Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCode Amendment Work Session - YagerDeschutes 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 November 10, 2008 DATE: October 14, 2008 FROM: Chris Bedsaul, Associate Planner. CDD 383-6719 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Discussion regarding TA -08-7, regarding a request by Paul David Yager, to amend Chapters 17.04, 17.08 and 17.22 of Title 17 of the Deschutes County Code (DCC) in accordance with the 2007 Edition of ORS 92.176 and ORS 92.177, also including staff recommended text amendments in Chapters 17.08 and 17.16 in Title 17. PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? No. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The application for a text amendment to Title 17 was submitted on June 17, 2008 to bring County Code into conformance with ORS Chapter 92 with respect to land divisions for improperly created properties. Staff has also recommended minor text changes to Chapters in Title 17 in order to keep the Code consistent with State law. The Deschutes County Planning Commission held a public hearing and accepted testimony for TA -08-7 on October 9, 2008. No parties testified in opposition to this text amendment. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the Board approve TA -08-7, as modified by the Planning Commission. This text amendment would allow persons who own properties that were improperly created to go back after -the -fact and have them approved by the County, if they can meet the requirements that existed at the time the properties were created. Staff published notice in The Bulletin on November 2, 2008 Because the Board review and decision regarding the requested text amendment is a legislative proceedure, the 150 -day deadline does not apply. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion of item; public hearing scheduled for November 24. ATTENDANCE: Chris Bedsaul. DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS: CDD Staff; applicant; County Surveyor FILE NUMBERS: TA08-7 APPLICANTS/ PROPERTY OWNERS: STAFF REPORT Paul David Yager PO Box 2793 LaPine OR 97739 APPLICANTS ATTORNEY: Paul Speck 1123 NW Bond Street Bend OR 97701 REQUEST: The applicant requests a Text Amendment to the Deschutes County Code, Title 17, to Incorporate the 2007 Edition Text of ORS 92.176 and ORS 92.177 1. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: 1. Title 17 Subdivisions of the Deschutes County Code Chapter 17.04 Chapter 17.08 Chapter 17.16 Chapter 17.22 2. Title 22 Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance Chapter 22.08 Chapter 22.12 3. ORS92 II. FINDINGS OF FACT: History: The 74th Oregon Legislative Assembly — 2007 Regular Session adopted HB2723 and amended ORS 92 effective January 1, 2008. The Legislature's findings determined that cities and counties review land use applications to divide property either as a partition or a subdivision for compliance with local regulations governing minimum Tots size, public facilities service and compliance with other policies or regulations. The Legislature found, typically, that the question of whether a property is lawfully created is also considered during the jurisdiction's application review process. Normally, if a property is found to have been unlawfully created, the result is to withhold all development permits (i.e. building and septic) involving that property until the issue is resolved. Unlawful property divisions, whether by design or error, can become complicated, given the cloud on the title that may exist and potentially involve multiple current or absentee property owners, all with a common interest in the property. Further complicating the issue is that a city or county may have issued a building permit or some other type of permit for development on the property, thereby resulting in the previous expenditures of money by the property owner(s). PAGE 1 OF 6 — EXHIBIT "E" TO ORDINANCE 2008-030 (11/24/2008) ORS 92.176 and ORS 92.177 have been added to the text or ORS 92 to authorize cities or counties to approve a land use application to validate a unit of land that was not lawfully established but can meet the criteria that were in place at the time division occurred. The applicant's request for a text amendment to Title 17 is in accordance with the language in the 2007 Edition of ORS 92.176 and ORS 92.177. A request for a Text Amendment was submitted by Paul David Yager on June 17, 2008 and accepted as complete on June 25, 2008. Upon adoption of the text amendment, the applicant would proceed with an application for a partition regarding a lot sold by Paul David Yager to Trepanier Construction on or about May 31, 2006. The applicant asserts that the subject property is a "remainder lot" from a prior conveyance that occurred in 1979 and the zoning in place at that time would have allowed the lot. The Deschutes County Planning Commission held a public hearing for TA -08-7 on October 9, 2008, accepted testimony regarding the proposed text amendment, amended proposed text in Chapter 17.22.010(D)(4)(b), closed the public hearing, deliberated and voted unanimously to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt TA -08-7, as amended. III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: TEXT AMENDMENT A. Title 17, Subdivisions 1. Chapter 17.04. GENERAL PROVISIONS FINDING: The applicant proposed text under this Chapter; however, the Planning Commission and staff believe that a modified version of the applicant's language would be more appropriate in Section 17.04.020(A) by adding new item (8). 17.04.040. Amendments. DCC Title 17 may be amended or repealed as provided by law. FINDING: This application will amend portions of Title 17 in accordance with all provisions of county and state land use laws. 2. Chapter 17.08. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE FINDING: The Planning Commission and staff concur with the applicant's proposed new text definition added to the Chapter 17.08, Definitions And Interpretation Of Language. The Planning Commission and staff have also determined the definition of "Partition Land" is not current regarding the text in ORS 92. Also the Planning Commission and staff have found that the current subsection "C" in "Partition Land" in Chapter 17.08 contains a typographical error that should be corrected by this text amendment. PAGE 2 OF 6 — EXHIBIT "E" TO ORDINANCE 2008-030 (11/24/2008) 3. Chapter 17.16. APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION TENTATIVE PLANS AND MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS 17.16.030. Informational Requirements. FINDING: The applicant did not make any recommended text changes to 17.16.030; however, The Planning Commission and staff have determined that the inclusion of a title report or subdivision guarantee provides adequate evidence for a partition regarding ownership of property within an application. Therefore, an applicant should not need to provide a certified copy of a recorded instrument. The Planning Commission and staff note that this provision has been previously deleted from the application requirements for subdivision applications. 4. Chapter 17.22. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PLANS FOR PARTITIONS 17.22.010. Filing Procedures and Requirements. FINDING: Applications received by CDD often do not include a reduced -scale copy of a partition or subdivision; thus the Staff has to make an additional request for the applicant to provide a reduced copy. or Staff time may be expended in the creation a smaller copy to mail or to have available for interested parties during the review process. Staff recommends that 17.22.010(A) be amended to include the addition of a reference to a tentative plan instead of "documents", which may include other application material and specifying one (1) reduced scale drawing to permit ease in mailing a copy of the application tentative plan to interested parties. Staff believes, however, that the proposed applicant text in (F) adds a reference "or the equivalent provision of this code" that may not be applicable because ORS 215.780 regulates only Farmland and Forestland Zones and the Deschutes County Code has created a unique Exclusive Farm zone minimum lot sizes. The Forest zones in Deschutes County duplicate state statutes. The Planning Commission and staff believe that the proposed applicant text in (H) should be changed to (I), therefore, the Planning Commission and staff have added new item (H) that includes the language in ORS 92.176(6). B. Title 22 - Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance 1. Chapter 22.08 General Provisions 22.08.005 Preapplication conference. FINDING: The applicant conferred with appropriate staff of the County prior to making the text amendment application. 2. Chapter 22.12 Legislative Procedures 22.12.010 Hearing Required. No legislative change shall be adopted without review by the Planning Commission and a public hearing before the Board PAGE 3 OF 6 — EXHIBIT "E" TO ORDINANCE 2008-030 (11/24/2008) of County Commissioners. Public hearings before the Planning Commission shall be set at the discretion of the Planning Director unless otherwise required by state law. FINDING: Public hearings were held on October 9, 2008 by the Planning Commission and November 24, 2008 by the Planning Commission and staff regarding this text amendment proposal. 22.12.020 Notice. FINDING: Copies of the application and materials were mailed to the Department of Land Conservation and Development on June 25, 2008. The notice of a public hearing for the Text Amendment was published in The Bend Bulletin newspaper on September 28, 2008 and November 2, 2008. The Text Amendment application does not include a change in statute or administrative rule that requires Deschutes County to change the base zoning classification or adopt an amendment to an Ordinance that limits or prohibits otherwise permissible land uses previously allowed; therefore, the notification requirements of ORS 197.047 does not apply. FINDING: 22.12.030 Initiation of legislative changes. A legislative change may be initiated by application of individuals upon payment of required fees as well as by the Board of Commissioners or the Planning Commission. The applicant has submitted a complete application and submitted the appropriate review fees. C. OREGON REVISED STATUTES CHAPTER 92 The Oregon Legislative Assembly adopted House Bill 2723 and amendments to Chapter 92 that became effective on January 1, 2008. ORS 92 was amended to contain the following; ORS 92.176 Validation of unit of land not lawfully established. (1) A county or city may approve an application to validate a unit of land that was created by a sale that did not comply with the applicable criteria for creation of a unit of land if the unit of land: (a) Is not a lawfully established unit of land; and (b) Could have complied with the applicable criteria for the creation of a lawfully established unit of land in effect when the unit of land was sold. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1)(b) of this section, a county or city may approve an application to validate a unit of land under this section if the county or city approved a permit, as defined in ORS 215.402 or 227.160, respectively, for the construction or placement of a dwelling or other building on the unit of land after the sale. If the permit was approved for a dwelling, the county or city must PAGE 4 OF 6 — EXHIBIT "E" TO ORDINANCE 2008-030 (11/24/2008) (3) determine that the dwelling qualifies for replacement under the criteria set forth in ORS 215.755 (1)(a) to (e). A county or city may approve an application for a permit, as defined in ORS 215.402 or 227.160, respectively, or a permit under the applicable state or local building code for the continued use of a dwelling or other building on a unit of land that was not lawfully established if: (a) The dwelling or other building was lawfully established prior to January 1, 2007; and (b) The permit does not change or intensify the use of the dwelling or other building. (4) An application to validate a unit of land under this section is an application for a permit, as defined in ORS 215.402 or 227.160. An application to a county under this section is not subject to the minimum lot or parcel sizes established by ORS 215.780. (5) A unit of land becomes a lawfully established parcel when the county or city validates the unit of land under this section if the owner of the unit of land causes a partition plat to be recorded within 90 days after the date the county or city validates the unit of land. (6) A county or city may not approve an application to validate a unit of land under this section if the unit of land was unlawfully created on or after January 1, 2007. (7) Development or improvement of a parcel created under subsection (5) of this section must comply with the applicable laws in effect when a complete application for the development or improvement is submitted as described in ORS 215.427 (3)(a) or 227.178 (3)(a). [2007 c.866 §2] Note: 92.176 was added to and made a part of 92.010 to 92.190 by legislative action but was not added to any smaller series therein. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation. ORS 92.177 Creation of parcel by less than all owners of lawfully established unit of land. When a unit of land was sold before January 1, 2007, but was not a lawfully established unit of land, the governing body of the city or county or its designee shall consider and may approve an application for the creation of a parcel pursuant to ORS 92.176, notwithstanding that Tess than all of the owners of the existing lawfully established unit of land have applied for the approval. [1993 c.436 §2; 1995•c.595 §14; 2007 c.866 §6] Note: 92.177 was added to and made a part of 92.010 to 92.190 by PAGE 5 OF 6 - EXHIBIT "E" TO ORDINANCE 2008-030 (11/24/2008) • legislative action but was not added to any smaller series therein. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation. FINDING: The text amendments submitted by the applicant and/or modified by the Planning Commission contains sufficient language to adopt the changes in the 2007 Edition of ORS 92, as approved by the 74th Oregon Legislative Assembly. Since this is language to implement a state statute, no change to or findings of compliance with the County's comprehensive plan is necessary. Therefore, the statewide planning rules are not affected by these amendments. PAGE 6 OF 6 — EXHIBIT "E" TO ORDINANCE. 