Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-11-22 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, NOVEMBER 22, 2010 _____________________________ Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend __________________________ Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Dave Kanner, Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack and Paul Blikstad, Community Development; Susan Ross, Property & Facilities; Marty Wynne and Terri Maerki, Finance; Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin; and approximately twenty other citizens. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 10:02 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. William Kuhn stated that he previously came before the Board to ask questions about a tax situation, but was unable to ask as many questions as he wanted to at the time. He wants to be on a formal agenda so that the discussion can be put on the record. He wants to know if there is a citizen review board regarding property tax issues, regarding equity in the system. If not, he wants to know where citizens can go in order to have input. He is not talking about rates, but philosophy. Dave Kanner said that the rules and regulations are established by State legislators. It is a statewide system and is written into the State Constitution, and the Administrative Rules are adopted by the State Department of Revenue. Commissioner Luke added that if a county is unable or unwilling to administer this program, the State would take it over. The State established the rules and the County has to comply. Mr. Kuhn said that he is one of two owners of a property in the Tumalo Winter Deer Range, and a wildlife habitat program should be available to him. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 1 of 20 Pages Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 2 of 20 Pages Laurie Craghead said that the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife established these programs. Mr. Kuhn stated that the ODF&W told him that the County determines how forest lands fit into this scenario. Commissioner Luke said that it depends on whether it involves forest or EFU zoning. Mr. Kuhn said that there is EFU zoning nearby, but his property is zoned forest. He is also interested in protecting the wildlife in the area. Ms. Craghead said EFU is the only land that has the wildlife habitat zoning overlay. Commissioner Luke stated that this had a lot to do with land in the valley that was being farmed from fence to fence. He said that it is possible that Mr. Kuhn would have to apply for a zone change if he wants this to change. Forest is a natural habitat unlike farming. Commissioner Baney asked if Mr. Kuhn had met with the County Tax Assessor. Mr. Kuhn replied that he is not comfortable doing so again because he feels the Assessor has not been totally frank with him. Commissioner Luke suggested that some time be set aside for Mr. Kuhn to meet with the ODF&W, the Assessor and the Board in a work session to discuss this issue. Commissioner Unger asked that there be a series of questions provided so that the meeting will have some structure. Mr. Kuhn asked about a suggestion to remove the ODF&W fee from his tax bill. He feels this is a policy decision that County Legal Counsel does not have the authority to do. Ms. Craghead said that she only conveyed the Assessor’s policy to him, and is in discussions with the Assessor and the ODF&W at this point regarding this issue. Mr. Kanner stated that ODF&W is not losing out on anything. The property tax payments that come in to the County include many fees such as these charged by other entities. The Treasurer determines the percentage of the total that goes to each entity. Some developments may have commonly-owned ground with many owners. 2. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No 2010- 131, Establishing Prequalification Standards for Construction of Tenant Improvements at the Deschutes County Jail. Susan Ross gave an overview of the process, which will be based on low competitive bid. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 3 of 20 Pages BANEY: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 3. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2010-128, Adopting a Supplemental Budget for Fiscal year 2010-11. Commissioner Luke opened the public hearing. Marty Wynne gave a brief overview of the item, and said there have been requests from various departments to make these changes. Being no further testimony or discussion, Chair Luke closed the hearing. BANEY: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2010-056, Approving the Hellmuth Annexations into Four Rivers Vector Control District. Laurie Craghead gave an overview of the Orders and their history. She has not received confirmation from the Department of Revenue regarding the legal description, and asked that the Orders be approved in a week to allow for that input. Chair Luke opened the hearing, which relates to three properties owned by the same person. No testimony was offered. The hearing was continued for a week to allow for the Department of Revenue’s input. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 4 of 20 Pages 5. Before the Board was Consideration of Second Reading of Ordinance No 2010-030, Amending Code to Change the Designation of Certain Property from Agricultural to Rural Industrial (Applicant: 4-R Equipment). Ms. Craghead said a few typographical errors were corrected but there have been no substantive changes to the Ordinances. BANEY: Move second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 2010-030. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Chair Luke conducted the second reading at this time, by title only. BANEY: Move adoption. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 6. Before the Board was Consideration of Second Reading of Ordinance No 2010-031, Amending the Zoning Map to Change the Designation of Certain Property from Agricultural to Rural Industrial (Applicant: 4-R Equipment). BANEY: Move second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 2010-031. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Chair Luke conducted the second reading at this time, by title only. BANEY: Move adoption. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 5 of 20 Pages 7. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on an Appeal of the Hearings Officer’s Decision regarding a Nonconforming Use Alteration and Site Plan for Wooden Cabins to Replace Canvas Tents on Existing Platforms at the Outward Bound Facility. Chair Luke opened the public hearing on this issue. Commissioner Baney then read the opening statement (a copy of which is attached for reference). Commissioner Luke said that there has been a Board work session and a few e- mails were received. Commissioner Unger stated that he took a drive years ago and ended up at that location. Paul Blikstad gave an overview of the item. There are about six cabins to be improved within the sensitive zone that were denied by the Hearings Officer; she approved the others. He provided a matrix of questions to the Board (a copy of which is attached for reference). The Hearings Officer found that the tents and cabins had identical uses, for sleeping and storage of camping materials, and said this is not an alteration of a nonconforming use. Staff supports this decision. Regarding the ESEE goal, the Hearings Officer noted that single family dwellings were allowed with setbacks, but it is unclear whether the ESEE refers to any development at all or just single family dwellings. Commissioner Luke asked what precipitated the ESEE requirement. Mr. Blikstad said this was part of the comprehensive plan update in 1992. The idea was to identify all resource sites and sensitive bird and mammal areas. There is a document for every animal and site. Commissioner Luke asked when the original siting of the tents occurred. Mr. Blikstad said this was in 1987, before the ESEE analysis and before any residences were constructed. Mr. Blikstad said that the ESEE applies to the entire circle. Commissioner Luke asked if it applies equally to other sites in that sensitive area. Mr. Blikstad stated that there has been quite a lot of building in the vicinity, with minimum setback requirements. Commissioner Unger noted that the buffer area is closer in relation to the homes than it is for the cabins. He asked why the homes were approved when this property is experiencing more problems. Mr. Blikstad stated that the County tried to identify a balance to avoid a taking of residential property. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 6 of 20 Pages Commissioner Luke said that the structures were already approved. He asked whether Counsel agrees with staff recommendations. Ms. Craghead stated that the residences in the area also have accessory buildings in place. The question is whether this is a different enough use to merit review. Commissioner Unger asked why the ESEE analysis does not look at the impact of uses rather than the types of structures. Commissioner Luke said that this assumes the same person will always have the property. Sometimes the use could change depending on the owner. Mr. Blikstad said that the activities on the south end and the sleeping is on the middle and north end, with minimal impact. If the prohibition applies to more than single family dwellings, the Hearings Office found that it could apply to all structures. Staff feels that it may not have to apply this to the proposed change. There is a question about 14th Amendment Rights, Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Ms. Craghead said that the question is whether the structures are felt to be different enough to merit different treatment. Staff believes that a survey is not needed. In regard to Fire Department requirements and fire code, Commissioner Luke feels that there needs to be a plan in place for increased fire protection if the structures are changed. Mr. Blikstad said Commissioner Luke had asked about handicap use. The storage sheds do not require this, per the applicant, because of size. In regard to Oregon Scenic Waterways requirements, Commissioner Luke asked if State Parks has to approve this application. Mr. Blikstad stated that he understands that the structures are not visible from the river, and therefore State Parks’ approval would not apply. Commissioner Unger asked for clarification regarding building