HomeMy WebLinkAboutPaul Dewey Letter - Feb 29Paul D. Dewey Attorney at Law
1539 NW Vicksburg
Bend, Oregon 97701
Tel. (541) 317-1993
fax (541) 383-3470
pdewey@bendcable.com
February 29, 2008
RECEIVED
BY:
Board of County Commissioners FEB 2 9 2008
Deschutes County DEL��
1300 NW Wall Street ED BY,
Bend, OR 97701
Re: Thornburgh Destination Resort
Court of Appeals and LUBA Remand on Conceptual Master Plan; CU -05-20
Dear Commissioners:
This letter on behalf of Nunzie Gould is in response to your undated notice, "REQUEST FOR
WRITTEN ARGUMENT," allowing written comments on issues remanded by the Land Use
Board of Appeals for the Court's approval of the Thornburgh Conceptual Master Plan ("CMP")
application. The proposed approach of a "hearing" on only the record developed in the previous
decision is not sufficient. The record should be reopened to receive new evidence on the remand
issues and on any proposed findings and conditions to be drafted for the hearing, as described
below. The record on remand apparently includes only the record below plus the REQUEST
FOR WRITTEN ARGUMENT and the December 31, 2007, Staff Report.
As an initial matter, we object to the County's procedural violations in handling this CMP and
Thornburgh's related Final Master Plan ("FMP") application. See our attached letter of
February 11, 2008. Given the Board's apparent predetermination on the issues of whether to
open the record and whether to have a public hearing on the fish and wildlife plan at the CMP
level, we question why the Board is even having this comment period on the remand. We further
question and object to the County's failure to identify what it refers to as "the missing
documentation" at the bottom of page 2 of the County legal counsel's February 4 letter.
First Assignment of Error
The inconsistencies between the Phasing Plan and Overnight and Density Calculations Chart in
the evidentiary record cannot be addressed simply by words of a new finding. The revised
calculation chart identified as the correct chart by Thornburgh was in the decision record, but not
as evidence. It was attached to a legal argument made by the Applicant after the record was
closed. LUBA specifically ruled that this was not "evidence" (LUBA Decision at p. 16, n 16), so
there is no evidence in the record. LUBA's reference to the County making a condition of
approval does not obviate the need to have an evidentiary basis in the record.
February 29, 2008
Page 2
In addition, the CMP is the legal basis for the FMP. DCC 18.113.100(A) and (B) require that the
FMP meet "all standards of the CMP" and that a substantial change in the FMP results in an
amendment of the CMP. If there are no adopted standards in the CMP, how can the FMP be
deemed to have met them and how can determination of a "substantial change" be made?
Therefore, the record must be reopened for a clear, definitive Phasing Plan and Calculations
Chart to be in evidence and for the public to be heard on then. The FMP cannot be compared for
compliance with the CMP if the CMP Phasing Plan and Calculations Chart are not clear and
definitive.
Third Assignment of Error
There are no findings or conditions that would require the first 50 units to be constructed prior to
the sale of lots as required by state law. Therefore, there is nothing to comment on except to
restate the law as LUBA did. Thornburgh should also be required to identify in the CMP where
these first 50 units will be to check on adequacy of access and consistency with the phasing plan.
Fourth Assignment of Error
A finding of fact on a corrected phasing plan can be made only after a clear, definitive plan is in
evidence. As discussed above, a reopening of the record at a hearing is needed to accomplish
that.
Fifth Assignment of Error
The "REQUEST FOR WRITTEN ARGUMENT" is incorrect in stating that the Court of
Appeals rejected this Assignment of Error. Rather, the Court of Appeals rejected Thornburgh's
cross-appeal on the issue. LUBA required that Thornburgh "request a change in the CMP to
allow additional lot dimensions" if it wants lots of a type different from what it identified in the
CMP. The statement in the "REQUEST FOR WRITTEN ARGUMENT" that the language in
this finding will be clarified by the Board does not address LUBA's requirement.
Eighth Assignment of Error
The record must be reopened at a hearing to identify, review and add evidence on the safety and
efficiency of the access within the project for each phase. Thornburgh argued that the issue
would be addressed with public participation at the FMP level. (LUBA Decision, p. 43) LUBA
ruled that providing a public hearing when the FMP is approved doesn't mean that there does not
need to be compliance with the CMP. (LUBA Decision, p. 43)
There is simply not enough evidence in the record for the Board to make findings on this issue.