2008-030 (11/24/2008) APPLICANT BURDEN OF PROOF MATERIALS FOR TA -08-07 THE LAW OFFICE OF June 16, 2008 Kevin Harrison Planning Director Deschutes County Development 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 Re: Proposed text amendment to incorporate HB 2723, now codified as ORS 92.176, 92.177, into County Code. Dear Kevin: Pursuant to your request, enclosed is check number 106546 in the amount of $2,135.00, payable to Deschutes County. Please apply this payment as payment for the text amendment application fee. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give us a call. Sincerely yours, Shelly D. Phillips Legal Assistant for Paul J. Speck sdp 1123 NW Bond Street, Bend, Oregon 9 770 1 p: 541 /388-1107 f: 541 /388-7370 youroregonlawyer.com pspeck@youroregonlawyer.com THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL J. SPECK June 12, 2008 Kevin Harrison Planning Director Deschutes County Development 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RECEIVED JUN 13 2008 Deschutes County CDD Re: Proposed text amendment to incorporate HB 2723, now codified as ORS 92.176, 92.177, into County Code. Dear Kevin: I have enclosed a proposed text amendment to the Deschutes County Cede Tale 17. The text amendment is intended to carry out the provisions of the above cited 2007 session law and its present codification: I checked with several counties. To date no county has, to my knowledge, implemented the new law in its ordinances. The consensus from those planning directors and legal counsel I spoke to, seems to be that it is a partitioning issue, since the only way to get a "unit of land" approved is through a partition. It is my assumption that any changes necessary to the text as I have proposed it will be made by your department, legal counsel or the planning commission before it goes to the Board of County Commissioners. If you have any questions regarding the text or why it is worded as it is, please do not hesitate to give me a call. The specific purpose behind the proposed text amendment is to provide for approval of a lot sold by Paul David Yager to Trepanier Construction on or about May 31, 2006. The lot did not receive a lot of record approval. (22-10-16, TL #414) It is a remainder lot from a prior conveyance. The conveyance occurred in 1979. The zoning at that time would have:allowed the -lot. It is my understanding that 4 partitioning ordinance, however, was in effect and thus'it would not be approved as a=lot ofrecord. • 1123 NW Bond Street, Bend, Oregon 97701 p: 541/388.1107 f: 541/388-7370. youroregonlawyer.com pspeck@youroregonlawycrcom Kevin Harrison June 3, 2008 Page 2 The text amendment may apply to other lots in: the county. However, because this text amendment does not restrict the use of land, I do not think a Measure 56 notice is necessary. For that reason, I believe the fee for the proposed text amendment should be the lesser fee of $2,135.00 rather than $2875.00. Because the lot is the subject of litigation, and as part of the litigation I have agreed to shepherd the text amendment, I will be the contact person. ly yours, Paul J. Speck PJS?sdp P cc: Jennifer Coughlin Josh Newton Paul David Yager Enclosure Yager\HarrisonLtrl.wpd Jun DS Da 0615p PAUL 3 SPECK 5413887370 P-6 Community Development Department Ptanning Divisian ZONE WAP AM NOMEt4T:_ 117 iWV Lafayette Auenue. Bend, ORD7701-1825 M4113885575 -Fax (5411385.1764 http://vawadeachutes.org/cad PLAN/ZONEITEXT AMEND HENT PLAN MAP AMENDMENT: _. FEE: FEE: Applicant's Name (prim: \la te.r Mailing Address: ?.O. 8 aX , 2 3 Property Owner's Name (if diferenty.,�t,�„ >;i t s`,�rrs�iau[e;c►ea!1 MaiiingAddress: P.O. ]t' 1°1146 TEXT-AMENDMENTLA 15,L ., 1.35.4 Phone: (it t 536-- 39gZ CltyIStatelZip: I.-apntle r QR • 9773. Phone: (sem sae.- S'OZ:_ City/State/Zip: L o not aR 97739 Property Description: Township22 S Range 1OSt6W*Section_,ik,,,Tax Lot_ W f Lot of Record? (state reason): P,]9 t) es t it±.c Current Zoning; - RR - IC) Proposed zoning: RR -10 Current Plan Designation: run.% cee'tden4i0 . Proposed Designation: 5G -rine. Applicable State Ooelli: None. Exception Proposed' Yes_l,,„ No Size of Affected Area: T Acres INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLEiING THIS APPLICATION: t Completethis applcation form. Including the appropriate signatures.. 2. Include a detailed statement describing the proposal and -how it meets all requirements of the appropriate State nates and statutes, and County codes and Comprehensive Plan policies. Text amendment applications must include the proposedlanguage and the basis forithe change. 3. if multiple properties are Involved in this application, then identify each property on a separate page and follow with the property ownerfeignateres. 4. Submit the correct appiteetioniae: b. Submit a copy of the cur : nt deeds) for the pmperty(ies). AP Appticenrs Signature: E -APP ATiON A NT iS REQUIRED FOR ALL AMENDMENTS Property Owner's Signature Cifdifterent)'• Agent's Name (if applicable): lidailingAddress: tf?'� A�til �nrit Date:_„ 6 -//-O g Date R -if -Dg Phone: (gL1) O' 1 City/ataterzsp: Bend , d R 9 ro •If tats application is not signed by the property owner, a letter authorizing signature by the applicent must be attaelunt 1107- Z00/Z00'd 9LL9# op/ uot43ni4euo0 aaiuedasy SGMESTrig LVOI BOOZ�TT-Nrir PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT PROVISIONS TO BE ADDED TO COUNTY CODE 17.04.020 (E) Filing Procedures and Requirements: Any person seeking to lawfully establish a unit of land pursuantto the provisions of ORS 92.176 shall apply for approval of a tentative plan for a partition as provided by 17.22.010. It shall not be necessary that all owners or prior owners of the unit of land, that was not a lawfully established unit of land, apply for validation of the unit of land. Definitions: Chapter 17.08 "Lawfully Established Unit of Land" means: 1. A lot or parcel created pursuant to ORS 92.010 to 92.190, or the provisions of this code; or, 2. Another unit of land created: A. In compliance with all applicable planning, zoning and subdivision or partition ordinances and regulations; or B. By deed or land sales contract, if there were no applicable planning, zoning or subdivision or partition ordinances or regulations. 3. "Lawfully established unit of land" does not mean a unit of land created solely to establish a separate tax account. 17.22.020 Requirements for Approval: (D) An application for approval to validate a unit of land that was created by a sale that did not comply with the applicable criteria for creation of a unit of land may be approved as provided in this ordinance if the unit of land: 1. Is not a lawfully established unit of land; and, 2. Could have complied with the applicable criteria for the creation of a lawfully established unit of land in effect when the unit of land was sold. 3. Notwithstanding subparagraph (2) of this section an application to validate a unit of land may also be approved if the county has previously approved a permit, as defined in ORS 215.402, for the construction or placement of a dwelling or other building on the unit of land after the sale. If the permit was approved for a dwelling, it must be determined that the dwelling qualifies for replacement under the criteria set forth in ORS 215.755 (1) (A) to (E). 