HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrder 021 - Walker SDC DecisionDeschutes 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 October 12, 2011
Please see directions for completing this document on the next page.
DATE: October 5, 2011
FROM: George Kolb, Interim Department Director Road 541-322-7113
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2011-021, an Order Approving the Road Department
Director's Decision to not allow a Request to Drop the SDC Requirement for Relocation of a Single
Family Residence
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? NO
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
On August 31, September 26 and October 3, 2011, public hearings were held to consider a protest
concerning SDC charges filed by Mr. Michael Walker on a property located in Terrebonne. On June
22,2011, Mr. Walker was advised by the Deschutes County Community Development Department that
SDC's in the amount of$3,362 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. 11 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 ofthe 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.
Mr. Walker did not agree with the Department Director's decision and requested a hearing before the
Board of County Commissioners per Resolution 2008-059, Section 12, Appeals and Review Hearings.
During the initial public hearing, questions were raised by the Board of County Commissioners
concerning the language ofthe SDC resolution and how it related to this situation. The Board decided
to keep the hearing open until September 26, 2011 to allow Staff to research the language in the
resolution and come to the Board during a work session prior to this hearing to help clarify the
situation.
A work session was held on Wednesday, September 14,2011 and information presented at the session
was considered by the Board for the September 26th hearing. Mr. Walker was not available for the
September 26,2011 hearing so a continuation of the hearing was granted to October 3,2011.
At the final hearing held on October 3, 2011, the Board of County Commissioners considered the
information presented by staff at the September 14 work session and subsequently voted 2 - 1 to accept
the Directors decision that Mr. Walkers protest be denied.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Denial ofthe protest will require Mr. Walker to pay the SDC amount of $3,362.00 to Deschutes County
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
The Road Department recommends signature Order No. 2011-021, approving the Road Department
Directors decision to not allow a request to drop the SDC requirement for relocation of a single-family
residence.
ATTENDANCE: George Kolb, Interim Road Department Director
DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS:
Copy to Sheila OdIe (ext. 7148) at the Road Department
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Approving the Road Department *
Director's Decision to Not Allow a Request to * ORDER NO. 2011-021
Drop the SDC Requirement for Relocation of a *
Single Family Residence *
WHEREAS, on July 25,2011, the Road Department Director received a letter from Michael J. Walker,
("Applicant"), protesting the application of SDC charges to the relocation of a structure from one lot located
within Deschutes County onto another lot located at the address of 1092 Barberry Dr., Terrebonne, OR (tax lot
141316BD00308, the "Property"). Resolution 2008-059, Section 4, Applicability, (C) provides for such
protests; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 2008-059, Section 4, (A) the Road Department Director decided
that since no other structure had previously been located on the Property at 1092 Barberry Dr., Terrebonne, OR,
the relocated structure does not constitute a replacement structure and can be expected to increase the peak hour
trips generated by the Property, and therefore denied the request to excuse the SDC payment on the Property;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 2008-059, Section 12, Appeals and Review Hearings, (D), an
applicant may request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners for the purpose of reviewing all
information and evidence relative to a protest, if the applicant disagrees with the Road Department Director's
decision; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant requested a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners and the
Board conducted said hearing at which time Applicant appeared and testified; and
WHEREAS, the Board having considered Applicant's protest on August 31, September 26 and October
3, 2011, determined that the Director's decision was correct and that the Applicant'S protest be denied; now,
therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY
ORDERS as follows:
Section 1. Resolution 2008-059 states: "A Transportation System Development Charge is hereby
imposed upon all new development for which a building permit is required within all unincorporated areas of
the County outside the urban growth boundaries of the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond and Bend. 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." (Emphasis added)
PAGE I OF 2-ORDER No. 2011-1I;;r
Section 2. Prior to the Applicant relocating a structure from elsewhere in Deschutes County, the subject
Property located at 1092 Barberry Drive, was vacant and did not have a structure on it. Applicant's relocation of
a structure to the Property will result in an increase in the number of trips generated by the Property and is
therefore subject to the SDC. The fact that Applicant has moved the same structure from elsewhere in
Deschutes County is irrelevant to the applicability of the SDC to the Property.
Section 3. Based upon the foregoing, the Board determines that the Applicant is responsible for payment
of the SDC on the Property.
Dated this ___of _____, 20_ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
TAMMY BANEY, Chair
ANTHONY DEBONE, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary ALAN UNGER, Commissioner
PAGE 2 OF 2-ORDER No. 20 11-~4