There is no evidence, for example, of a road that is to access the southwest corner of the
development on the west side of Barr Road. The Board has already decided there will be no use
of Barr Road, but any southwest access road would use Barr Road at least in crossing it. There is
also no evidence in the record of the adequacy of the resort road system to handle emergencies
(due, in part, to no detailed emergency access plan being done). There is likewise no evidence of
the capacity of the roads to handle an evacuation, such as when roads funnel into each other and
February 29, 2008
Page 3
as they would exit to Highway 126 or the two access roads to Cline Falls Highway (which are
too close together to qualify as an additional emergency access) or the connecting roads between
the two parts of the resort. Since much of the development and major sections of roads are
"uphill" on the slopes of Cline Buttes and since fire moves more quickly uphill, these roads
aren't adequate.
Additionally, the Vehicular Access and Circulation Plan (Revised Ex. A-1.6) is schematic at best
and does not even show topography. It is not clear when all the roads would be built since the
Phasing Plan (Revised Ex. B-1.8) does not show all the roads. Both maps also improperly show
connecting roads to Barr Road.
Eleventh Assignment of Error
The fish and wildlife plan is part of the CMP requirements. DCC 18.113.070(D) states:
"Any negative impact on fish and wildlife resources will be completely mitigated
so that there is no net loss or net degradation of the resource."
A reopening of the record is needed for additional evidence concerning the currently absent fish
and wildlife plan, giving the public an opportunity to be heard on it. Based on the absence of a
plan and evidence to support sufficient findings under DCC 18.113.070(D) or a deferral to the
FMP, Thornburgh's CMP must be denied. Again, the CMP is the legal basis for the FMP. The
FMP cannot be compared for compliance with the CMP as required by DCC 18.113.100 if a fish
and wildlife plan is not part of the CMP.
Very truly yours,
PAUL DEWEY
PD:ao
cc: Client
Paul D. Dewey Attorney at Law
1539 NW Vicksburg
Bend, Oregon 97701
(541) 317-1993
fax (541) 383-3470
pdeweyna,bendcable.com
February 11, 2008
Ms. Catherine Morrow
Ms. Ruth Wahl
Deschutes County Community Development Dept.
117 NW Lafayette Ave.
Bend, OR 97701-1925
Hearings Office?
Deschutes County
c/o Community Development Dept.
117 NW Lafayette Ave.
Bend, OR 97701-1925
Re: Improper Cancellation of February 12 Hearing on Thornburgh
Final Master Plan and Associated February 4 Agreement Between
the County and Thornburgh; M-07-2
Dear Ms. Morrow, Ms. Wahl and Hearings Officer:
On behalf of my client, Nunzie Gould, I am writing to object to the cancellation of the February
12 hearing that had been scheduled on the Final Master Plan ("FMP") application by Thornburgh
Destination Resort and to the associated February 4 agreement between the County and the
Thornburgh Resort on future scheduling of its application. The cancellation was not legally
done, clearing violating the County Code. It further denies the public an opportunity to be heard
and to participate in any discussion on future scheduling and potentially sets the stage for another
mandamus threat by Thornburgh against the County, which would again result in denying the
public the opportunity to effectively comment on the land use application.
To remedy this violation, the County should immediately notify Thornburgh that the cancellation
agreement is withdrawn because it is contrary to the Code and the County should schedule a
hearing at which the Hearings Officer may hear from the public, address whether the application
must be denied because there is no final Conceptual Master Plan ("CMP") or consider any
requests for a continuance.2
l am addressing this letter to the Hearings Officer (c/o the County) as well as to the County Community
Development Department because once notice of a public hearing is sent the authority to determine future
scheduling of the case resides exclusively with the Hearings Officer.
2 The easiest solution, of course, would be for Thornburgh to withdraw its premature FMP application and then
refile it once there is a final CMP.
February 11, 2008
Page 2
Background.
Despite the fact that the County Code clearly requires a final CMP before there can be an
application for an FMP and despite the fact that the County's decision on the CMP had been
remanded by LUBA in May and was on further appeal to the Court of Appeals, Thornburgh
prematurely filed its FMP application on or about August 1, 2007, and the County apparently
accepted the application. Since that time, the Court of Appeals on November 7 reversed and
remanded the CMP approval on additional grounds.