4. If there is an existing dwelling or other building on a unit of land that was not lawfully established, an application for a permit as defined in ORS 215.402 or a permit under the -applicable building code, may be approved if: (a) The dwelling or other building was lawfully established prior to January 1, 2007, and (b) The permit does not change or intensify the use of the dwelling or other building. (E) The application to validate a unit of land under these sections is an application for a permit as defined in ORS 215.402. (F) The application to validate a unit of land is not subject to the minimum lot or parcel sizes established by ORS 215.780 or the equivalent provisions of this code. (G) A unit of land becomes a lawfully established unit of land only upon recordation of a final plat in accordance with Chapter 17.24 of this code. The final partition plat shall be recorded within 90 days of tentative plan approval. If the fmal plat is not recorded within 90 days the applicant must recommence the process in order to validate a unit of land that was not a lawfully established unit of land. (H) Following validation of the unit of land, any development or improvement of the lawfully established unit of land shall comply with provisions of this code and applicable state law. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR TA -08-7 HELD ON OCTOBER 9, 2008 -SEs CALL TO ORDER 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/ MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 OCTOBER 9, 2008— 5:30 P.M. Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Cyrus. Members present were Vice Chair Todd Turner, Susan Quatre, Brenda Pace, Merle Irvine, Richard Klyce and Christen Brown. Staff present were Tom Anderson, CDD Director; Terri Payne, Senior Planner; Chris Bedsaul, Associate Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. Minutes of August 14 and September 25, 2008 were approved. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS None. III. PUBLIC HEARING: File TA -08-7, Text Amendment to Deschutes County Code, Title 17, to Incorporate the 2007 Edition Text of ORS 92.176 and ORS 92.177 — Chris Bedsaul, Associate Planner Chris Bedsaul summarized the proposed Text Amendment and his Staff Report. Commissioner Quatre asked for clarification on the problems with the title search. Chris said that title reports 1 cover recorded documents and always contain a disclaimer giving the owner responsibility for meeting local regulations for transfer. Commissioner Quatre also asked for more specifics about the title transfer driving this Text Amendment. Commissioner Pace also asked whether this partition occurred in 2006 and when the applicant discovered the problem. Commissioner Brown wondered how many Tots exist that are not legal lots of record and if a total is available. Chris Bedsaul said that the County's computer system often identifies them as legal or not legal lots of record but is not totally accurate. He thinks that perhaps 5% of the parcels in the County may not have a lot of record determination. Commissioner Brown asked whether the areas in South County, for example, would apply here. Chris said that a lot of record can be determined by a real estate contract or a partition of some sort; if the lot meets the minimum lot size at the time it was created; or it can be a remaining tract where all of the surrounding areas have been determined to be lots of record. Commissioner Brown said that if the 5% estimate is correct, that means quite a few lots in the County are not lots of record. Chris Bedsaul said that because, in Deschutes County, a lot has been determined to be legal if it Onalitu .Servirnc Perfnrmvd with Pride was legal at the time it was created, this could determine whether it is a legal property outside of this proposed Text Amendment. Public Testimony: Paul Speck, former County Counsel, testified on behalf of his client, Paul Yager, who could not be present this evening. He said his client owned property in the La Pine area which had a convoluted history (some parcels were subdivided and some partitioned). The parcel in question here was created when his father divided the property in the late 1970's. At the time the residual parcel under consideration was created, there was no partition ordinance. The effect of the conveyance back in the 1970's was that there was a leftover parcel which was deeded and passed to his client and other family members. His client thought he had a legal parcel. He sold it in May 2006 to Trepanier Construction. Trepanier applied to the County for a lot of record determination, which was denied. They then turned to Paul Yager and wanted their money back, eventually filing suit. Mr. Yager sued the title company and that issue was resolved. House Bill 2723 was passed that might provide a remedy for the situation during this process. Mr. Speck was told by the County that this had to be part of the Code first and that might not happen until 2009. Trepanier did not want to wait that long, which is why Mr. Speck submitted this proposal. His proposal to the County basically asks for adoption of what is already State law. This has already been adopted by Hood River County and the City of Eugene (they have approved lots under the law). Mr. Speck submitted a summary of HB 2723. Mr. Speck said that if the change is approved (basically adopting State law at the County level), then Trepanier will have to apply for a petition with 90 days to record the plat. Mr. Speck has no objections to a few changes in the proposal made by County staff. Commissioner Quatre asked if this meant an unlawful split would be come lawful under this Code. She wanted to know if it would be legal under the 1979 law. Mr. Speck said there was no way to determine this. Commissioner Cyrus asked if there anyone opposed the proposal. No objections were raised. Commissioner Klyce asked about some sections pertaining to issuing building permits and what constitutes "change in intensity." Commissioner Turner mentioned the recent discussions regarding home occupations, which may be relevant to this proposal. The Commissioners discussed whether to continue the public hearing until further information is obtained. Mr. Speck said he was uncomfortable changing the language of the law as adopted by the State legislature. Commissioners Klyce and Quatre thought that this should be clarified so that this type of lot is treated as any other type of lot would be treated. Commissioner Pace said that perhaps it would not be changing State statute to define the terms. Christen Brown asked what the County policy has been regarding mirroring State statutes. Chair Cyrus thought that this could be passed on to the Board with the request for a definition of change in intensity. Chris Bedsaul mentioned that County legal counsel has reviewed the submittal with no revisions. Jen Coughlin, attorney for Trepanier, thought that the County had an obligation to define State statutes. Commissioner Turner thought that this should be resolved before being passed on to the Board, and maybe language could be added saying it does not change or intensify "an allowed use" (rather than "a use") of the dwelling or structure: Commissioner Irvine asked whether this was a current use or a use allowed when the lot was created. Commissioner 2 Turner said he thought it would be a current use. Chris Bedsaul suggested saying "permitted" rather than "allowed," to be consistent with other Code language. Motion: Commissioner Pace moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Quatre. Motion: Commissioner Pace moved to approve TA -08-7 with the change in Chapter 17.22.010(D)(4)(b) to include the term "the permitted use." Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. Motion passed unopposed. IV. UPDATES ON CITY UGB PROCESS FROM LIAISONS. Commissioner Brenda Pace. Commissioner Pace provided a summary of the current thoughts on the UGB expansion, showing increased land need. Commissioner Brown asked whether he needed to recuse himself since he owns properties which will be affected by the UGB. Commissioner Cyrus did not think that was necessary during this discussion. Commissioner Pace said that in 14 months of the UGB process, she was only concerned about the comments in her summary, including the cost of serving properties in the study area with roads, sewers and water; the availability of properties with the lowest infrastructure cost and highest livability; and whether the properties are part of exception land or priority lands. These are indicated on maps she gave to the Commissioners. Commissioner Turner asked for clarification on costs per acre served as indicated on one map. The transportation costs are about twice the cost of sewer (as compared to the original thinking that sewers were the most expensive) and there have been many revisions to these estimates. Commissioner Pace gave the City Planning Commission a lot of credit for working through many revisions and problems. The total acreage under consideration is now 5,000+. Commissioner Brown asked about the ramifications of adoption - whether the City UGB and City limits are the same. If the UGB is expanded, what is the policy of the City regarding annexing these properties into the City (the urban area reserve properties)? Commissioner Pace said that under our system, it would be part of the UGB and the County would re -zone it as a sort of holding zone to prevent division into small parcels. As need arises, the City would then annex. This is a 20 -year plan. Tetherow was in the urban area reserve, but still got approval as a destination resort. The City wants 500 acres of vacation land as part of their need but they are excluding Tetherow. Commissioner Brown said he understood that any property owner adjoining the UGB could petition to be included. Terri Payne said she thought it depended on the parcel. Commissioner Turner mentioned some elementary schools that have already been added in. Terri said that once the UGB is finalized, the County has discussed proposing a UAR. V. OTHER ITEMS OF CONCERN Terri wanted to make sure there will be a quorum for the joint meetings with the City on October 27 and possibly the 28th. 3 The Commissioners discussed possible conflicts of interest, especially after living in the area and being familiar with some of the public who testify. They discussed circumstances when they should recuse themselves and asked Terri for her opinion and legal counsel's. Commissioner Pace asked if they would be required to vote at the next public hearing with the City. Tom Anderson said that the deliberations would be separate from the public hearings and also separate from the City's deliberations. The Planning Commissioners will be voting on their recommendation to the Board for the proposed UGB land. Commissioner Luke asked that the Planning Commissioners provide input as to how their positions relate to changes in County population (the Sunriver and Milliken areas, for example). Commissioner Brown said that he thought many times the population wants to look to someone to provide good judgment and feels that the current Commissioners and Board are doing a great job. Trying to create a document that more specifically addresses what is already being done is unnecessary. Vice Chair Turner felt that qualifications and motivation should be considered more than location. For example, although he does not represent South County, he is very concerned about them. Commissioner Klyce's business takes him all over the County, and one of the things he has enjoyed over the years is talking to clients about their needs. Commissioner Quatre suggested having town hall meetings in areas of the County such as Brothers, where the population is lower. Commissioner Pace thought that perhaps.. La Pine and Sunriver are not currently represented since no current Planning Commissioners live there. Terri said she could report back to the Board that the Commissioners did not feel a need to change the Code. Commissioner Irvine wanted to make sure that the actions of the Commissioners did not exclude consideration of one area. Commissioner Pace said that there was an advantage in the knowledge gained from living in a certain area, and she would be interested in seeing a map of the areas included in the townships, as well as population numbers. Commissioner Cyrus mentioned his involvement with the recent interview process which selected Commissioner Brown, and said that everyone in the County is represented by the Planning Commission; there have probably been more meetings in South County than any other. Terri mentioned that it was possible to add more members for a total of nine Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Brown said he would be opposed to that, and the other Planning Commissioners agreed. He also mentioned he had already received some phone calls from. La Pine residents questioning his appointment and had made sure they knew he would represent them fairly. He has offered to attend local meetings in La Pine. Tom Anderson spoke about legal lots of record in the eastern part of the County. He said there are hundreds to thousands of non -legal lots in Brothers and the east County area. VI. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary NEXT MEETING —October 23, 2008, 5:30 p.m., at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon, 97701 4 PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDED AND RECOMMENDED TEXT FOR BOCC TO ADOPT FOR TA -08-7 Chapter 17.04. GENERAL PROVISIONS 17.04.010. Short Title. 17.04.020. Purpose. 17.04.030. Interpretation. 17.04.040. Amendments. 17.04.050. Corrections. 17.04.010. Short Title. DCC Title 17 shall be known as the County Subdivision and Partition Ordinance, and may be so cited and plead. (Ord. 90-003 §1, 1990; Ord. 81-043 §§1 and 1.005, 1981) 17.04.020. Purpose. A. In accordance with the provisions of ORS 92, 197 and 215, DCC Title 17 sets forth the minimum standards governing the approval of land development, including subdivisions and partitionings, as necessary to carry out the County comprehensive plan and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare. The purpose of these provisions and regulations are to: 1. Encourage well planned subdivision and partition development to the end that good liveable neighborhoods with all needed amenities and community facilities may be created. 