Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-02 Work Session Minutes Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2009 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke, and Alan Unger. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Steve Griffin and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; David Inbody, Assistant to the Administrator; Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack, Kristen Maze, Anthony Raguine, and Paul Blikstad, Community Development; and eleven other citizens, including representatives of the media. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Discussion of Request from the Deschutes Stewardship Council for Staff Assistance regarding the Protection of Farmland in Mapping High-value Farmland. Dave Kanner explained that Gladys Biglor had submitted a letter previously with questions about this issue. Commissioner Baney asked what the Deschutes Stewardship Council is. Ms. Biglor said that the Council is a grassroots group, not a political action committee. She submitted a document dated February 2 detailing her concerns, which she then read. She is concerned about the County offering assistance to one party of an issue involved in a text amendment, and not the other. Commissioner Unger said that the previous discussion observed that the Planning Commissioner had decided on the enforcement issue and to look at putting together the amendment. He was looking at supporting the Planning Commission with its recommendations, but is not sure how daunting this task is. Commissioner Baney said that the applicant paid $4,500 to have the application reviewed and put through the process. This can mean many things. This is the average of the costs but some take a lot more time. They vary in complexity. You can start out thinking it fits within the realm but it can get more complicated. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 2, 2009 Page 1 of 7 Pages Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 2, 2009 Page 2 of 7 Pages The other thing is that many things raised now affect other properties; most text amendments do not deal with just one property. A conditional use permit would be needed to see what properties fit the requirements. The original request was to give an equal amount of time and service. However, the applicant paid a $4,500 fee and staff cannot operate without this funding. Commissioner Luke stated that while it is true when the application comes in they would look at it. However, they do not pay that amount to have County staff and legal counsel write their documents for them. It is not the job of the County to write this. They clearly did not have the right counsel working on it. He feels that the Sunriver issue was handled by applicants’ staff and legal counsel. Commissioner Unger stated that he does not think the applicant asked for County Legal Counsel to do the work. They wanted staff assistance. Paul Blikstad said he does not see the County having a problem with this. They work with Code every day and it was his idea to have the County write it, as it is simpler. Tom Anderson stated that he advocated for this, not because they support or do not support it, but to save staff time in all the revisions. He thinks there were too many objectives. The Board needs to make a policy decision and it takes a lot of time going back and forth to get to a decision point. They wanted to prepare something that could be approved, past the technical issues, if the Board wants to approve it. They are having difficult with the time and cost to keep going back and forth with the applicant when it is easier for staff to do it. Commissioner Luke asked if it would pass State law. Mr. Blikstad stated that DLCD indicated they will not oppose it, but it could be appealed to LUBA. Ms. Biglor said that the money was spent long ago on this issue. She thinks it may be way beyond that. She believes opponents should have access to County resources is because it has the potential to do harm to citizens. This is baaed on information already in the file. She added that Commissioner Baney has commented that it is not the responsibility of the taxpayer to do this, that it did not come to the Planning Commission as it should have. She feels that the greater citizens should have equal access. Also, that Mr. Blikstad is assuming that DLCD will approve it and this may not be the case. She believes that the County and John Jennings of the DLCD erred. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 2, 2009 Page 3 of 7 Pages Nick Lelack stated that they want to make this consistent with Code, and the concerns would be addressed in the txt amendment. If others are brought into the process, how do you balance or reconcile this in the amendment. This is a policy issue. Commissioner Luke said that staff sometimes summarizes what each party wants. He has never known staff not to provide information if it is available. Ms. Biglor said that the information is not that accessible. She stated they want to display for the decision makers and citizens the effects of this amendment. The primary purpose of EFU land is agriculture. County folks should be asking the questions she did. Commissioner Baney said that she has five family members who own EFU land and they are not at all interested in hosting events. Not many would. Those who would should go through an application process. Ms. Biglor replied that the horse is out of the barn. The EFU land in the County is already being used for business. Weddings are part of this. She then asked what the incremental effects entail. Mr. Kulin had also asked for a commercial use on his property. There are cumulative and space considerations. Commissioner Unger stated that the County needs to look at the twenty-year plan. There is a potential to create limiting factors for any potential use, and he feels that the Board needs to be supportive and make a decision to benefit all. Tom Anderson said some of the things on the list are readily available. Ms. Biglor feels that this should be addressed in the comprehensive plan update and would like this issue tabled until then. Commissioner Baney said that a few other counties allow these uses, with limitations. Mr. Kanner stated that the conversation is straying from the facts. He feels that most of what is asked for is public information, and staff can direct her to it. Other items need to be better defined. Some can be requested by a public information request. His concern is that staff assistance is being requested to develop an opposing opinion. If they want to draft and submit a text amendment in opposition, staff would handle it as it does for any other applicant. He does not feel this is an appropriate role for staff. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 2, 2009 Page 4 of 7 Pages Commissioner Luke said these venues are already not allowed. Laurie Craghead said the text amendment is to make it clear, concerning a private park. Commissioner Luke stated that some would need to go to policy makers. Commissioner Unger said he agrees with Mr. Kanner’s assessment. This is really in the Planning Commission realm right now; their request came to the Board. Ms. Craghead clarified that there are policy questions for the Planning Commission. Ms. Biglor stated that she feels there should be no cost to the opponents to receive similar assistance. Commissioner Baney said that this is unique in many ways. Mr. Blikstad said that Community Development does not have direct access to the irrigation district information. Ms. Craghead said there is a difference between high value farmland and high value agricultural. Tom Anderson clarified that once they have applied definitions to these, the items that request additional staff time 2. Discussion regarding Vacating Measure 37 Waivers. Steve Griffin explained that there were three Measure 37 waivers pending when Measure 49 passed. It is clear that they no longer have any effect. Commissioner Luke asked how they could be vacated when they were legitimate at the time. Mr. Griffin said that these are not land use issues. The claimants were all represented by counsel and in every case, they have agreed that this is the action the courts should take. It won’t be a surprise to anyone involved. None of them are vested. 3. Discussion of Request regarding Event Venue and Private Park Listings. This is the same agenda item as #1, which was already discussed. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 2, 2009 Page 5 of 7 Pages 4. Continued Discussion of Legal Lot of Record Issues. Laurie Craghead stated that there are good arguments on both sides. The findings from Hearings Officers have been that the supremacy clauses cannot invalidate. Once it is in private ownership in order to be developed. It has to be in place before the development application, at the time of transfer. The County cannot tell the federal government what to do. Commissioner Luke said they are Hearings Officers’ opinions and not those of a higher court. Commissioner Baney said the federal government does not have to make sure property is a lot of record at the time of transfer. Ms. Craghead said that the ORS says you have to go through the partition process. This staves off problems for buyers later on. Right now, it comes down to a Code interpretation. Commissioner Luke said that a lot of County lands came through BLM. This could include Juniper Ridge, the South Redmond Tract and other property that was originally owned by the BLM. Ms. Craghead said the Attorney General may give an opinion, but she has not heard back from John Lily, their local representative. Commissioner Unger stated that he supports this idea. Ms. Craghead stated that the law was changed in 2007 regarding partitions; much depends on whether it could have been approved at the time of partition. Another possibility is a lot line adjustment. 5. Economic Development Grant Requests. ƒ Family Access Network – Luncheon Fundraiser – the Commissioners granted $1,000 each. ƒ Redmond Chamber of Commerce – Central Oregon Business Expo – the Commissioners granted $1,000 each. 6. Planning for Joint Meeting with Crook and Jefferson Counties. Commissioner Luke said that the Klamath County Commission wants to meet regarding local rule. He suggested that perhaps they meet another time since Crook and Jefferson counties won’t be interested in the local rule issue at this point. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 2, 2009 Page 6 of 7 Pages Commissioner Luke stated that he feels the County Administrators should attend. He does not know why the other counties wish to exclude them. Commissioner Unger stated that there are common issues, such as destination resorts and the resulting impacts on infrastructure and roads. Commissioner Baney said that the original contact was to discuss how to share services and address problems common to all three counties. This could include solid waste disposal, health and mental health services, homeless issues, and so on. There could be ways for the counties to assist each other. Commissioner Unger suggested that there should be memoranda of understanding and efforts made to lobby for funding. Commissioner Luke stated that he would like Dave Kanner to attend as well as possibly others, such as Scott Johnson for his regional outlook on health and mental health issues. Dave Kanner suggested that Deschutes County has a lot more resources available than the other two, and cautioned to not committing to things that take the burden off the other counties and diminish what Deschutes County has to work with. Commissioner Baney will contact the other counties’ representatives to try to put together an appropriate agenda. 7. Update of Commissioners’ Meetings and Schedules. Commissioner Luke is talking about the local rule at Rotary. The Commissioners are meeting with the City of La Pine Council on Thursday. 8. Other Items. Commissioner Unger asked about assisting in purchasing a transit center; COIC is considering this and is looking for funding until a grant is received. Commissioner Baney feels COIC is the logical entity to put this into place, as future transit centers may come into play. She said that they should make a formal request. Mr. Kanner stated the City of Bend is the grant recipient and he feels they are the entity that should take the lead. The County has extended itself on a lot of things already. This is a challenging issue and the City has already had considerable difficulties setting up transit services.