permit issues. He asked whether one would be needed for a structure of this type. Ms. Craghead replied that it could be required simply because they will be used for sleeping purposes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 7 of 20 Pages Commissioner Baney asked about the eagle nest site and whether it is known if the eagles are there. Mr. Blikstad replied they do the best they can based on Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife sitings of eagles. It appears that the map for the ESEE is correct. The ODF&W does check these sites on a regular basis. Commissioner Unger said the report reads that the nests have been used since about 1972. Commissioner Luke asked whether the Board would like to break for the department head meeting at noon. Commissioners Luke and Unger said they would like to carry through instead of recessing. The Board took a short break at this time. Tom Anderson said that permits will be required, based on the use of the property for sleeping quarters. Steve Hultberg and Henry Morse of Outward Bound USA Board. He provided a packet of exhibits (a copy of which is attached) that should already be in the record. He also referred to an oversized aerial map of the area. Mr. Morse gave an overview of the Outward Bound program. It has operated in Oregon since the 1960’s and the current location was occupied before there were any residences in the area. The facility is used for staging and for seasonal staff to stay at night in the spring and summer. There are a couple of days of training at the site and then the groups go to different locations for the courses. Previously, from the 1980’s, wall tents were used for the storage of equipment. Over the years it has been determined that the tents do not hold up well in the weather for long, and gear and other equipment are subject to weathering and rodent damage. They need better shelter for equipment and staff when they are there. They are referring to them as sheds, and will match the other structures on the property. Inside there will just be stud walls. The permit department has designated them as sheds. A question was raised as to why permits were not obtained first. They felt that the EFU zone did not require permits for ancillary buildings; nor were they changing the use of the buildings; nor did the footprint change. They also checked the County website, and there was nothing required for 168 square foot sheds instead of 200 square feet, which is required. In any case, he feels that the ESEE is the trigger point and this would have come up anyway. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 8 of 20 Pages Commissioner Luke asked if the pilings are wood or concrete. Mr. Morris said they are concrete and about three feet under the surface, and were built in the 1980’s. Mr. Hultberg stated that two decisions are on appeal – the nonconforming use and site plan. They have only appealed the site plan and ESEE analysis, not the nonconforming use. The Hearings Officer said that this does not apply to any alteration to the nonconforming use. He referred to the distance from the shed closest to the eagle’s nest. At the time the ESEE was adopted, there was no other development in the area. There have been a lot of homes and accessory structures allowed since the mid-1990’s. Mr. Morse said that framing was in place on a permanent basis to attach the canvas to each year. Mr. Hultberg said that he feels the ESEE does not prohibit this modification. There are only two provisions of the ESEE and they feel the HO interpretation is incorrect through law and policy. When the County adopted the ESEE in the mid-1990’s, and decided on a balanced use approach. On property that can be developed, it can be done with certain provisions. This allows for conflicting uses. Within Exhibit C, excerpts of the ESEE, the County said that single family dwellings could be allowed if they meet setbacks. No additional structures for Outward Bound would be allowed in the area. The Hearings Officer said this was an across the board prohibition of development. He believes the ESEE prohibits single family dwellings. The sheds were in place when the ESEE was adopted, and it was understood they were there. The document refers to single family dwellings specifically. Section 5.4 says that for all lots in the sensitive habitat area, maintenance or construction would be prohibited during the nesting season. The Hearings Officer did not address this issue in her argument. He then referred to the oversized aerial photograph of the area, pointing out the sheds in the habitat area. There are six homes of significant size built within that area that are closer to the nesting site than any of the sheds. There are many more residences in the area. One improvement is over 7,000 square feet, which could hold every Outward Bound improvement and more inside of it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 9 of 20 Pages The Hearings Officer’s decision said that Outward Bound would not be able to alter anything. Every other property in the area could double the size of their structures or put up a shed or a barn, if they meet the setback requirements. But he is being told that Outward Bound can’t do