2. Encourage development in harmony with the natural environment and within resource carrying capacities. 3. Safeguard the interest of the public, the applicant and the future lot owner. 4. Improve land records and boundary monumentation. 5. Insure equitable processing of subdivision plats and partitioning plans, and accomplish to the greatest extent possible the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan for the County. 6. To regulate the orientation of streets, lots and parcels; the placement, height and bulk of buildings; and the placement and growth of vegetation within the County to insure access to solar energy by reasonably regulating interests in property within the County, as authorized under ORS 215.044, 105.880 through 105.890 and 92.044 to promote and maximize the conservation of energy by preserving the option to utilize solar energy and to implement the comprehensive plan policies relating to solar energy. 7. To encourage the design of new buildings, structures and developments which use solar energy and protect future options to use solar energy by protecting solar access. 8. To permit the validation of a unit of land not lawfully established pursuant to the provisions of ORS 92.176 and the creation of a parcel by less than all owners of a unit of land pursuant to the provisions of ORS 92.177. B. No person may subdivide or partition land within the County except in accordance with ORS 92 and the provisions of DCC Title 17. C. The provisions of DCC Title 17 shall apply only to subdivisions and partitions within the County, unless otherwise noted. All references to "subdivisions" and "partitions" are made in that context unless otherwise noted. D. DCC Title 17 shall not apply to the lands lying outside the city limits of the city of Bend and within the Bend Urban Growth Boundary, as that term is defined in that certain intergovernmental agreement entered into between the city of Bend and the County dated February 18, 1998. The city of Bend Subdivision Ordinance, No. NS -1349, as adopted by the Board of County Commissioners as DCC Title 17A, and as supplemented by such other supplementing and/or amending ordinances as might from time to time be adopted shall apply to those lands instead. E. Filing Procedures and Requirements. Page 1 of 2 — EXHIBIT "A' TO ORDINANCE 2008-030 Chapter 17.04 1 (11-2008) 1. Any person seeking to lawfully establish a unit of land pursuant to the provisions of ORS 92.176 shall apply for approval of a partition as provided by 17.22.010. 2. Deschutes County shall consider and may approve an application for the creation of a parcel pursuant to ORS 92.176, notwithstanding that less than all of the owners of the existing lawfully established unit of land have applied for approval. (Ord. 2008-030 § 1, 2008; Ord. 98-041 §1, 1998; Ord. 95-065 §1, 1995; Ord. 90-003 §1, 1990, Exhibit A; Ord. 83-039 §1, 1983; Ord. 81-043 §1, Exhibit A, §1.010, 1981) 17.04.030. Interpretation. The provisions of DCC Title 17 shall be construed to effect the purposes set forth in DCC 17.04.020. These provisions are declared to be the minimum requirements fulfilling such objectives, and the County may impose additional requirements deemed necessary to promote the health, safety and general welfare, and to carry out the comprehensive plan of the County. Where conditions set forth in DCC 17.04 are less restrictive than comparative conditions imposed by any other provision of DCC Title 17, by provision of any other local ordinance, resolution or regulation, or by provision of state statute or administrative regulation, the more restrictive shall govern. (Ord. 95-065 §1, 1995; Ord. 81-043 §1, Exhibit A, §1.020, 1981) 17.04.040. Amendments. DCC Title 17 may be amended or repealed as provided by law. (Ord. 81-043 §1, Exhibit A, §1.020, 1981) 17.04.050. Corrections. DCC Title 17 may be corrected by order of the Board to cure editorial and clerical errors. (Ord. 90-003 § 1, Exhibit A, 1990; Ord. 81-043 § 1, Exhibit A, § 12.080, 1981) Page 2 of 2 — EXHIBIT "A' TO ORDINANCE 2008-030 Chapter 17.04 2 (11-2008) **** Denotes sections of the County Code not amended. Chapter 17.08. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE 17.08.010. Construction. 17.08.020. Definitions. 17.08.030. Definitions Generally. "Lawfully Established Unit of Land" means: 1. A lot or parcel created pursuant to ORS 92.010 to 92.190, or the provisions of this code; or, 2. Another unit of land created: A. In compliance with all applicable planning, zoning and subdivision or partition ordinances and regulations; or B. By deed or land sales contract, if there were no applicable planning, zoning or subdivision or partition ordinances or regulations. 3. "Lawfully established unit of land" does not mean a unit of land created solely to establish a separate tax account. "Partition land" means to divide land to create not more than three parcels of land within a calendar year but does not include: A. A division of land resulting from a lien foreclosure, foreclosure of a recorded contract for the sale of real property or the creation of cemetery lots; B. An adjustment of a property line by the relocation of a common boundary where an additional unit of land is not created and where the existing unit of land reduced in size by the adjustment complies with any applicable zoning ordinance; or C. A sale or grant by a person to a public agency or public body for state highway, County road, city street or other right of way purposes provided that such road or right of way complies with the applicable comprehensive plan and ORS 215.213 (2)(p) to (r) and 215.283 (2)(q) to (s). However, any property divided by the sale or grant of property for state highway, County road, city street or other right of way purposes shall continue to be considered a single unit of land until such time as the property is further subdivided or partitioned. (Ord. 2008-030 § 2, 2008; Ord. 97-005 §1, 1997; Ord. 96-003 §10, 1996; Ord. 950065 §1, 1995; Ord. 93- 012 §§2-7, 1993; Ord. 90-003 §1, Exhibit A, 1990; Ord. 88-015 §1, 1988; Ord. 86-015 §2, 1986; Ord. 83- 039 §2, 1983; Ord. 81-043 §1, Exhibit A, §1.040, 1981) Page 1 of 1 — EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-030 Chapter 17.08 1 (11-2008) 17.16.030. Informational Requirements. The following information shall be shown on the tentative plan or provided in accompanying materials. No tentative plan shall be considered complete unless all such information is provided. A. General Information Required. 