Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-04-04 Business Meeting MinutesDeschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, APRIL 4, 2011 _____________________________ Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend __________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Tony DeBone. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel, and one citizen. No representatives of the media were in attendance. Chair Baney opened the hearing at 10:03 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Consideration of a Public Hearing on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update. No hearing was conducted, as at the previous hearing (Thursday, March 31, 2011 in La Pine), the hearing was continued to the April 5, 2011 hearing at 6 p.m. at Sisters City Hall. Therefore, no oral testimony could be taken at this time, if any had been offered (none was). Chair Baney indicated that there will be at least one other hearing conducted after the April 5 hearing date, due to possible changes to wording in the comprehensive plan update document. Written comments are welcome until such time as the hearings are closed. 2. Before the Board was Citizen Input. Citizen William Kuhn asked to speak about something that is not part of the agenda. Mr. Kuhn stated that he has several issues about which he hopes to speak with Commissioner DeBone at some point. He appreciates having a new Board of Commissioners with a different makeup than in past years. He feels this is a big plus. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 4, 2011 Page 1 of 3 Pages Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 4, 2011 Page 2 of 3 Pages He said he would love to walk away and never have to come back, but he sees things occurring that don’t make sense to him, and are of community concern. For instances, the recent situation with the new District Attorney, although there could have been some problems that originated regarding the release of personal information that came from the County. He would like to see the County more willing to recognize errors when they have been made, and to deal with them in a straightforward way. His situation has to do with a Code violation, issues brought forth since 1997 regarding a problem at Sizemore Road. There was no homeowners agreement in place as required, and (County employees) Dennis Perkins and Kevin Harrison told him there had to be one in writing to start a Code complaint process. This happened on January 15, 1997. Nothing was done. He asked that the County not finalize a building permit for the party in violation, but they did. Since then there was mediation, which did not work. He also offered wording in the agreement regarding the party’s right to have dogs on their property, but they refused. He spoke with (then County Counsel) Rick Isham about the deed restriction being the homeowners’ agreement, but that a suppositional statement cannot be appealed. Someone at the County had said that the homeowners’ agreement applies. Chair Baney suggested that there is really no way to deal with a suppositional statement. Laurie Craghead added that there is a possibility of a declaratory ruling on the land use application, but it states clearly in Code that statements made by staff over the counter or comments made by staff cannot be held as a ruling. The Board already decided on the homeowners’ agreement if the parties can come together on it. There is a possibility of a declaratory ruling if the criteria fits. Mr. Kuhn stated that if an official makes a statement here, it means something. Why can’t what a County employee says do the same. A Judge did rule in his favor. He does not want to pay thousands of dollars for a declaratory ruling to correct this problem. Ms. Craghead pointed out that a suppositional statement could be countered by any number of other suppositional statements. This would require a formal land use action.