The predictable result is that the FMP process is ahead of the CMP process; the cart is before the
horse. The CMP remand proceedings are just beginning and yet the FMP hearing has been
publicly noticed for February 12. Thornburgh is also pushing the County not to have any
hearing at the CMP stage on the required fish and wildlife mitigation plan and instead defer it to
the FMP stage. A major problem is that the FMP application is incomplete because it includes
nothing about such a fish and wildlife plan.
The Law.
The Deschutes County Code ("DCC") 22.24.125(A) specifies that once the notice for a hearing is
mailed any date change "shall be processed as a continuance." Attached is the hearing notice the
County mailed out. Continuances are regulated under DCC 22.24.140(A) which provides that it
is up to the Hearings Officer to address any continuance request. That provision also requires
that evidence is to be taken on the noticed hearing day. Under DCC 22.24.140(C), any
continuances must continue the hearing "to a date, time and place certain." There is no provision
for County staff or anyone else to cancel a hearing, to grant a continuance or extend any
scheduling to uncertain deadlines once the notice for a hearing is mailed.
These Code provisions exist to protect the public interest. The so-called "150 -day rule" requires
a county to make a final determination on a land use application within 150 days of the
application being deemed complete. If the 150 -day rule is violated, the developer can bring a
mandamus action against the county in circuit court, bypassing the land use system. The public
is then effectively excluded from the process.
What protects the public in this process are the Code provisions requiring that the public be
allowed to testify once a public hearing has been noticed. The public can also comment on any
proposed continuance. Further, the hearings officer, if he or she grants a continuance, must set a
new hearing for a date, time and place certain. That informs the public about when the next
hearing will be and allows the hearings officer to get an adequate extension of the 150 -day rule
from the applicant to accommodate the delay.
Risk of Another Mandamus Threat in this Case.
Our concern about the County's violation of its procedural guidelines is substantive. Not only is
the public's right to participate in this process jeopardized, but there is the very real possibility
that Thornburgh will again have the opportunity to threaten a mandamus action against the
February 11, 2008
Page 3
County. The risk is that since this agreement between the County and Thornburgh is not legal
(including that the continuance was not made by the Hearings Officer and to a date, time and
place certain), then the suggested waiver of the 150 -day rule by Thornburgh may not be binding.
The attached February 4 letter from Thornburgh's attorneys does not explicitly waive the 150 -
day rule.
This case has already once seen Thornburgh ostensibly waive the 150 -day rule only to turn
around and threaten a mandamus action in circuit court against the County. That threat
effectively manipulated the County into making a number of concessions to Thornburgh to avoid
the mandamus action that weakened the opportunity for public participation in the CMP process.
Thornburgh's FMP Should Be Denied.
The 150 -day rule also exists to keep fully complete projects moving. It provides a deadline for
the County to give a "yes" or "no" answer to an application. The effect of the violations of the
County Code here is that the County Staff has acted to avoid letting the 150 -day rule work on
this incomplete application when the answer to the FMP application would otherwise have to be
"no." The substantive error was Thornburgh rushing the FMP process when LUBA had already
ruled that the CMP was not complete. The County Code violations here compound that error by
avoiding either a "no" or a withdrawal of the FMP. If either was done, the 150 -day rule would
start again and the County would not have to be seeking extensions of the deadline from
Thornburgh at all.
In conclusion, the February 4 hearing cancellation agreement must be withdrawn and the County
Code hearings process must be followed.
Very truly yours,
PAUL DEWEY
PD:ao
Attachments: January 23 FMP Hearing Notice
January _ CMP Comment Notice
February 4 County Letter
February 4 Thornburgh Letter
February 5 FMP Hearing Cancellation
cc: Laurie Craghead
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
‘\\u�IM�i�R:.R22W/.A 'a.v.4•Y.iaraiMit•Y}::::.w:.v.4V�k\��t.\\l\•l±\`M.....w:�\V:'��v....«.Y
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Deschutes County Hearings Officer will hold a Public Hearing on February 12, 2008 at
6:30 p.m. in the Barnes and Sawyer Rooms of the Deschutes Services Center, located at 1300
NW Wall Street in Bend, to consider the following request:
FILE NUMBER: M-07-2
SUBJECT: The applicant requests Final Master Plan Approval for a destination resort
in a Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-SC) zone.
