The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDC Waiver Request - WalkerDeschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board Business Meeting of August 31, 2011 Please see directions for completing this document on the next page. DATE: August 18,2011 FROM: George Kolb, Interim Department Director Road 541-322-7113 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing concerning a protest ofSDC charges assessed on a propety owned by Michael J. Walker, 3711 N.W. Povey Ave., Terrebonne, OR 97760 PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? YES. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: On June 22, 2011, Mr. Walker was advised by the Deschutes County Community Development Department that SDC's in the amount of$3,405 were owed by Mr. Walker for a house that he relocated from one property to another property located within Deschutes County. Mr. Walker felt that he should not have to pay the SDC's on this application as the structure had been constructed inside of Deschutes County in the 1980's and therefore the trips generated from the residence were already calculated into all the traffic studies conducted by Deschutes County. Per Resolution 2008-059, if an applicant does not agree with the SDC charge, he can request a review of the charge by the Road Department Director and the Director will deliver a decision in writing within ten (10) working days of the request. The Road Department Director reviewed the information provided by Mr. Walker and denied the request based on the following: 1. The basis for the request was that Mr. Walker was not increasing the number of peak hour trips because he was moving a house from one lot to another within the County. In reading Resolution 2008 059, the Director felt this reasoning did not apply based on the wording in Section 4, Applicability, (A), second sentence which states, "This shall include new construction and alteration, expansion or replacement of a building or dwelling unit if such alteration, expansion or replacement results in an increase in the number of peak hour trips generated compared to the present number of peak hour trips generated by the development or the property on which the development is located." Prior to the relocation of the house, this property was not generating any trips. Therefore the SDC's would apply. 2. The other issue concerning the request is that per Section 4, Applicability, subsection (5) of Resolution 2008-059, the request was not submitted prior to the issuance of the building permit. This is a requirement of the Resolution in order for the request to be considered valid. The other concern the Director has is that, having moved the subject house, Mr. Walker could later move to or build a second house on the lot from which the subject house was removed, and thus claim an exemption from SDC charges based on the fact that the new house would be classified as a replacement dwelling and therefore not be subject to SDC's per Section 4, Applicability, (A). Based on the above reasoning, the Director rejected the request to drop the SDC requirement for the lot onto which the house was relocated to. ~.WaIke~did not agree with the Department Directors decision and is thereby requesting a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners per Resolution 2008·059, Section 12, Appeals and Review Hearings. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: If the request to drop the SDC requirement is approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the SDC fund will not receive the amount of $3,405. RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: The Road Department recommends the Board of County Commissioners review the testimony presented at the hearing and determine if the request to drop the SDC charge is valid. The Staff will prepare for later Board adoption an order encompassing the Board's announced decision. ATTENDANCE: George Kolb, Interim Road Department Director, Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS: Copy to Sheila Odie (ext. 7148) at the Road Department Michael J. Walker 3711 N.W. Povey Ave. Terrebonne, OR 97760 (541) 923-3699 July 25, 2011 Deschutes County Road Department Director George Colb 61150 S.E 27th Street Bend, OR 97702 Re: Review Request-Transportation System Development Charge Dear Mr. Colb, As I discuss with you on July 19, 2011 enclosed please find my Review Request outlining my objection to the Transportation System Development Charge (TSDC) being applied to this situation. I would also requesUhat payment of the TSDC be delayed untill have had an opportunity to complete the Review/Appeal process, without penalty (TSDC due August 17, 2011). ~ilJ Michael J. Walke TSDC Review Request APPLICANT: Michael J. Walker 3711 N. W. Povey Ave. Terrebonne, OR 97760 (541) 923-3699 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1092 Barberry Dr. Terrebonne, OR 14-13-16BD 308 DATE OF PERMIT: 10/27/10 #69838 NATURE OF DEVELOPMENT: Relocate stick built single family residence. COMPLAINT: On June 22, 2011 Deschutes County Community Development advised me that TSDC on the aforementioned permit were owed, and must be paid by August 17,2011. Upon obtaining the permit I had reviewed Resolution 2008-059, and formed the opinion that the TSDC would not apply to the relocation of a structure within Deschutes County. 