings Officer's Decision in
File No. 247-21-001067-PS.
Or
Move approval of Order 2022-022 an Order denying review of Hearings Officer's Decision in File
No. 247-21-001067-PS.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
On April 27, 202Z the Board of County Commissioners (Board) will consider whether to hear two
appeals of a Hearings Officer's decision (ref. File No. 247-21-001067-PS). The Hearings Officer's
decision included a Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Land Use Compatibility Review
(LUCS) for a proposed extension of sewer pipelines, located in road rights -of -way, throughout the
Unincorporated Community of Tumalo.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None.
ATTENDANCE:
Anthony Raguine, Principal Planner
Legal Counsel