1. Proposed name of the subdivision; 2. Names, addresses and phone numbers of the owners of record, authorized agents or representatives, engineer or surveyor, and any assumed business names filed or to be filed with the Corporation Commission by the applicant; 3. Date of preparation, true north, scale and gross area of the proposed subdivision; 4. Appropriate identification of the drawing as a tentative plan for a subdivision; 5. Location and tract designation sufficient to define its location and boundaries, and a legal description of the tract boundaries in relation to existing plats and streets; 6. Title report or subdivision guarantee. B. Information Concerning Existing Conditions. 1. Location, names and widths of existing improved and unimproved streets and roads in relation to existing right-of-way, bikeways and access corridors in the proposed subdivision and within 200 feet of the proposed subdivision; 2. Location of any existing features, such as section lines, section corners, special district boundary lines and survey monuments; 3. Location of existing structures, irrigation canals and ditches, pipelines, waterways, railroads and any natural features, such as rock outcroppings, marshes, wooded areas and natural hazards; 4. Location and direction of watercourses, and the location of areas subject to flooding and high water tables; 5. Location, width and use or purpose of any existing easement or right of way for utilities, bikeways and access corridors within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision; 6. Existing sewer lines, water mains, culverts and other underground and overhead utilities within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision, together with pipe sizes, grades and locations; 7. Contour lines related to some established benchmark or other engineering acceptable datum and having minimum intervals of two feet for slopes of less than five percent, 10 feet for slopes of five to 20 percent, and 20 feet for slopes greater than 20 percent; 8. Zoning classification of lands within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision; 9. A map showing the location of any site zoned SM, Surface Mining, under DCC Title 18, within one-half mile of the proposed subdivision or partition boundary; 10. The structures, trees, rock outcroppings or other shade producing objects, if the object will cast shade from or onto the subdivision. C. Information Concerning Proposed Subdivision. 1. Location, names, width, typical improvements, cross-sections, bridges, culverts, approximate grades, curve radii and centerline lengths of all proposed streets, and the relationship to all existing and proposed streets; 2. Location, width and purpose of all proposed easements or rights of way for roads, utilities, bikeways and access corridors, and relationship to all existing easements and rights of way; 3. Location of at least one temporary benchmark within the subdivision boundary; 4. Location, approximate area and dimensions of each lot, and proposed lot numbers; 5. Location, approximate area and dimensions of any lot or area proposed for public use, the use proposed, and plans for improvements or development thereof; 6. Proposed use, location, approximate area and dimensions of any lot intended for nonresidential use; 7. Phase boundaries outlined in bold lines, if phasing is contemplated for the subdivision; Page 1 of 2 — EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008-030 Chapter 17.16 (11-2008) 8. Source, method and preliminary plans for domestic and other water supplies, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal and all utilities; 9. Description and location of any proposed community facility; 10. Storm water and other drainage facility plans; 11. Statement from each utility company proposed to serve the subdivision, stating that each such company is able and willing to serve the subdivision as set forth in the tentative plan; 12. Proposed fire protection system for the subdivision; 13. Solar access: a. Provide a statement relative to the solar access to be provided by the subdivision plan. b. Determine the location and type of street trees, if proposed. 14. Location and design of all proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities; 15. Location and design of all proposed facilities providing for public transit. 16. Appropriate Traffic Impact Study as specified in 17.16.115. D. Information for lots located in Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) zones. For each lot located wholly or partially within a SMIA zone, an applicant shall submit a site plan, accompanied by appropriate site plan fees, indicating the location of proposed noise or dust sensitive uses (as defined in DCC Title 18), the location and dimensions of any mitigating berms or vegetation and data addressing the standards of DCC 18.56, as amended, with respect to proposed noise or dust sensitive uses. (Ord. 2008-030 § 3, 2008; Ord. 2006-007 §2, 2006; Ord. 2006-004 §1, 2006; Ord. 93-012 §15, 1993; Ord. 90-003 §1, Exhibit A, 1990; Ord. 83-039 §§3-5, 1983; Ord. 81-043 §1, Exhibit A, §3.025, 1981) Page 2 of 2 — EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008-030 Chapter 17.16 (11-2008) 17.22.010. Filing Procedures and Requirements. A. Any person, or his authorized agent or representative, proposing a land partition, shall prepare and submit a minimum of 10 copies of the tentative plan and one (1) reduced scale copy 8 1/2" x 11" or 11" x 17", hereinafter described, unless more copies are required by the Planning Director, in accordance with the prescribed procedures, and the appropriate filing fee, to the Planning Division. B. The tentative plan shall include the following: 1. A vicinity map locating the proposed partition in relation to parcels zoned SM, Surface Mining, under DCC Title 18, which are within one-half mile of the subject partition, and to adjacent subdivisions, roadways and adjoining land use and ownership patterns. The map must include names of all existing roadways shown therein; 2. A plan of the proposed partitioning showing tract boundaries and dimensions, the area of each tract or parcel, locations of all easements, and the names, rights of way, widths and improvement standards of existing roads in relation to the existing right-of-way. The tentative plan shall also show the location of all existing buildings, canals, ditches, septic tanks and drainfields; it shall also show the location of any topographical feature which could impact the partition, such as canyons, bluffs, rock outcroppings, natural springs and floodplains. In addition, the tentative plan shall show the location width, curve radius and grade of proposed rights of way; 3. If the partition is to be accessed by a U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management road, the applicant shall submit a written agreement with the appropriate land management agency providing for permanent legal access to the road and any required maintenance; 4. Names and addresses of the landowner, the applicant (if different), a mortgagee if applicable and the engineer or surveyor employed or to be employed to make the necessary surveys; 5. A statement regarding contemplated water supply, telephone and electric service, sewage disposal, fire protection and access, etc. If domestic water is to be provided by an on-site well, the application must include at least two well logs for wells in the area; 6. True north, scale and