'came to this conclusion based on the language found in Section 4 -APPLICABILITY, which focuses on development that increases the number of peak hour trips. The structure I moved was constructed on property inside of Deschutes County in the 1980's, and therefore the trips generated from the residence have already been calculated into all traffic studies conducted by the county since that time. Adding trips into peak hour trips again because the structure moved to a new location within Deschutes County would be calculating the trips generated twice, and fails to provide an accurate total of peak hour trips. I am unable to find any traffic study methodology that allows for the calculation of peak hour trips from a single structure twice. All methodology I find would indicate that an increase in peak hour trips would be generated from the new development on the vacated lot, and that the TSDC should apply to that development/permit. Therefore I do not believe that the TSDC are applicable to a moved structure, just as they would not be to a replacement structure. Neither is increasing the number of peak hour trips to the county transportation system. I Road D rtment 61150 SE 27th St. • Bend. Oregon 97702 [541) 388-6581 • FAX (541) 388-2719 j July 29,2011 Michael 1. Walker 3711 N.W. Povey Ave. Terrebonne, Or 97760 Re: SDC Review Request Dear Mr. Walker; I have received your Review Request dated July 25, 2011 concerning your objection to the Transportation System Development Charge {TSDC}being-appliecUo the relocation of a stick built single family residence from one lot to another within Deschutes County. The basis for the request is that you are not increasing the number of peak hour trips because you are moving a house from one lot to another within the County. In reading the Resolution 2008-059, I find that this reasoning does not apply based on the following wording in Section 4. Applicability, (A), second sentence: "This shall include new construction and alteration, expansion or replacement ofa building or dwelling unit ifsuch alteration, expansion or replacement results in an increase in the number ofpeak hour trips generated compared to the present number or peak hour trips generated bv the development or the property on which the development is located" Since there was not a house previously located on this lot, the TSDC charge will apply. The other issue concerning this request is that per Section 4, Applicability, Section (5) of Resolution 2008-059, it was not submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. This is a requirement of the resolution in order for the request to be considered valid. Based on the above information, I cannot accept your request to drop the SDC requirement for relocation of the single family residence. Quality Services Performed with Pride Per Section 12, Appeals and Review Hearings of Resolution 2008-059, if you do not agree with my decision, you can request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. This hearing shall be requested by you within thirty (30) days of the first receipt of this decision. Failure to request a hearing within the time provided shall be deemed a waiver of such right. 2k George Kolb, PE Interim Road Department Director Cc: Mark Pilliod, County Legal Counsel I ,: .. ; ; j Michael J. Walker 3711 N.W. Povey Ave. Terrebonnel OR 97760 August 14, 2011 J Deschutes County Road Department U.S. Certified Mail # 7006 0810 0006 6308 1721 Director George Kolb 61150 S.E. 27th Street Bend, OR 97702 Re: Resolution 2008-DS9/Request for Hearing before Board of Commissioners Dear Mr. Kolb, I have reviewed the decision in your letter dated July 29,20111 and disagree with the findings .As required by Resolution 2008-059 Section 12 (D), I request a hearing before the Deschutes County Commissioners regarding the disputed Transportation System Development Charge. Enclosed please find the information requested in Section 12 (C). Although this information indicates that the SDC charge has not been paid it should be noted that payment wi" be made prior to August 17,2011 in order to avoid the penalty charge. Please note that I will be out of the area between September 8,2011 and September 19, 2011. Please do not schedule the hearing during this period. I I I TSDC Review Request APPLICANT: Michael J. Walker 3711 N. W. Povey Ave. Terrebonne, OR 97760 (541) 923-3699 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1092 Barberry Dr. Terrebonne, OR 14-13-168D 308 DATE OF PERMIT: 10/27/10 #69838 NATURE OF DEVELOPMENT: Relocate stick built single family residence. COMPLAINT: On June 22, 2011 Deschutes County Community Development advised me that TSDC on the aforementioned permit were owed, and must be paid by August 17,2011. Upon obtaining the permit I had reviewed Resolution 2008-059, and formed the opinion that the TSDC would not apply to the relocation of a structure within Deschutes County. I came to this conclusion based on the language found in Section 4 -APPLICABILITY, which focuses on development that increases the number of peak hour trips. The structure I moved was constructed on property inside of Deschutes County in the 1980's, and therefore the trips generated from the residence have already been calculated into all traffic studies conducted by the county since that time. Adding trips into peak hour trips again because the structure moved to a new location within Deschutes County would be calculating the trips generated twice, and fails to provide an accurate total of peak hour trips. I am unable to find any traffic study methodology that allows for the calculation of peak hour trips from a single structure twice. All methodology I find would indicate that an increase in peak hour trips would be generated from the new development on the vacated lot, and that the TSDC should apply to that development/permit. Therefore I do not believe that the TSDC are applicable to a moved structure, just as they would not be to a replacement structure. Neither is increasing the number of peak hour trips to the county transportation system.