OWNER:
Everett Thornburgh
PO Box 264
Bend, Or 97702
APPLICANT: Thornburgh Resort Company
PO Box 264
Bend, OR 97702
APPLICANT'S Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, PC
AGENT: Peter Livingston, Attorney at Law
1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
Portland, OR 97204
Miles A. Conway, Attorney at Law
549 Mill Way, Suite 100]
Bend, OR 97702
Martha O. Pagel, Attorney at Law
530 Center Street, Suite 400
Salem, OR 97301
LOCATION: The property is identified on Assessor's Map No. 15-12, as tax Tots 5000,
5001, 5002, 7700, 7701, 7800, 7801, 7900, 8000
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS MAY APPEAR, BE HEARD, BE REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, OR SEND WRITTEN SIGNED TESTIMONY. ALL WRITTEN REPLIES MUST BE
RECEIVED BY THIS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE OR SUBMITTED AT
THE HEARING. ANY PARTY TO THE APPLICATION IS ENTITLED TO A CONTINUANCE
Quality Services Performed with Pride
OF THE INITIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING OR TO HAVE THE RECORD LEFT OPEN IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.24.140 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE.
Recipients of this notice may request a copy of the Staff Report (25 cents a page). Any person
submitting written comment or who presents testimony at the hearing will receive a copy of the
decision.
Failure to raise an issue in person at the hearing or in writing precludes appeal by that person to
the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Failure to provide statements of evidence sufficient to
afford the decision -maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to LUBA
based on that issue.
Copies of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant
and applicable criteria are available for inspection at the Planning Division at no cost, and can
be purchased for 25 cents a page.
STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
Title 18 of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance:
- Chapter 18.116, Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-SC)
- Chapter 18.113, Destination Resort
Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, Development Procedures Ordinance
Conceptual Master Plan (CU -05-20)
The meeting location is wheelchair accessible. For the deaf or hearing impaired, an interpreter
or assistant listening system will be provided with 48 hours' notice. Materials in alternate
formats may be made available with 48 hours' notice by dialing 541-388-6621. For other
assistance, please dial 7-1-1, State Relay Service.
NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215
REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED
TO THE PURCHASER.
Please contact Ruth Wahl, Associate Planner with the County Planning Division, at (541) 388-
6555 if you have any questions.
Dated this 23`d of January, 2008 Mailed this 23rd of January, 2008
M-07-2
Page 2
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
NVV�r\nigielMMINS"'A '' n �:wikwhnt.<...T:t. �`�i ���, n�•�:,��i`.1..\�,;,�\;:'.+\:\�fiw:\\\:\�.::tvo��;:J;\::::ivua.:;'•'y..:;:;;:'.::<;.;:<:�::
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
REQUEST FOR WRITTEN ARGUMENT
The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners ("Board") is conducting a hearing on the
record, per Deschutes County Code ("DCC") Chapters 22.32 and 22.34, on issues remanded by
the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals for the Conceptual
master Plan ("CMP") in File Number CU -05-20, Thornburgh Resort. Written comments must be
received by the Deschutes County Planning Division at 117 NW Lafayette, Bend, OR 97701, by
5:00 pm on Friday, February 29, 2008.
FILE NUMBER: CU -05-20
SUBJECT:
The Board will be accepting written argument regarding only the issues
that were remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). There
are 5 assignments of error on which LUBA remanded the decision back
to Deschutes County for review.
• Gould's First Assignment of Error - In order to demonstrate at the
Conceptual Master Plan ("CMP") level that the 2:1 ratio of overnight
lodging to unrestricted residential units, required by DCC 18.113.060(D)
(2) will be achieved throughout each phase, the County must require
correction of the applicant's inconsistencies between the phasing plan
for Phase D and the Overnight and Density Calculations chart and the
County provide a clarification regarding the applicant's notation on the
Overnight and Density Calculations chart regarding "lock off" feature of
the first 150 overnight lodging units.
• Gould's Third Assignment of Error - The County must require the first 50
units of overnight lodging be constructed prior to the closure of sale of
individual lots or units in accordance with ORS 197.445(4) (b) (B).
• Gould's Fourth Assignment of Error - The County must provide a finding
showing that the phasing plan demonstrates how the proposed
destination resort will maintain the 2:1 ratio limitation in Phase D.