date of map and property identification by tax lot, section, township and range; 7. Statement regarding present and intended use of the parcels to be created, or the use for which the parcels are to be offered; 8. If a tract of land has water rights, the application shall be accompanied by a water rights division plan which can be reviewed by the irrigation district or other water district holding the water rights, or when there is no such district, the County Watermaster; 9. Title report or subdivision guarantee. C. Information for parcels located within a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) zones. For each parcel wholly or partially within a SMIA zone under DCC Title 18, an applicant shall submit a site plan, accompanied by appropriate site plan fees, indicating the location of proposed noise or dust sensitive uses (as defined in DCC Title 18), the location and dimensions of any mitigating berms or vegetation and data addressing the standards of DCC 18.56, with respect to allowed noise or dust sensitive uses. D. An application for approval to validate a unit of land that was created by a sale that did not comply with the applicable criteria for creation of a unit of land may be approved as provided in this ordinance if the unit of land: 1. Is not a lawfully established unit of land; and, 2. Could have complied with the applicable criteria for the creation of a lawfully established unit of land in effect when the unit of land was sold. 3. Notwithstanding subparagraph (2) of this section, an application to validate a unit of land may also be approved if the county has previously approved a permit, as defined in ORS 215.402, for the construction or placement of a dwelling or other building on the unit of land after the sale. If the permit was approved for a dwelling, it must be determined that the dwelling qualifies for replacement under the criteria set forth in ORS 215.755 (1) (A) to (E). Page 1 of 2 — EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE 2008-030 Chapter 17.22 1 (11-2008) 4. If there is an existing dwelling or other building on a unit of land that was not lawfully established, an application for a permit as defined in ORS 215.402 or a permit under the applicable building code, may be approved if: La) The dwelling or other building was lawfully established prior to January 1, 2007, and (b) The permit does not change or intensify the use of the dwelling or other building. E. Notwithstanding subsection (D)(2) of this section, an application to validate a unit of land may be approved if the county has previously approved a permit, as defined in ORS 215.402, for the construction or placement of a dwelling or other building on the unit of land after the sale. 1. If the permit was approved for a dwelling, it must be determined that the dwelling qualifies for replacement under the criteria set forth in ORS 215.755(1)(a) to (e). 2. An application for a permit, as defined in ORS 215.402, or a permit under the applicable state or local building code for the continued use of a dwelling or other building on a unit of land that was not lawfully established permit under the applicable building code, may be approved if: a. The dwelling or other building was lawfully established prior to January 1, 2007, and b. The permit does not change or intensify the use of the dwelling or other building. E. The application to validate a unit of land under these sections is an application for a permit as defined in ORS 215.402. F. The application to validate a unit of land is not subject to the minimum lot or parcel sizes established by ORS 215.780 and Chapter 18.16 of the Deschutes County Code. G. A unit of land becomes a lawfully established unit of land only upon recordation of a final plat in accordance with Chapter 17.24 of this code. 1. The final partition plat shall be recorded within 90 days of tentative plan approval. 2. If the final plat is not recorded within 90 days, the applicant must recommence the process in order to validate a unit of land that was not a lawfully established unit of land H. An application to validate a unit of land that was unlawfully created on or after January 1, 2007 shall not be approved. I. Following validation of the unit of land, any development or improvement of the lawfully established unit of land shall comply with applicable laws in effect when a complete application for development is submitted. (Ord. 2008-030 § 4, 2008; Ord. 2006-007 §3, 2005; Ord. 93-012 §21, 1993; Ord. 90-003 §1, Exhibit A, 1990; Ord. 81-043 §1, Exhibit A, §5.015, 1981) Page 2 of 2 — EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE 2008-030 Chapter 17.22 2 (11-2008) ORDINANCE 2008-030 REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Title 17, of the Deschutes County Code to Incorporate the 2007 Legislative Text of ORS 92.176 and ORS 92.177. ORDINANCE NO. 2008-030 WHEREAS, Paul David Yager requested a text amendment to Title 17 in order incorporate the 2007 Legislative Text of ORS 92.176 and ORS 92.177, and WHEREAS the Planning Commission considered this matter after a public hearing on October 9, 2008, and forwarded a recommendation to the Board to approve the proposed text amendments to Title 17 as modified by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") was published in the Bend Bulletin on November 2, 2008; and WHEREAS the Board considered this matter after a public hearing was held on November 24, 2008 and concluded that Title 17 should be amended to adopt the 2007 Edition of ORS 92.176 and 92.177 and other minor text changes in Title 17; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC 17.04, General Provisions, are amended to read as described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and language to be deleted in ctrikethrough. Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCC 17.08, Definitions, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and language to be deleted in strikethrough. Section 3. AMENDMENT. DCC 17.16, Approval of Subdivision Tentative Plan and Master Development Plans, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "C," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and language to be deleted in .strikethrough. Section 4. AMENDMENT. DCC 17.22, Approval of Tentative Plans For Partitions, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "D," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and language to be deleted in strikethrough. /// PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2008-030 (11/24/08) Section 5. FINDINGS. The Board of Commissioners adopts as it's findings in support of this amendment Exhibit "E", attached and incorporated by reference herein. Dated this of , 2008 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ATTEST: DENNIS R. LUKE, CHAIR TAMMY BANEY, VICE CHAIR Recording Secretary MICHAEL M. DALY, COMMISSIONER Date of 1st Reading: day of , 2008. Date of 2nd Reading: day of , 2008. Record of Adoption Vote Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Dennis R. Luke Tammy Baney Michael M. Daly Effective date: day of , 2008. ATTEST: Recording Secretary PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2008-030 (11/24/08)