anything, ever. The decision said that placing any additional structural member, such as a floor joist, is prohibited. This does not make sense. Commissioner Luke asked if any of the homes are zoned EFU. Mr. Hultberg said they are zoned differently. Commissioner Luke stated there is a difference in the law for each. Mr. Hultberg said some are EFU and others are MUA. They are treated differently in code, but per the ESEE analysis, they are all ruled by the overlay zone. Conditional uses are not prohibited on the EFU land, but are on the RR-10 or MUA. Commissioner Luke said that this was done in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, and it is difficult to interpret what was meant at the time. He asked if any sheds are visible from the river. Mr. Morse said that he believes they are not visible from the river due to the terrain, and there is also considerable screening. Mr. Hultberg stated that the ESEE clearly anticipated the adjacent properties would be developed, which is why the setbacks were established. He feels the Hearings Officer’s interpretation is incorrect and contrary to Oregon law in respect to nonconforming uses. The law says these uses can be continued in spite of zoning amendments, and the uses and structures may be altered or modified per criteria. The Hearings Officer said those standards were met. There is case law to support this. The Hearings Officer said the nonconforming use cannot be modified, but that is contrary to the law. This does not make sense when you look at surrounding properties where they can do just about anything they want. The second legal reason showing the Hearings Officer’s error is that it is not consistent in interpreting what is ambiguous. There are ways to interpret statute, and you can’t omit something that is in statute or add something that is not in there. This cannot lead to an absurd result. All provisions of the statute have to be included. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 10 of 20 Pages The ESEE provision says ‘single family dwellings can be allowed’ but the Hearings Officer omitted this. This needs to be included and has to be properly applied. Section 5.4 says ‘on all lots’ expansion and improvements can be made. The Hearings Officer said that this can be allowed on all except Outward Bound property. The last piece is how this interpretation leads to absurd results. A neighbor can put up a garage that is larger than all Outward Bound structures combined; this is absurd, as the neighbors are closer to the eagle’s nest. This does not make sense in the context of the ESEE analysis. Commissioner Luke said the neighbors cannot do just anything that they want. They have to operate within the rules. Mr. Hultberg pointed out they can do a lot more things which Outward Bound won’t be allowed to do. In regard to structural development, the Hearings Officer feels that is the addition of any addition of a structural component. He feels this interpretation is not consistent with this and other ESEE’s that have been adopted. Many were adopted within the County at the same time, addressing different species and areas. Structural development generally means a new structure, not a change to an existing structure. It does not mean the addition of a structural component to an existing structure. Commissioner Luke said that this is a nonconforming use, so it would be hard to change the footprint. Mr. Hultberg said the threshold question is whether there is a material impact on the surrounding area. It is difficult to add on but would not necessarily be impossible. He said they have no objection to other things. They will get a letter from the Fire Department on what might be required. Also, a surveyed site plan of the cabins and the zone come into play if the appeal is denied. They don’t want to go through the expense of a survey and feels that with the help of staff; they should be able to make that determination easily. Paul Blikstad said that with the use of a GPS unit, they should be able to determine within a few feet where the cabins are in relation to other things. At this time public testimony was accepted. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 11 of 20 Pages Suzanne Michaels lives across the river from Outward Bound. She has not had a problem with them until this issue came up; they have been pleasant to deal with. She asked the Board review the record to date. The Outward Bound people feel that additional structural development only refers to single family dwellings. It does not single out that; it just says that it does not apply to any. She feels that the intent of the ESEE is to acknowledge each lot as separate entities, clearly defining each. The properties are referred to by lot number. There is no confusion. It is clear that the Outward Bound property was addressed separately by ESEE. Each have different requirements. Her lot has a 25 foot setback. Others require more. It is clear that a permit was required and building could not occur during the nesting season except for emergency repairs. It is clear what type of construction can happen and when. Residential lot owners do not have the same restrictions and limitations based on the ESEE analysis. Different