• Gould's Fifth Assignment of Error was rejected by both LUBA and the
Court of Appeals. The appellant contended that the County violated the
requirement in DCC 18.113.060 (G) that no lot shall exceed a project
average of 22,000 square feet, where the County allowed Tots over
twice that size and ever larger than one acre. The language in this
finding will be clarified by the Board.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
• Gould's Eighth Assignment of Error - The County must provide findings
at the CMP stage that the access within the project is adequate to serve
the project in a safe and efficient manner as required by DCC
18.113.070 (G) (2).
• Gould's Eleventh Assignment of Error - The County must provide a
public hearing regarding the adequacy of the applicant's wildlife
mitigation plan as required by DCC 18.113.070 (D).
STAFF CONTACT: Ruth Wahl, Associate Planner (541) 388-6555
A copy of the LUBA decision is attached for your benefit. Also note that notice of the Board
hearing on this matter will be sent in a separate mailing.
CU -05-20/M-07-2 Thornburgh Page 2
February 4, 2008
Legal Counsel.•
1300 NW WALL STREET, SUITE 200 !BEND, OREGON 97701
TELEPHONE ¥541488-6623
541-388-6624
FACSIMILE ¥541-617-4748
Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel
Laurie E Craghead,'Assistant Leegal Counsel
Christopher Bell, Assistant Legal Counsel
Steven Griffin, Assistant Legal Counsel
Please refer to
File No.: 411-016
Martha O. Pagel . .
Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt
530 Center Street NE, Ste. 400
Salem, OR 97301
SENT VIA PDF DOCUMENT IN EMAIL TRANSMISSION
Re: Thornburgh
Dear Martha:
Thank you for your expressed commitment to working cooperatively with the county staff in regards to
the scheduling of the necessary hearings for the Conceptual Master Plan ("CMP") and the Final
Master Plan ("FMP") for the Thornburgh destination resort project. Additionally, Friday's phone
conversation was helpful in that Peter Livingston explained that the reason that your client does not
want to withdraw the FMP application and re -file -is the fear that news of this withdrawal will be
disconcerting to your client's lender such that the lender may consider withdrawing its funds.
Our preference, of course, would be that you talk to your client's lender and explain ahead of time that
you will be withdrawing the FMP application because of the uncertainty of when all requirements are
completed and that you will be reapplying as soon as possible after that. That seems to us a way in
which .to assure that the lender is not surprised by publication in The Bulletin of an article regarding
the withdrawal as it apparently was with the article that was published after the Oregon Court of
Appeal decision regarding the CMP was discussed with the Board of'County Commissioners
("BOCC").
As for the proposed schedule, I want to first clarify that the dates of the BOCC meetings were
estimates on our part only of the earliest the BOCC would meet for deliberating the CMP remand
decision. Neither county Legal staff nor CDD staff can make a commitment as to the BOCC's
schedule. Anything can happen between now and then as to when they will or will not schedule a
public meeting.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
•
Martha 0. Pagel
February 4, 2008
Page 2
Another clarification to make is that, prior to the Christmas holiday, Peter and I had previously
discussed that even June 15, 2008 would be an aggressive schedule. The written extension,
however, set the 150 -day deadline at May 15, 2008. The February 12, 2008 hearing was scheduled
by counting backward from the written extension to assure sufficient time for the hearing, any hearing
continuance or extended record period, appeals to the BOCC, a hearing before the BOCC and any
hearing continuance or extended record period.
Additionally, although staff preferred a public hearing on the wildlife mitigation plan at the CMP stage,
staff remained neutral when presenting this issue to the BOCC. The BOCC then decided to defer the
hearing to the FMP stage, which is what Peter said Thornburgh preferred. Again, however, it is still
possible that the commissioners will read the legal arguments on the remand issues and decide that
they want a public hearing at the CMP stage. For that matter, they could deny the CMP for failure to
have the plan, although that is unlikely.
In regards to the proposed schedule, as I said on the phone, the county's Planning Director, Catherine
Morrow, is very uncomfortable with canceling a previously noticed hearing. The county code provides
that, once notice of a hearing has been mailed and published, the public has a right to be heard. The
code does not include a provision about cancellation of hearings. Additionally, the county has not
previously canceled hearings that any of us can remember. We do not want to set a precedent that
would allow an applicant to file an application, have the hearing scheduled and noticed, then request
that the hearing be canceled because the applicant is not ready.
Be that as it may, we are willing to cancel the February 12, 2008 hearing with the following conditions
agreed to in writing by Thornburgh (of course, via Thornburgh's legal representative). These are
similar to the offer you provided but with more detail and a slightly different end date.
1) Thomburgh pays all county costs for mailing and publishing the cancellation notice including
all postage, CDD staff time in preparing the notice and mailing and Legal Counsel time in
reviewing the notice.
2) Thornburgh pays all county costs for mailing and publishing the new hearing notice including
all postage, CDD staff time in preparing the notice and mailing and Legal Counsel time in
reviewing the notice.
Thornburgh extends the FMP final decision deadline to 150 days from the date the CMP
remand decision is mailed. This is more comfortable than listing specific dates that we cannot
guarantee and provides almost the same deadline as if Thomburgh had not prematurely filed
the application. Because this does not include the 30 days for staff to review the application to
determine whether it is complete, this is still less time than if the FMP is withdrawn or denied
and a new FMP is re -filed. Additionally, if the CMP is completed earlier than April 1, 2008,
then the FMP will be completed earlier.
4) Thornburgh submits all missing documentation no later than the date the CMP remand final
decision is mailed.
5) If all the missing documentation is not submitted by the date the CMP remand final decision is
mailed, Thornburgh negotiates with county staff for a new deadline that shall be no less than a
30 -day extension to the final decision deadline.
Martha 0. Pagel
February 4, 2008
Page 3
We will need written confirmation of acceptance of these terms no later than 10:00 am on February 5,
2008 because that is the deadline for the staff report to be available to the public and to the hearings
officer.
Sincerely,
Laurie Craghead
Assistant Legal Counsel
LEC:gas
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT
ATTORNEYS AT L A W
Equitable Center, 530 Center St, NE, Suite 400, Salem, OR 973011 Phone 503.540.4262 1 Fax 503.399.16451 www.schwabe.com
MARTHA O. PAGEL
Admitted in Oregon and Washington
Direct Line: Salem 503-540-4260; Portland 503-796-2872
E -Mail: mpagel®schwabe.com
February 4, 2008
VIA E-MAIL
Ms. Laurie E. Craghead
Assistant Legal Counsel
Deschutes County Legal Counsel
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200
Bend, OR 97701
Re: Thornburgh FMP Schedule
Our File No.: 112188/138798
Dear Laurie:
Thank you for your letter sent via e-mail earlier today. This letter confirms that our
client, Thornburgh Resort LLC, accepts the terms and conditions described in your letter
regarding a revised schedule for processing Thornburgh's Final Master Plan ("FMP")
application.
We very much appreciate the County's willingness to cancel and reschedule the FMP
hearing as outlined in your proposal.
Sincerely,
Martha O. Pagel
MOP:kdo
cc: Kameron DeLashmutt
Portland, OR 503.222.9981 1 Salem, OR 503.540.4262 1 Bend, OR 541.749.4044
Seattle, WA 206.622.1711 1 Vancouver, WA 360.694.7551 1 Washington, DC 202.488.4302
PDX/112188/138798/M0P/2317510.1
TES
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Public Hearing originally scheduled for February 12, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. in the Barnes and
Sawyer Rooms of the Deschutes Services Center, located at 1300 NW Wall Street in Bend, has
been cancelled. That hearing was to consider the following request and will be rescheduled
later and new notice given at that time.
FILE NUMBER: M-07-2
SUBJECT: The applicant requests Final Master Plan Approval for a destination
resort in a Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-SC) zone.
APPLICANT:
Thornburgh Resort Company
PO Box 264
Bend, OR 97702
APPLICANT'S AGENT: Peter Livingston, Attorney
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, PC
1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
Portland, OR 97204
Miles A. Conway, Attorney at Law
549 Mill Way, Suite 100]
Bend, OR 97702
Martha O. Pagel, Attorney at Law
530 Center Street, Suite 400
Salem, OR 97301
LOCATION: The property is identified on Assessor's Map No. 15-12, as tax lots
5000, 5001, 5002, 7700, 7701, 7800, 7801, 7900, 8000
NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215
REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED
TO THE PURCHASER.
Please contact Ruth Wahl, Associate Planner with the County Planning Division, at (541) 388-
6555 if you have any questions.
Dated this 5th of February, 2008 Mailed this 5th of February, 2008
Quality Services Performed with Pride