zones have different requirements, and not all within the sensitive habitat area have to follow the same rules. A structure is anything that is constructed or built or composed in a definite manner, or is attached to something already there. This includes structural modifications. She feels all improvements to the existing structures in the Outward Bound property should be removed. They used to be simple platforms with cross members. They referred to the tents as temporary. They now say they are semi-permanent. They were not the only development across the river at the time. Some infrastructure was put in for Oden Meadows but there was not much activity then. In regard to Equal Rights being violated, she feels hers have been. They are being held to a different standard. Land zoned for agricultural use is different than that for residential use. When Outward Bound first started building, they were designated as a school. They were allowed to build any number of buildings. In 2002, LUBA decided that this should be for only grades K-12, and eliminated trade schools and others. In 2004, Outward Bound tried to get a dining hall, and planning messed up, and it was allowed. This violated her rights again. It was rubber-stamped. The County and Outward Bound seem to have a particularly cozy relationship. Paul Blikstad and Henry Morse have had e-mails going back and forth for some time. She finds it improper for Mr. Blikstad to send other e-mails on to Mr. Morse for his input. He indicated that he did not necessarily want to send this to a hearing. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 12 of 20 Pages Commissioner Luke stated that when the neighbors are notified and have concerns, staff tries to get as many questions answered as possible ahead of time. This can maybe avoid an expensive and time-consuming public hearing. He does not feel this is unusual. Staff tries to be neutral but wants to find out all they can ahead of time for the benefit of all concerned. Ms. Michaels said there were a lot of e-mails in June. They were sent to the ODF&W and the applicant. She feels this is offensive and a violation of her rights, as the applicant was given information in real time that she was not able to get at the time. She feels this benefited the applicant. In regard to the site plan, she feels that the applicant should remove all of the cabins in the specific area. They are not happy with the County’s comments. They also feel that the Fire Department has not been given enough information to comment. The applicant sites economic hardship, but did not prove this claim. Mr. Morse said that volunteer labor was used and materials were donated or paid through fundraising. Any economic hardship should fall on the applicant. The cabins were built after the County sent out a letter that they were not to build, because Outward Bound felt that a permit was not needed. Outward Bound has a premier land use attorney and seem to have enough money to pay that fee. They ignored the rules and regulation that others have to follow. The most recent annual report shows that Outward Bound is not the poor nonprofit that they claim to be. Commissioners Luke said that you can’t buy land use laws. The financial part does not come into play and this is not part of the discussion. He asked that she refrain from personal attacks. Ms. Michaels said she thinks they have threatened to put blue tarps over the structures if the improvements are not allowed. This is not in the best interests of anyone. Commissioner Luke asked about the structural development within the sensitive habitat area, and the lots were specified. He asked what this means. Mr. Anderson said that there are definitions of a structure requiring permits. Typically those relate to size, foundation, permanence, use, and so on. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 13 of 20 Pages Commissioner Baney asked if this is an additional structure or a modification to an existing structure. Mr. Anderson said that building code is different than land use, and there are frequently modifications allowed to existing structures. Regarding how that relates to language in the ESEE, he does not think they can be compared. This would not be a new structure under building code. Ms. Craghead stated that the definition under land use for structure indicates there is a fixed base attached to the ground. Alteration means any change to a structure’s walls and roof and other components. Commissioner Unger said this is a small structure and would not normally need a permit, except that it would be used for sleeping purposes. Commissioner Luke asked about wind shear and lift, and snow loads. He said they are different than a tent; a tent would blow away or collapse. He would like some information in this regard. Mr. Anderson said that with a building permit, this would all be examined. Dawn Kruckenberg said that she lives across from the northern set of cabins. She is a design engineer. She has two issues; all the cabin sites, and the ones in the sensitive area. When the platforms and tents were approved, they did say they might want a future bunkhouse. She asked if they have a permit for the foundations. There was an August 10, 2010 letter that says the use of the platforms were not limited by the original conditional use permit. You can’t foresee what might come up in the future. She feels that at the time something else might have been assumed. Outward Bound has been clear about their use; they are good neighbors and have been quiet, although sometimes someone is there longer than the season. She asked if this means they will stay there longer. One has electricity to power up electronic devices. Overall, the four-sided wood-framed boxes will have windows and door openings. They have been called tents, wood cabins, sheds, storage sheds, sleeping cabins, temporary and semi-permanent, and so on. She wants to know how building and planning view these structures. If cabins are allowed to remain, it needs to be stated how they will be used and their occupancy status. They are inhabited part of the time. In regard to the ESEE, she follows the rules that they have to and so has everyone else. They want Outward Bound to work within the ESEE as well to protect species. She would like to talk with Steve George regarding letters that were submitted. He said that he went to the County to talk about the ESEE. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 14 of 20 Pages The subdivisions were already there and building was allowed with setbacks and other requirements. Only a part of the Outward Bound property is in the circle. They could build elsewhere outside of the circle if they wanted to. She supports the Hearings Officer’s decision. Spencer Krueger clarified that the nearby homes cannot have any number of additional structures, since they are restricted by CC&R’s. The tents were in use less than six months each year and are temporary. This is additional structural development. They are referring to them as sheds. Why not have a storage facility if it is just for equipment. These are habitable units for employees. Regarding the eagles, the walls and roofs are permanent and do not confirm to the ESEE analysis. Outward Bound constructed these hastily and thumbed their nose at regulatory rules. Ignorance of the law should be no excuse. A ruling should be made as if they were not built. They should be penalized. Ms. Kruckenberg stated that the eagle’s nest issue is a State item and the State needs to be involved. The nest location might be different. Commissioner Luke said that because it appears that the structures can’t be seen from the river, State Parks does not need to be involved. Commissioned Baney said that the Board has to use the information now available. Larry Kruckenberg said that he has been in construction for many years. He has never heard of a tent being referred to as a structure. The platform or base is a structure. When you do additional work, you need a permit. And the entire building needs to be brought up to code at that point. Commissioner Luke said that this is not the case. You’d have to change a lot of things in almost every structure or home if that was the case every time you make a modification. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 15 of 20 Pages Mr. Kruckenberg said that any new part would have to be at Code. He feels there is a big difference between a tent and a shed. Outward Bound has 46 acres and room to build, and most residential areas have just a couple. He is concerned that if the cabins stay, for storage or sleeping, he feels they are primarily used for sleeping. He wanted to know if they are just for Outward Bound people or will the public be able to use them. Mr. Blikstad said they would have to go through a land use process to change the use, and it would be very difficult. The use is specifically for Outward Bound staff and clients. Mr. Kruckenberg stated that the Outward Bound calendar shows an invitation for September 11 and 12 for volunteers to work and spend the night. They had not been approved for anyone to stay in yet. Steve Hultberg asked for the opportunity to provide limited oral testimony at a future date. There is often a need for the applicant to respond directly. Ms. Craghead said that it is not the County’s standard procedure. Typically it is done in writing. Commissioners Luke and Unger said they’d prefer what can be answered now be done, followed by written response. The Board took a fifteen-minute break at this time (1:15 p.m.). The hearing continued at 1:30 p.m. The applicant was then given an opportunity to provide oral rebuttal. Mr. Hultberg said that there is a lot of material to respond to. He asked that if there are questions, that they be asked now so he can respond. He said he has taken this project on pro bono. He respects what Outward Bound does, and feels they have gotten caught up in a meat grinder of local land use law and he wants to help them out. There was a lot of discussion regarding structure and alterations. The existing platforms are structures. Commissioner Luke asked how they are attached to the ground, and whether there are concrete piers attached to the platforms. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 16 of 20 Pages Mr. Hultberg said he doesn’t think they are just resting on the piers. He believes they are attached under County code. This is a structural modification of an existing structure. It is not a new structure under Code. That is important, because this is just an alteration of something that is already there. This falls under Section 5.1. The ODF&W does not control the habitat zone. Those are County adopted provisions of the Code. Only the County can change this designation. The ODF&W is a commenting agency. Commissioner Luke said that they have the ability to appeal if they feel it is warranted. Mr. Hultberg stated that the ODF&W was concerned about additional activity. There will be no additional activity. There is no evidence that the structures themselves will have any additional impact. The Hearings Officer does not agree with the ODF&W in this regard. Regarding the 1987 approval, the conditional use permit was not limited. The use is what is occurring now, with nothing said that they could not be altered in the future. The website invitation was for a work party limited to alumni and instructors. This was not a public event, but an annual thing, and four people showed up. It is under the alumni section of the website, and was not a violation of the use. Oral testimony was closed at this time. The Board decided that any new evidence or testimony in writing or via e-mail would be accepted until 5:00 p.m. on December 1, 2010, and should be submitted to Paul Blikstad. Rebuttal will be accepted in writing or via e-mail from anyone until December 8, 2010, 5:00 p.m. The applicant gets the last word, and can rebut or respond in writing or by e-mail prior to December 15, 2010, at 5:00 p.m. The Board will make a decision on this issue as soon as possible thereafter. _____________________________________________ Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 17 of 20 Pages UNGER: Move approval of the Consent Agenda with the exception of the minutes, which he has not yet had a chance to review. BANEY: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items 8. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-130, Transferring Appropriations within the General Fund Non-Department Category 9. Signature of Order No. 2010-059, Approving the Eraker Annexation into Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #1. 10. Signature of an Amendment to an Intergovernmental Agreement to the Oregon Department of Human Services regarding Mental Health Services 11. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-118, regarding a Legal Department Imprest Checking Account and Credit Card 12. Signature of Letters Reappointing Patrick Griffiths and Matt Shinderman to the Deschutes River Mitigation and Enhancement Committee, through February 28, 2013 13. Signature of a Letter Appointing Sarahlee Lawrence to the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, through January 31, 2013 14. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of David Pitts from the Board of Cascade View Estates Special Road District 15. Signature of a Letter Appointing Carolyn Chase to the Board of Cascade View Estates Special Road District, through December 31, 2011 16. Approval of an Economic Development Grant Request: ƒ Redmond Police Department – K-9 Unit – Commissioner Luke, $591; Commissioner Unger, $209; Commissioner Baney, $200 17. Approval of Minutes: ƒ Work Sessions of October 25 and November 10 ƒ Business Meeting of November 10 Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 18 of 20 Pages CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE COUNTYWIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE DISTRICT #1 18. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Signature o of Resolution No. 2010-129, Adopting a Supplemental Budget of the Countywide Law Enforcement Service District #1 for Fiscal Year 2010-11. Commissioner Luke opened the hearing at this time. Marty Wynne explained that the funding is for the jail remodel project. Commissioner Unger asked about this being a loan. Mr. Wynne said this is from a Sheriff’s Department internal fund. It can be repaid by a future bond sale or other sources. Mr. Kanner said that the Board in 2007 authorized borrowing $4 million from other funds. This will be repaid by the sale of land in the future when the real estate market is better. No other testimony was offered, so the hearing was closed. BANEY: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE BEND LIBRARY SERVICE DISTRICT 19. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Letter Reappointing Michael A. Maier to the Bend Library County Service District Budget Committee, through June 30, 1013. BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 22, 2010 Page 19 of 20 Pages CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 911 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 20. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 911 County Service District (two weeks) in the Amount of $5,077.79. BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 21. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District (two weeks) in the Amount of $2,421.52. BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 22. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County (two weeks) in the Amount of $8,080,144.34. BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes.