presented by Amanda Remington, Wasco County Economic ... Archives/2008/1… · 1:30 p.m. PRESENTATION on economic development in Wasco County; presented by Amanda Remington, Wasco

WASCO COUNTY COURT

REGULAR SESSION

AGENDA

OCTOBER 15, 2008

LOCATION: WASCO COUNTY COURTHOUSE, COUNTY COURTROOM #202,

511 Washington Street. The Dalles, Oregon

9:00 a.m. OPEN TO PUBLIC

9:15 a.m. OPEN TO DEPARTMENTS

9:45 a.m. REPORTS from Members of the County Court on Court activities.

10:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING to consider proposed text amendments to the Wasco County Land Use and Development Ordinance Chapter 13, Nonconforming Uses Building and Lots.

1:30 p.m. PRESENTATION on economic development in Wasco County; presented by Amanda Remington, Wasco County Economic Development Coordinator.

2:00p.m. PUBLIC HEARING on the request from David Brandt to name an existing easement road.

2:30p.m. FINAL PUBLIC HEARING on the formation of the Wamic Rural Fire Protection District in Wasco County, Oregon.

2:45p.m. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL of the Regular Session Consent Calendar of October 15, 2008.

CONSIDERATION of items listed on the Discussion List of October 15, 2008.

NOTE: THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO LAST MINUTE CHANGES.

The facility is handicapped accessible. Please contact (541) 506-2520, if you need special accommodations to attend the meeting.

TDD- 1-800-735-2900

WASCO COUNTY COURT REGULAR SESSION OCTOBER 15, 2008

PRESENT: Dan Ericksen, County Judge Sherry Holliday, County Commissioner Bill Lennox, County Commissioner Kathy McBride, Executive Assistant Lauren Haney, County Court Assistant

At 9:13a.m. Judge Dan Ericksen called the Regular Session of the County Court to order.

There was no public in attendance.

Molly Rogers, Youth Services Director, met with the County Court.

Mrs. Rogers presented the Court a copy of a letter from Governor Theodore R. Kulongoski regarding her appointment to the Juvenile Crime Prevention Advisory Committee.

[[[A copy of the letter from Governor Theodore R. Kulongoski appointing Molly Rogers to the Juvenile Crime Prevention Advisory Committee is hereto attached and made a part of this record.)]]

Mrs. Rogers informed the Court that she was nominated to this Committee by someone else and that this position may result in time away from the Youth Services Office.

Discussion occurred.

Judge Ericksen informed Mrs. Rogers that the US Congress reauthorized the Safety Net Payments to Counties but unfortunately they did away with the category that would allow for the continuation of the Title Ill Work Crew Program for the Youth Services Department.


Mrs. Rogers noted that she is currently working on a sustainability plan to maintain the Work Crew Program.

At 9:19a.m. Judge Ericksen stated that he had requested Monica Morris, Staff Accountant, to give an informative explanation on the complex issues of SB 1145 dollars from the State of Oregon.

WASCO COUNTY COURT REGULAR SESSION OCTOBER 15, 2008 PAGE2

Mrs. Morris stated that she has met with Robert Martin, Community Corrections Director, in regards to SB 1145 funding.


Rick Eiesland, Wasco County Sheriff, shared his knowledge regarding the SB 1145 program under the Oregon Department of Corrections.

Lengthy discussion occurred.

At 9:46a.m. Sheriff Eiesland noted that the Sheriff's Office has received the Buffer Zone Grant in the amount of approximately $100,000.00. The Grant monies will be put toward the current Communications Project. He then shared with the Court some issues regarding possible upcoming vacancies in the Sheriff's Office as well as some potential hiring issues involving the vacant Parole and Probation Officer position.


Sheriff Eiesland explained to the Court the Grant process for the Department of Human Services Buffer Zone Grant.

At 9:57 a.m. Tyler Stone, Employee and Administrative Services Director, went over the current status on repairs to the Youth Services Office Building.


Mr. Stone then discussed the replacement of the Fair House with a Forest Service module home.

Mr. Stone noted that Wasco County has submitted a Planning Grant to the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. He will be making a presentation to the State Committee on Thursday, November 6, 2008.

Some discussion occurred.

Mr. Stone stated that the bargaining of the AFSCME Contract is beginning. He added that the negotiation process for the Law Enforcement Association Contract is tentatively wrapped up.

The Court recessed at 10:01 a.m.

The Court reconvened at 10:07 a.m.


Judge Ericksen stated that the Public Hearing is open for the consideration of the proposed text amendments to the Wasco County Land Use and Development Ordinance Chapter 13, Nonconforming Uses Building and lots. He went over the procedures for the Public Hearing. Judge Ericksen then noted that the Hearing was scheduled for two hours and any remaining time needed would be continued on November 5th at 1 :30 p.m. in this Court room, however it was the Court's intention to complete the Hearing today.

Judge Ericksen went over the Rules of Evidence at this time.

There were 11 people in attendance.

Judge Ericksen asked if there was any member of the Court wishing to disqualify them self for any personal or financial interest in this matter. There was no one.

Judge Ericksen asked if any member of the audience wished to challenge the right of any Court member to hear this matter. There was no one.

Judge Ericksen asked if any member of the audience wished to question the jurisdiction of this body to act on behalf of Wasco County in this matter. There was no one.

Judge Ericksen called on staff to present the staff presentation.

Todd Cornett, Wasco County Planning and Development Director, presented to the Court a handout entitled County Court Presentation PLALEG-08-08-0001, Amendments to the Land Use and Development Ordinance.

Mr. Cornett presented the staff report at this time.

[[[A copy of the handout entitled County Court Presentation PLALEG-08-08-0001, Amendments to the Land Use and Development Ordinance from Todd Cornett, Wasco County Planning and Development Director, is hereto attached and made a part of this record.]]]

Judge Ericksen asked if there was anyone present that had not previously attended a meeting regarding this matter. Judge Ericksen then stated that he had requested that Mr. Cornett abbreviate his presentation today if there was no one who had not previously attended a meeting.

No one indicated that they had not attended a previous meeting.


Mr. Cornett continued with his report. He read a portion of the Agreement with Adventura as shown on Page PC 62 and 63. Mr. Cornett stated that they have not contacted him regarding the process.

Mr. Cornett noted the previous Hearings that occurred before the Planning Commission. Mr. Cornett then continued with his report.

Gary Nychyk, Senior Planner, presented to the Court copies of three letters from the Friends of the Columbia River Gorge, Mark Cherniack and Susan Conklin, and Michael Lilly representing Kenneth Thomas.

[[[Copies of the three letters from the Friends of the Columbia River Gorge, Mark Cherniack and Susan Conklin, and Michael Lilly are hereto attached and made a part of this record.)]]

Judge Ericksen stated that the Court members had received two of the three letters prior to today's hearing; he requested that Mr. Cornett read aloud the letter from Michael Lilly.

Michael Lilly, Attorney, stated that he would cover the material in the letter in his presentation to the Court. He trusts that the Court will read his letter at their convenience.

Mr. Cornett informed the Court that there are many changes that are being proposed by staff.

Mr. Nychyk presented the Court with a copy of the proposed staff updates.

[[[A copy of the handout entitled Staff Proposed Updates is hereto attached and made a part of this record.]]]

Mr. Cornett went over the recommended Land Use and Development Ordinance Text Amendments changes section of his report at this time. He stated that currently in Wasco County only a conditional use requires a prenotice. The recommendation coming from the Planning Commission is that the proposal includes a pre-notice. Initially Chapter 11 was not included in this proposal. However, there were two sections that the Planning Commission decided to take out of Chapter 13 and put into Chapter 11. Mr. Cornett's recommendation is to take them out of Chapter 11 and put them back into Chapter 13.

Mr. Cornett went over the section in the staff report which pertains to Chapter 11. The proposed language changes under Section 13.040

WASCO COUNTY COURT REGULAR SESSION OCTOBER 15, 2008 PAGES

Construction on and Conveyance of Nonconforming Legal Parcels, as shown on Pages CC20 and CC21 were reviewed at this time.

At 11:12 a.m. Judge Ericksen opened the meeting to public testimony.

Judge Ericksen requested that the public testimony be kept to five minutes per person in order to accommodate each public member wishing to testify.

Michael Lilly testified that he is representing Kenneth Thomas. He wanted to address one main issue; the development rights for consolidation. Mr. Lilly does not feel that approving the section that deals with consolidating properties is a good idea. Mr. Lilly stated that it is not a requirement to adopt the section that deals with deeds. He explained to the Court that by approving this section you would be taking away development rights of people who did not label separate properties as Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 in the past. A deed which describes two different parcels would consolidate the development rights for both parcels. Mr. Lilly stated that changing properties that were originated in the past and consolidating them would take away the developmental rights of property owners, some without knowing it.

Some discussion occurred regarding Mr. Lilly's comments.

Mr. Lilly feels that adopting this section would make a difference to a lot of people in the County. He also stated that there is no State law that requires the County to do so. He suggested that the Court take out the whole section regarding consolidation.

At 11:19 a.m. Vickie Ellett testified. She stated that overall the ordinance may be needed and may be a good idea. However she feels that it would be a good thing to allow people to change Deeds from the past if they are going to adopt the ordinance. Ms. Ellett stated that the issue of consolidation does not belong here; it's not fair. She questioned the Court; why should we retroactively go back and take the right that people have to give their grandchildren parcels to develop. She stated that it was unfair and inappropriate. Ms. Ellett requested that the Court not adopt the consolidation portion of the ordinance.

Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Friends of Wasco County, presented to the Court a letter from the Friends of Wasco County, dated October 15, 2008.

[[[A copy of the letter from the Friends of Wasco County, dated October 15, 2008 is hereto attached and made a part of this record.]]]

Ms. Fitzpatrick read her letter at this time. She referred the Court to Page CC40, Section (B) of the proposed ordinance. Ms. Fitzpatrick stated that this is


an important section. She then referred to and read aloud Section (B) (3) on page CC44 of the proposed ordinance. Ms. Fitzpatrick is concerned with the last sentence. She feels that this would allow the applicant to balance one impact off of another. She stated that the Friends of Wasco County do not feel that this is the intention of this section of the ordinance. She asked that the last sentence be removed. Ms. Fitzpatrick also expressed concern with the use of the word neighborhood; and requested a definition of its use.


Ms. Fitzpatrick asked if individuals could request notifications from the Planning Department regarding Nonconforming Use activity.

Judge Ericksen asked Mr. Cornett if there are other entities that make requests for notification of actions taken by the Planning Department.

Mr. Cornett stated that Ms. Fitzpatrick's request was not unreasonable but he wanted to make it clear that when people ask for notification, they get it all. Mr. Cornett said that he would be willing to have the Friends of Wasco County added to the notification listing, but not for one specific review.


Mr. Cornett stated that Ms. Fitzpatrick, representing the Friends of Wasco County, would be added to the Planning Department's notification listing.


Judge Ericksen stated that there is usually something within that year that is certifiable as to non conforming use verification. If it is Type I it is not discretionary. If it is a cut and dry decision then we go to a Type I Review.

Mr. Cornett stated that the majority of them will be Type II Review.

Some discussion occurred regarding a Type I Review.

Mr. Cornett stated that if it is Type I Review you will not have any input in the matter.

Ms. Fitzpatrick asked if it was a possibility to eliminate the last sentence under Page CC44 (B) (3).

Some discussion occurred on Ms. Fitzpatrick's suggestion.

WASCO COUNTY COURT REGULAR SESSION OCTOBER 15, 2008 PAGE 7

Judge Ericksen stated that the relative impact of taking this sentence out would have to be looked at. He added that this section needs to be left somewhat general due to the fact that the Court is considering the whole County. They feel that there needs to be some flexibility to make the guidelines fit any particular application that may come in.

Ms. Fitzpatrick stated that she is concerned with the fact that each criterion is applied to the application. She feels that this would allow the applicant to increase negative impact if they ignore all of the criteria in this section. Ms. Fitzpatrick still does not see why the last sentence is needed.

Judge Ericksen feels that it does considerably change what we are looking at. He feels that is why the Planning Commission added that sentence; they wanted to ensure the overall reduction.

Ms. Fitzpatrick stated that the Friends of Wasco County appreciates the addition of Number (2) above (B) (3).

Susan Gabay presented to the Court her letter.

[[[A copy of the letter from Susan Gabay is hereto attached and made a part of this record.]]]

At this time Ms. Gabay read aloud her letter. She also referenced Pages CC44 and CC45 in the record.

Commissioner Holliday stated that she has spoken with Mr. Cornett regarding the issue that Ms. Gabay brought to the Court. She requested that Mr. Cornett address the issue at this time.

Mr. Cornett responded by stating that there is an issue regarding critical groundwater in some areas. He stated that the Planning Department would be in close contact with the appropriate agencies to determine what the County should be putting in place. If the property meets standards, or whether a higher burden of proof would be needed to show that there would be no impact to the water supply that the applicant would have to provide. His question is, do we have criterion that tells us exactly what to do, or do we have some flexibility?

Commissioner Lennox went back to whether the County should leave (B) (3) on Page CC44. He stated that the County would not be looking at these as being equal impacts. We are not going to trade off an issue of view versus water.

WASCO COUNTY COURT REGULAR SESSION OCTOBER 15, 2008 PAGES

Mr. Cornett stated that Commissioner Lennox is correct. Mr. Cornett added that he compares this with the scenic area where we have specific resources that need protection. He stated that the County does an analysis during the process, then determines what the right balance would be.

At 11:50 a.m. Andrew Merritt, Mosier, Oregon, gave his testimony. He stated that he is a participant of the Friends of Wasco County. He encouraged the Court to consider the issues that were raised by Ms. Fitzpatrick. He stated that if there is no mandate by statute that requires the County to adopt the last sentence then he would remove it. Mr. Merritt added that he is a resident of a nonconforming use property and his home is requiring repairs. He would like to see that the ordinance be passed. Mr. Merritt wants to ensure that his home will be there in 20 years.

At 11:52 a.m. the public hearing was closed to further testimony.

Commissioner Lennox stated that he only had one concern which was the issue brought up regarding consolidation.

Judge Ericksen asked Mr. Cornett if there was any idea of the number of parcels out there that are considered as having a nonconforming use.

Mr. Cornett answered no. He stated that it would be extremely difficult to determine an exact count.

Judge Ericksen questioned the developmental rights.


Judge Ericksen and Mr. Cornett had a thorough discussion regarding high value and non high value properties and their status in development rights.

Mr. Cornett stated that every parcel that has been created since 197 4 was by partition or subdivision.

Commissioner Lennox is feeling a little uncertain. He is still a little concerned regarding the issue of going back in time and consolidating parcels.

Mr. Cornett stated that the Land Conservation and Development Commission has stamped their approval on these policies. As far as legality goes, Mr. Cornett feels that the County would be safe in enforcing them. He also stated that we have documented use of this policy since 1994.

Further discussion occurred.


Mr. Cornett stated that the general practice is not to create a fully different meet and bounds description. He stated that this policy protects against the dismantling of the whole reason of having minimum lot sizes. He added that there are occurrences were people can literally go back to the 1800's and split up properties that were created by Deeds and use them for development purposes.

Commissioner Lennox questioned if the particular policy regarding consolidation really belongs in the Nonconforming Use Section of the Land Use and Development Ordinance.

Judge Ericksen stated that he can see the argument on parcel 1 and parcel 2 regarding consolidation.

Mr. Cornett stated that it shows no intent to keep properties separate when the intent is made to put two properties on the same Deed and not consolidate them into the same meets and bounds description. There are many cases were people showed intent on Deeds to keep them separate by indicating parcel 1 and parcel 2. There are other characteristics that may not consolidate parcels such as if they exceed the minimum lot size or if they have already been developed.

Judge Ericksen stated the most concerns were on Page CC44 (3). He understands where the testimony is; it can become subjective. He feels the Planning Commission did a good job of adding a paragraph there that puts the rest of these into context and allows some subjectivity. Then it is placed on the Planning Commission and the Court to evaluate what the impacts are. Judge Ericksen stated that he likes from (3) on.

Judge Ericksen stated that Kathy McBride, Executive Assistant, and Mr. Cornett had questioned (2).

Commissioner Lennox stated that he is approaching this from a conservative position. He believes that the alteration will not increase the capacity. He then stated that it is not the intent to increase the capacity of the nonconforming use parcels. Commissioner Lennox feels that having this ordinance in place to clarify nonconforming use properties is a good idea.

Judge Ericksen stated that Mr. Cornett is worried about the interpretation of capacity. He added that capacity is relative to the endeavor; in the case of American Adventura it may be the number of sites, whereas in a small business it may be the amount of supplies you store.


Judge Ericksen stated that (2) may not allow the increase of capacity but he feels that (3) helps protect the issue of hurting a small business that may want to expand.

Mr. Cornett stated that he feels he has no wording that would clarify the capacity issue. His question is, what does the County wants to do as far as increasing the capacity or expansion.

Judge Ericksen stated that (3) is administered to help decide on when increasing capacity has an impact versus when it doesn't.

Commissioner Holliday stated that she is not comfortable with saying there can be no increase.

Commissioner Lennox stated that he does not like to be rushed. He would like to do more research on the consolidation issue with parcels, as well as having additional time to think about the application of the word capacity.

Judge Ericksen stated that the Court should make the decision based on the information that has been presented to them today.

Mr. Cornett stated that the Court could recess to think about the information that they have been given today. He added that if the Court would like to gain more information then they should schedule further Public Hearings presenting the newly gathered information.


Judge Ericksen stated that he understands the practical way that Mr. Lilly's presentation could be applied. He also believes that there may be some Deeds that were created haphazardly. Judge Ericksen stated that he understands the practical way this is applied. There is the issue of fairness. On the side of our citizens; let's leave that part out. The capacity criterion creates ambiguity. He feels we have adequate criteria to deal with the other issues involved. Judge Ericksen would suggest striking (2) and striking the section as requested by Michael Lilly.

Mr. Cornett asked the Court if it leaves it open for an applicant to increase the intensity or impact. He stated that this may never be an issue. This has occurred in the past; they have dealt with it. It may not prove to be a big issue in the future. Mr. Cornett stated that there is the likelihood that someone may be trying to make a claim; going back to a Deed with the old descriptions.

Lengthy discussion occurred.


Mr. Cornett encouraged the Court to read the 1 0 pages of research that was placed in the staff report. He stated that it would address the issue that the Court is discussing right now.

Judge Ericksen stated that he would like time to get through all of the explanation before the Court renders a decision. He would like to see some sort of consensus on where the Court is with what has been presented before the hearing is continued.

Commissioner Lennox feels (3) overall is to reduce impacts. He is fine with moving forward to remove (2).

Mr. Cornett would recommend that the Court make it clear of the intent. Mr. Cornett stated that by striking (2) it is inferred that it is allowed. He would like to know if they are going to allow it or not allow it.

Judge Ericksen requested that the Court continue the Public Hearing at 2:45p.m.

{{{Commissioner Holliday moved to continue the Public Hearing to consider the proposed text amendments to the Wasco County Land Use and Development Ordinance Chapter 13, Nonconforming Uses Building and lots until 2:45 p.m. this afternoon in order to provide adequate time to review information presented during today's Public Hearing and render a decision. Commissioner Lennox seconded the motion; it was then passed unanimously.}}}

At 12:40 p.m. the Court recessed for lunch.

At 1:36 p.m. the Court reconvened.

Amanda Remington, Executive Director for Mid-Columbia Economic Development District "MCEDD", and Jim Donnelly, Project Manager for MCEDD, met with the Court.

Ms. Remington presented to the Court a handout entitled Economic Development Commission update.

[[[A copy of the handout from Amanda Remington entitled Wasco County Court Economic Development Commission Update is hereto attached and made a part of this record.]]]

Ms. Remington presented her report at this time.


Ms. Remington stated that they received a request from Robin Cope for an additional allocation of $1, 700.00, for a revised scope of work for the Juniper Flats Rural Fire Protection District Drafting Pit and Water Reservoir Project.

Judge Ericksen stated that he had no problem with allocating the additional $1,700.00 for Robin Cope to provide additional work under the Juniper Flats Rural Fire Protection District Drafting Pit and Water Reservoir Project.

***It was the consensus of the County Court to direct staff to prepare a revised Professional Service Contract with Robin Cope for an additional cost of $1,700.00.

Ms. Remington continued with her report.

{{{Commissioner Holliday moved to allocate a total of $550.00 from the Special Economic Development Payments Fund for the development of a new Economic Development Commission website that will be firmly integrated into the County website when completed. Commissioner Lennox seconded the motion. It was then passed unanimously.}}}

Commissioner Lennox noted the expenses for the County to participate in the AWEA Wind Power 2009 conference in Texas next year.

Ms. Remington stated that MCEDD is requesting a contribution of $2,000.00 from Wasco County for a portion of the cost for a booth at the conference. She stated that the college has put down 50% of the amount to hold the booth.

Mr. Donnelly stated that MCEDD is working on completing the County's application for an Oregon Investment Board Grant for the Columbia Gorge Discovery Center Oregon Solutions Local Match Project.

{{{Commissioner Lennox moved to approve the submittal of the Oregon Investment Board Grant Application for the Columbia Gorge Discovery Center Oregon Solutions Local Match Project. Commissioner Holliday seconded the motion; it was then passed unanimously.}}}

The Court briefly reviewed the map of the area where the private road is located for the upcoming public hearing.

At 2:05 p.m. Judge Ericksen called to order the Public Hearing on the request from David Brandt to name an existing private road.


Judge Ericksen went over the procedures for the public hearing at this time.

Judge Ericksen asked if there was any member of the Court wishing to disqualify them self for any personal or financial interest in this matter. There was no one.

Judge Ericksen asked if any County Court member wished to report any significant ex parte or pre-hearing contracts. There was no one.

Judge Ericksen asked if any member of the audience wished to challenge the right of any Court member to hear this matter. There was no one.

Judge Ericksen asked if any member of the audience wished to question the jurisdiction of this body to act on behalf of Wasco County in this matter. There was no one.

Judge Ericksen called on staff to present their report at this time.

Dawn Baird, Associate Planner, noted that in the staff report there is an error listing the road as an easement road when it should be listed as a private road.

Ms. Baird went over her staff report at this time.

[[[A copy of the staff report presented by Dawn Baird, Associate Planner, regarding the David Brandt road naming request from Dry Creek Road to Pine-Oak road is hereto attached and made a part of this record.)]]


Ms. Baird stated that the applicant would not be required to bring the road up to private road standards.


Ms. Baird stated that Marty Matherly, Roadmaster, has reviewed the proposed road name and finds it to be consistent.

Ms. Baird noted some options available to the Court.


Discussion occurred regarding whether a Public Hearing would be required to name the road.

Mr. Brandt stated that some of the people who live off the road would prefer not to change the road name and would like to keep the name as Dry Creek Road. Mr. Brandt stated that he has no preference either way. Mr. Brandt stated that he had tried to include as many property owners, who were interested in the road naming, when coming up with the proposed name. The road name selected was mutually offensive to everyone. No one got their first choice.

Ms. Baird noted that the letter that Mr. Brandt referred to is on the last page of the Court packet.

At 2:14 p.m. the Public Hearing was closed to further testimony.

Judge Ericksen stated that the Court appreciates the fact that they came up with a proposed name.

{{{Commissioner Lennox moved to approve the request from David Brandt to name the Private Road Pine-Oak. Commissioner Holliday seconded the motion.


Commissioner Holliday stated that there is an understanding that it costs money to change your home address.

Commissioner Lennox stated that we can all agree that public safety is the primary issue.

The vote was called for; the motion passed unanimously.}}}

The Public Hearing adjourned at 2:18p.m.

{{{Commissioner Holliday moved to approve the Order in the matter of naming an existing Private Road lying north of Dry Creek Road, approximately % mile west of Silver-Gray Road in Township 2 North, Range 12 East W.M., Section 20, Pine-Oak Road. Commissioner Lennox seconded the motion; it was then passed unanimously.}}}

The Court considered the approval of the Regular Session Consent Calendar of 10/15/08.


[[[A copy of the Regular Session Consent Calendar of 10/15/08 is hereto attached and made a part of this record.]]]

{{{Commissioner Holliday moved to approve the Regular Session Consent Calendar of October 15, 2008 as presented. Commissioner Lennox seconded the motion; it was then passed unanimously.}}}

The Court discussed miscellaneous items as listed on the Discussion List of 10/15/08.

[[[A copy of the Discussion List of 10/15/08 is hereto attached and made a part of this record.]]]

Items discussed are as follows:

The Court discussed Item #4 on the Discussion List.

{{{Commissioner Holliday moved to rename Erica Jones' title from Human Resource Confidential Secretary II to Administrative Assistant. Commissioner Lennox seconded the motion; it was then passed unanimously.}}}

The Court briefly discussed Item #9 on the Discussion List.

At 2:32 p.m. Judge Ericksen called to order the final Public Hearing on the formation of the Wamic Rural Fire Protection District in Wasco County, Oregon.

There were 13 people in attendance.

Judge Ericksen Public Hearing was opened to the public.

Judge Ericksen noted that we have two letters to enter into the record that are in favor of the District formation. They are from Eric Grasberger and Thomas DiChiara.

[[[A copy of the letters from Eric Gras berger and Thomas DiChiara are hereto attached and made a part of this record]]]

Kathy McBride, Executive Assistant, noted for the record that the Court has been furnished with copies of the emails that have been going around regarding the election date for the governing body of the proposed District.


Merle Hlavka, Chairman of Pine Hollow Fire Department Board of Directors, noted that he has a consensus from his Board of Directors. They would gladly accept the March, 2009 election date. However, they would prefer the May election date which would provide them with additional time to encourage individuals to file for the Board of Directors.

Mr. Hlavka stated that he would be very tickled to resolve the issue today. He added that they appreciate the assistance that they have received from the County Court. Mr. Hlavka said that nothing could have happened without Kathy McBride's aid.

Judge Ericksen also recognized Mrs. McBride's contributions to the County Court. He also added that the community really pulled together and played a role in making this happen.

Discussion occurred regarding the election of Board members.

Judge Ericksen closed the Public Hearing to testimony at 2:42 p.m.

{{{Commissioner Holliday moved to approve the Order in the matter of the formation of Wamic Rural Fire Protection District in Wasco County, Oregon. Commissioner Lennox seconded the motion; it was then passed unanimously.}}}

A Pine Hollow firefighter from the audience wished to thank Mr. Hlavka for all the work that he put in to forming this District. He then thanked the Wasco County Court.

At 2:48p.m. the Public Hearing adjourned.

The Court recessed at 2:48 p.m.

The Court reconvened at 2:49 p.m.

Rick Eiesland, Wasco County Sheriff, met with the County Court. He asked the Court if they are opposed to the 911/EOC being relocated across the river in Dallseport, Washington.

Judge Ericksen stated that he is not initially opposed to it; however he would need more information and time to discuss the matter with the parties involved.


At 2:54 p.m. Judge Ericksen called back to order the Public Hearing for the consideration of the proposed text amendments to the Wasco County Land Use and Development Ordinance Chapter 13, Nonconforming Uses Building and lots.

There were seven people in attendance at this time.

Judge Ericksen noted that the Court has now had adequate time to go over the information that was provided at this morning's Public Hearing.

Mr. Cornett stated that the provisions in the proposed ordinance are more lenient than what the County is enforcing currently.

Some discussion occurred regarding the consolidation issue that Mr. Lilly brought to the Court's attention.

Commissioner Lennox restated that this proposed ordinance is more lenient than what the County is currently enforcing.

Judge Ericksen stated that the provision gives actual direction in the ordinance for Planning Staff to rely on. Judge Ericksen added that he is more comfortable leaving that provision in.

{{{Commissioner Lennox moved to adopt the proposed text amendments to the Wasco County Land Use and Development Ordinance, Chapter 13, Nonconforming Uses Buildings and Lots as recommended by the Planning Commission and Staff Reports and Findings are adopted; Staff is authorized to make minor revisions to the text amendments to correct any grammatical errors, etc. Commissioner Holliday seconded the motion.

Some discussion occurred.

Mr. Cornett would like some discussion on the record as to what the word capacity means to the County Court. This would provide the Planning Department with some legislative intent.

Discussion occurred regarding Mr. Cornett's request.

Commissioner Lennox would also like to discuss the definition of adverse.


Judge Ericksen stated that it comes down to making a determination. When you use the word adverse; does it make more noise; does it create more light. With capacity, is it the number of people; is it more area; Judge Ericksen feels that it is all of those.

Commissioner Lennox stated that there is a lot of weight being placed on this one paragraph. Each particular case will be evaluated on its merit. He feels that there is too much weight being placed on the word capacity.


Judge Ericksen moved to amend the motion made by Commissioner Lennox adopting text amendments to the Wasco County Land Use and Development Ordinance, Chapter 13, Nonconforming Uses Buildings and Lots as recommended by the Planning Commission and as amended by Planning Staff, with the exception of deleting Section 13.090 (C) (1) (B) (2}. Commissioner Holliday seconded the amended motion; it was then passed by a vote of two to one. Judge Ericksen and Commissioner Holliday voting yes, while Commissioner Lennox voted no.

Judge Ericksen called for a vote on the now amended first motion made by Commissioner Lennox. The motion then passed unanimously.}}}

The Court thanked staff for the work they put into amending Chapter 13 of the Land Use and Development Ordinances.

Mr. Cornett noted that there is a 21 day appeal period per ORS from the date of mailing.

The Court will approve the final Ordinance at their next County Court meeting.

Commissioner Holliday stated that she is still uncomfortable about someone paying for the process of amending our Land Use Development and Ordinance Ordinance.

Judge Ericksen stated that he would have liked to have left Section 13.090 (C) (1) (B) (2) in the ordinance but felt that coming up with the appropriate wording was difficult.


Mr. Nychyk stated that if the Court wouldn't have taken out Section 13.090 (C) (1) (B) (2) in the ordinance, the Planning Department would not be able to review them.

The Public Hearing adjourned at 3:27p.m.

The Court discussed Item #1 on the Discussion List. It was decided that Commissioner Holliday will contact Y1 02 tomorrow morning between 8:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. to report on today's Court Meeting.

Item #2 was briefly discussed.

Item #3. Kathy McBride, Executive Assistant, requested that the Court amend the Motion of October 1, 2008 in the matter of waiving the Scenic Area Review Fee for The Dalles Area Habitat for Humanity. The Court waived $840.00, when the actual fee is only $820.00. The Court decided to make no amendment to the dollar amount that they are agreeing to waive.

Item #5 was briefly discussed.

Item #6. The Court directed staff to see if the meeting between the governing bodies of Wasco and Hood River Counties could be changed to Tuesday, November 18, 2008 instead of Wednesday, November 19, 2008.

Item #7 and #8 were briefly discussed.

{{{Commissioner Lennox moved to approve the request from The Dalles Area Habitat for Humanity for the Court to waive the Environmental Health Fees of the Wasco Sherman Public Health Department in the amount of $485.00. Commissioner Holliday seconded the motion; it was then passed unanimously.}}}

The Court briefly discussed Items #1 0 and #11.

The Court signed:

-U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Technology Program Grant Terms and Conditions Agreement. -Third Amendment to Department of Human Services 2008-2009 Intergovernmental Agreement #124850 for the Financing of Public Health


Services between the Oregon Department of Human Services and Wasco Sherman Counties. -Resolution in the matter of Wasco County providing Workers' Compensation Insurance Coverage for Election Volunteers. - Order in the matter of naming an existing Private Road lying north of Dry Creek Road, approximately~ mile west of Silver-Gray Road in Township 2 North, Range 12 East W.M., Section 20, Pine-Oak Road.

The Court adjourned at 3:38 p.m.

WASCO COUNTY COURT

,'>~; .--.:_~ f \ .'J ..... / ....;;"-i t

/\ c )'~~{;__,.~_,-:_' ·;/J(. t / : ••• ~ .. lf: f.~ e.>o: .• ·=-·~~/-t

-~- \ . \

'·~~~-:~'J:,\,\~\.\) \{_ 1;, ( ~ ::~ tt._ ~- --Sherry Hol({i'Jay, County bommissioner

Bill Lennox, County Cbmmissioner

Molly A.· Rogers

THEODORE R. KuLONGOSKI

Governor

October 1, 2008

Wasco County Department ofYouth Services 202 East 5th Street The Dalles, OR 97058

Dear Ms. Rogers:

I appreciate your work on the Juvenile Crime Prevention Advisory Committee and am pleased to appoint you as Chair of the committee. I am grateful for your willingness to serve in this important role and am confident in your ability to serve as Chair.

Thank you for the commitment of time and energy that you are making in accepting this appointment. Please feel free to call my Executive Appointments office, 503-378-3123, if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Governor

TRK:pje

STATE CAPITOL, 900 COURT STREET NE, SALEM OR 97301-4047 (503) 378-3111 FAX (503) 378-682l

WWW.GOVERNOR.OREGON.GOV I

I

I I I I

I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I I I I

I I

I

I I I I

COUNTY COURT PRESENTATION PLALEG-08-08-0001 Amendments to the

Land Use and Development Ordinance

For the Record: fJli'I:C Request: Amend Chapter 13, Nonconforming Uses Building and Lots

Applicant: Wasco County Planning & Development Department

. Properties: All properties within Wasco County's land use jurisdiction and not affected by the National Scenic Area Act, Management Plan, and Ordinances.

File Name: Old Number LUALEG-08-08-0001. Correct Number PLALEG-08-08-0001

I. Why Are We Reviewing Background

• Nonconforming Structure or Use - A lawful existing structure or use at the time this Ordinance or any amendment thereto becomes effective, which does not conform to the requirements of the zone in which it is located.

o Grandfathered use o Large - Something that is no longer allowed in the zone like a dwelling or

commercial use. o Small - Something that is allowed in the zone but not exactly how it is

currently developed • Height • Setback

• Chapter 13 governs how nonconforming uses are established, continued, discontinued and replaced. This chapter has not been meaningfully evaluated and updated since it was first adopted in the 1980's.

o Mandated - Need to update for consistency with ORS o Non-Mandated - Should be evaluated to see if we want to allow these.

• Aventura (Mosier RV Park) is interested in Wasco County including statutory language which allows for an alteration of a nonconforming use. This language is permissible but not mandatory.

lfjAventura agreed to pay for the project with no obligation on the part of the County as to outcome. This is why this project rose to the top of the long range

County Court Presentation (PLALEG-08-08-0001) Page 1 of 17 Amendment of Non-Conforming Use Ordinance (Wasco County Planning & Development)

II. Hearing Dates • 5 August 2008: Planning Commission/County Court Workshop

o Direct Property Owner Notification o Newspaper Notice

o Direct Property Owner Notification meeting Measure 56 requirements o Newspaper Notice

• 15 October 2008: County Court Hearing o Notice to those who previously testified or requested in writing o Newspaper Notice

Ill. Information Available on Website

The information regarding the proposed amendments began to be placed on the Wasco County Planning & Development Department Website (http://co.wasco.or.us/planning/planhome.html) starting 3 July 2008. At the date of the packet was mailed, there were 510 hits registered to the main page of this project. As updates are made following each workshop or hearing, the information on the website has been updated. At the time of this document, the following information was available:

-A listing of the hearing dates, times and locations -The Planning Commission Packet -The County Court Packet -The Chapters with their proposed changes (3 iterations, Workshop, PC and CC) -Report describing the process and changes (3 iterations, Workshop, PC and CC) -A way to submit comments via email

IV. Comments

Workshop:

PC Hearing: Prior to Packet Being Sent 11111111 -24 Individual Comments -1 0 consolidated onto one page because they all supported the Friends of Wasco County Document

After Packet was Sent Out or at Hearing IIJJII11'1 -8 individual Comments -1 0 consolidated onto one page because they all supported the


I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I

I I

I

I I I I

Friends of Wasco County Document

CC Hearing: Prior to Packet Being sent • -2 Comments received and in the packet

-Mark Cherniack and Susan Conklin ( 14 October 2008)

V. STAFF PROPOSED AMENDMENT There are several staff proposed amendments that are not included in the County Court packet 1111-IIJIIII. I will refer to the specific proposed amendments when I get to those sections in my presentation.

VI. RECOMMENDED LUDO TEXT AMENDMENTS

Overview of Changes: • Rearranged for more linear flow

o Higher utilized sections brought to front o Lower utilized sections moved to back

• Consolidation of duplicative I f\ac1ea statutory changes

• Strikethrough means proposed deletion • Underline means proposed addition • Highlight means question or explanation

A. Title Page llfi1)J The title page will be amended to reflect the anticipated date the amendments go into effect following approval by the County Court and the current Planning Department staff.

B. Chapter1 Summary fl:f)Jj]

The definition of "Floor Area" was added. This is a term utilized in Section 13.090(A)(2), Restoration or Alteration of Nonconforming Use. A lack of definition has created some confusion in the past.

"The sum of the horizontal areas of each floor of a building, measured from the interior faces of the exterior walls."

The definition of "Neighborhood" was added to help clarify the meaning of the term as it relates to alterations because there is no definition in Statute.


"In relation to Nonconfonning Uses a neighborhood shall include the surrounding area that could be materially impacted as a result of the proposed alteration."

1. Section 2.060(A) Application: This section provides review authority for each listed use. Nonconforming uses are currently not listed. This is being added as sub (9). This is consistent with ORS 215.130(8) (See Attachment A) which states the review process for verification, restoration or alteration of a nonconform shall be conducted through an

consistent with ORS 215.416.

2. Section 2080(8) Notice of Administrative Action: ORS 215.130 does not specify whether a pre-notice is required. Currently, Wasco County is only required to provide pre-notices for Conditional Use Reviews. This allows agencies and surrounding property owners the ability to comment on a request prior to a decision being made. All other reviews only require a notice of the decision. This limits agencies and surrounding property owners to appealing a decision they feel will negatively impact them.

This proposal includes a pre-notice for verification, restoration and alteration of a nonconforming uses that are required to go through an administrative process.


D. Chapter 11

1. Section 11.01 O~JjConsolidation of Undeveloped Subdivisions & Legal Parcels: This was copied from the language included in the nonconforming use chapter of the Wasco County National Scenic Area Land Use and Development Ordinance. The consolidation of undeveloped subdivisions comes directly from ORS 92.200.

After the Planning Commission hearing, staff did additional research on this topic. This research and the staff proposed alternative are included as Attachment B- Consolidation of Undeveloped Subdivisions (Staff Proposed). IIIII

IV'~-2. Section 11.020~::111 Consolidated Properties Created Solely by Deed: The

consolidation of Legal Parcels Created Solely by Deed is consistent with Wasco County's interpretation on this issue.

Several have expressed concerns regarding the Consolidated Properties Created by Deed language. The Planning Commission felt the language sounded like we would be making a decision or determination. The language was therefore changed to reflect the fact that the consolidation already occurred.

After the Planning Commission hearing, staff did additional research on this topic. This research and the staff proposed alternative language are included as Attachment C - Properties Consolidated by Deed for Development Purposes (Staff Proposed).lltJIIIIJ

E. Chapter 13

1. Section 13.010 Purposefi~'I:EI This section was amended to reflect the alteration amendments being proposed in Section 13.090.

SECTION 13.010 Purpose


It is necessary and consistent with the establishment of this Ordinance that all uses and structures incompatible with permitted uses or structures in each zone be strictly regulated and permitted to exist only under rigid controls. The purpose of such regulation and control is to discontinue a nonconforming use or structure, change a nonconforming use or structure to a conforming status, or to discontinue the use or structure. or allow procedures for considering alterations to a nonconforming use or structure that do not increase the level of adverse impact on the neighborhood, or are required for the use or structure to comply with state or local health or safety requirements.

2. Section 13.020 Continuation of Nonconforming Use~S'fl~ll This section was amended to reflect the alteration amendments being proposed in Section 13.090.

SECTION 13.020 Continuation of Nonconforming Use Except as is hereinafter provided in this Ordinance, the lawful use of a building or structure or of any land or premises lawfully existing at the time of the effective date of this Ordinance or at the time of a change in the official zoning maps may be continued, although such use does not conform with the ~~~isions of this Ordinance. Alterations to nonconforming structures may only be made consistent with -~ ,-, . 111~t~.

3. Section 13.030flllll This is currently the Vested Right Section. Since vested rights are used very infrequently this was moved to the end of the chapter. This is discussed in more detail later.

The Vested Right section was replaced by Conveyance of Nonconforming Use. This was previously located in Section 13.100. It was determined this is an issue people are more likely to be interested in so it was relocated to this location which is closer to the beginning of the chapter. No language is proposed to be changed.

SECTION 13.030 Vested Right Nothing contained in this Ordinance shall require any change in the plans, construction, alteration, or designated use of a structure for which a building permit has been issued and construction 'NOrk has commenced prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, provided the building, if nonconforming or intended for a conforming use, is CO!!!fleted and in use within one (1) year from the time the building permit is issued. 11-rD~J··" i!!l:i!Bm"""'Jj"'f!IJ4[{D .. '111''"111 :!iillil.li . \IJ.ti~ ' <. •·t (])< ··. :~1/.i. .

t%,-,;j,&'_,..,, . ,~ ~ --:.< -'>;<:>'~. ' ... - ~~

4. Section 13.040111111 This is currently the Discontinuance of Nonconforming Use Section. Verification of Nonconforming Use is in Section

County Court Presentation (PLALEG-08-08-0001) Page 6 of17 Amendment of Non-Conforming Use Ordinance (Wasco County Planning & Development)

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '

13.050(8). This section includes an enhanced version of what currently exists in this section.

The Discontinuance Section was replaced by the Construction on and Conveyance of Nonconforming Legal Parcels. This is a consolidated version of many of the elements currently in 13.110 (Restoration of Conforming Use on Nonconforming Lot), 13.120 (General Exceptions To Lot Size Requirements) and 13.130 (General Exception for Approved Subdivisions). This section takes less space and allows the same rights that exist in these sections.

SECTION 13.040 Discontinuance of Nonconfonning Use

A. If a nonconforming use involving a structure is discontinued for a period of w~elve (12) months, further use of the property shall conform to this Ordinance.

B. If a nonconforming use not involving a structure is discontinued for a period of tv~elve (12) months, further

-~~.c~n~3J;f~~d.inan~.~.. · ·= ·· .· ~· ·""--~B»Jb>lb!IM

SECTION 13.040 Construction on and Conveyance of Nonconforming Legal Parcels Nothing in this Ordinance shall be deemed to prohibit construction or reconstruction of conforming uses or structures on nonconforming legal parcels or limit the sale. transfer or conveyance of said legal parcels, so long as the construction. reconstruction, sale .. transfer or.convexance is consistent with all applicable provisions of this ordinance. -1111'-

5. Section 13.050111181 This is currently the Unlawful Use. Not a Nonconforming Use Section. This was moved to the second sentence of 13.050(A)(3), Verification of Nonconforming Use. It was determined this did not need a full section but could be incorporated into another section.

The new Verification of Nonconforming Use Section provides a process to verify the lawful creation and continuance of a nonconforming use that doesn't currently exist in Chapter 13. This has been created to be consistent with Oregon Revised Statute 215.130 (Attachment A). This section is divided into verification and discontinuance or abandonment.

SECTION 13.050 Unlawful Use, Not a Nonconfonning Use No unlmvful use of property existing at the time of passage of this Ordinance shall be deemed a nonconforming use. Evidence used to identify a use as lm41ful (building permit, septic permit, verification

•=;:=:•::::=::•:~il=:•:ns)~


I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

SECTION 13.050 Verification of Nonconforming Use: Must meet lawfully established and discontinuance or abandonment criteria below.

A. Lawfully Established: For a nonconforming use to be verified as lawfully established it shall be consistent with all of the following:

1. The nonconforming use has not been expanded in size or area or changed in purpose or use beyond what was lawfully established;

2. The property on which the nonconforming use is located meets the definition of legal parcel in Chapter 1 of this ordinance;

3. The nonconforming use was lawfully established on or before the effective date of the provisions of this ordinance prohibiting the use verified by either a or b below. No unlawful use of property existing at the time of the effective date of the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed a nonconforming use.

a. Type I Verification: Lawfully established is verified by non-discretionary evidence including but not limited to zoning approval or County Assessor records verifying the date of establishment. This type of verification is not subject to any review process because it does not involve the exercise of any discretion or judgment. If the applicant wishes documentation of this it shall be done as a Land Use Verification Letter.

b. Type II Verification: Lacking non-discretionary evidence, lawfully established is verified by a discretionary process consistent with ~-9J

It is the burden of the applicant to provide a preponderance of evidence which will allow the Planning Director to conclude the nonconforming use was lawfully established. Such evidence includes but is not limited to:

-Utility Bills and Records (phone. power. sewer. water) -Aerial Photographs -Dated Photos -Notarized Letters or Affidavits affirming the date of establishment

B. Discontinuance or Abandonment For a nonconforming use to be verified as lawfully established it must not have been discontinued or abandoned according to the following criteria. Based on the circumstances. the Director shall determine whether discontinuance or abandonment shall be reviewed as a Type I or Type II process as described in A above.


1. The reference period for determining whether an abandonment or interruption of a nonconforming use or an aspect thereof has occurred shall be twelve (12) consecutive months in any of the ten {10) years preceding the date of the application. Proof of intent to abandon is not required to determine that a nonconforming use has been discontinued or abandoned.

2. An abandonment or interruption of a use may arise from the complete cessation of the actual use for a twelve (12) month period even if improvements to support the use remain in place.

3.

4. Achange in the nature of the use may result in a determination that the use has been abandoned or has ceased for a twelve (12) month period if there are no common elements between the activities of the previous use and the current use.

Factors to be considered in determining whether there has been a change in the nature of a use shall include, but are not limited to. consideration of the type of activities being conducted, the operating characteristics of the activities associated with the use {including off-site impacts of those activities), changes in structures associated with the use and changes in the degree to which the activities associated with the use occupy the site.

5. A surface mining use shall not be deemed to be interrupted or abandoned for any period after July 1. 1972, provided:

a. The owner or operator was issued and continuously renewed a state or local surface mining permit, or received and maintained a state or local exemption from surface mining regulation: and

b.

6. Section 13.06011110 Continuation of Nonconforming Use. Structure or Land: This repeated Section 13.020, Change of Nonconforming Use and Section 13.090 Restoration or Alteration of Nonconforming Use. The rights allowed in this section are included the previously mentioned sections.

SECTION 13.060 Continuation of Nonconforming Use, Structure or Land Subject to the provisions of Oregon Revised Statutes 215.130, the lawful use of any building, structure or land at the time of the enactment or amendment of this Ordinance may be continued. Alteration of any such

County Court Presentation (PLALEG-08-08-0001) Page 9 of 17 Amendment of Non-Confonning Use Ordinance (Wasco County Planning & Development)

I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I

I I I

I

I I I I

7. Section 13.070-l Restoration of Nonconforming Building or Structure: Section 13.090, Restoration or Alteration of Nonconforming Use was enhanced with a more detailed process that includes all of the rights allowed in this section.

SECTION 13.070 Restoration of Nonconfonning Building or Structure If a nonconforming structure or a structure containing a nonconforming use is destroyed by fire, other casualty or natural disaster, · restoration or replacement shall be permitted, provided restoration or replacement is commenced within t\'\'Cive (12) months from the occurrence of the fire, casualty or natural disaster. The restoration or reconstruction of a nonconforming building or structure may not increase the floor area or create a greater nonconformance that existed at the time of damage or destruction. In order to qualify for restoration of a nonconforming building or structure, verification must be provided that the building

=~::~~=~r:~i~~ =~· •. · ... · .. e"rm. 7,j·t···· ... "e .. rifJ .. :a·:···.··:·.·.t .. io·n·!··r·,~ ... · .m·.··. County Assessor that the structure existed pr1or to butkhng perm1t regulations). •. e. ·~tlalfl'ltll'ifjl

8. Section 13.080[11111 Nonconforming Use by Reason of Change in this Ordinance: This repeated Section 13.020, Change of Nonconforming Use and Section 13.090 Restoration or Alteration of Nonconforming Use. The rights allowed in this section are included in the previously mentioned sections.

SECTION 13.080 Nonconfonning Use by Reason of Change in this Ordinance VVhenever the use of a building becomes nonconforming by reason of a subsequent change in this

~==r!l:t:::::~ 9. Section 13.090 Change of Nonconforming UsefiiiiRII The section was

changed to Restoration or Alteration of Nonconforming Use and includes information from the sections previously mentioned.

Maintenance. repair, alteration, restoration or replacement of a lawfully implemented or established dwelling in the Exclusive Farm Use or Forest Zone shall be governed by those zones and not be subject to the

County Court Presentation (PLALEG-08~8-0001) Page 10 of 17 Amendment of Non-Confonning Use Ordinance (Wasco County Planning & Development)

I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I

I I

I I I I

I

1.

2.

3.

B. Alteration of a nonconforming use to Comply with State or Local Health or Safety Requirements: No conditions shall be placed upon the continuation or alteration of a nonconforming use when necessary to comply with state or local health or safety requirements. or to maintain in good repair the existing structures associated with the use.


I I

I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I I I I

I I

I

I I I I

1. Alteration will result in no greater adverse impact on the neighborhood or shall result in less of an adverse impact on the neighborhood considering the criteria listed below.

a. Residential Uses Only

(1) The nonconforming use is in compliance with limitations associated with its creation or approval;

all conditions or

(2) The comparative visual appearance between the existing nonconforming use and the proposed alteration;

(3) The alteration shall not change the manner or purpose of the use;

(4) The proposed alteration shall not result in greater nonconformity to ii4IR setback~ or resource buffer requirements unless the alteration will extend a structure further away from and perpendicular to the property line or resource. Any proposal that would extend an existing structure further toward the property line or resource. or expand an existing structure parallel into a setback or buffer shall also be subject to Chapters 6 & 7. Variances and any other applicable review criteria;

·····-County Court Presentation (PLALEG-08-08-0001) Page 12 of 17 Amendment of Non-Conforming Use Ordinance (Wasco County Planning & Development)

(5} Relocation shall result in conformity with all lliii!lliE setback~ and resource buffer requirements unless there is no other location on the property that could comply with all setback and buffer requirements and the relocation would remove the structure from an undesirable location according to the Wasco County Land Use and Development Ordinance such as a water buffer or floodplain. If the relocation cannot conform to all setback and buffer requirements the application shall also be subject to Chapters 6 & 7. Variances and any other applicable review criteria;

(6} The alteration must be consistent with Health and Safety Regulations including but not limited to Geologic Hazard Overlay (Section 3.750) Fire Safety Standards (Chapter 10) and Flood Damage Prevention (Chapter 22);

(7) Other factors which impact the character or needs of the neighborhood;

b. Non-Residential Nonconforming Uses Only

(1) Criteria (1)- (7) in subsection a. above;

adverse impacts. An increase in one individual adverse impact may be offset by reductions in others as to effect a total reduction in adverse impacts;

IISIIAn evaluation of the character and history of the use. its relationship to development in the neighborhood and how the alteration would affect this:

IIIII The comparable degree of noise. light. vibration. dust, odor. fumes. glare or smoke detectable within the neighborhood between the existing nonconforming use and the proposed alteration;

1111:11 he comparative impact to public facilities and services including but not limited to: roads. fire and police protection. sewer and water facilities. telephone and electrical service. or solid waste disposal facilities between the existing nonconforming use and the proposed alteration:


JIJI8 The comparative amount and nature of outside storage, loading and parking between the existing nonconforming use and the proposed alteration;

fill The comparative hours of operation between the existing nonconforming use and the proposed alteration;

1111 The comparative effect on identified natural resources between the existing nonconforming use and the proposed alteration; and

iiMNI he comparative effect on water quality, quantity or drainage in the neighborhood between the existing nonconforming use and the proposed alteration.

2. The Planning Director may impose conditions of approval on any alteration of a nonconforming use, structure(s) or other physical improvements permitted under this section when deemed necessary to ensure the mitigation of any adverse impacts. Such conditions could include but are not limited to:

a. Special yards and spaces.

b. Fences and walls.

c. Special parking and/or loading provisions.

d. Street dedication and improvements.

e. Control of points of vehicular ingress and egress.

f. Special provisions for signs.

g. Landscaping and maintenance of grounds.

h. Control of noise, light. vibration. dust. odor. fumes. glare. smoke. or other similar nuisances.

i. Limitation of time for certain activities.

j. A time period in which a proposed use shall be developed.

k. A limit of total duration of use.

A. If a nonconforming use not involving a structure is replaced by another use, the new use shall conform to this Ordinance.


B. If a nonconforming use involving a structure is replaced by another use or structure, the new use or structure shall conform to this Ordinance.

10. Section 13.1 001111llf Conveyance of Nonconforming Use: This is now in Section 13.030 because it was determined this is an issue people are more likely to be interested in so it was relocated to the beginning of the chapter. No language is proposed to be changed.

SECTION 13.100 Conveyance of Nonconforming Use Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to limit the sale, transfer, other conveyance of property on which exists a nonconforming building, structure or use, so long as such sale, transfer, or other conveyance does not othervlise violate the provisions of this Ordinance. ~~~~~-

11. Section 13.11 orllflll Restoration of Conforming Use on Nonconforming Lot: The rights in the section were combined with other rights in Section 13.040 Construction on and Conveyance of Nonconforming Legal Parcels.

SECTION 13.110 Restoration of Conforming Use on Nonconforming bot Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to prevent the reconstruction or replacement of a pre existing

:~=;::~=:;:!:O:i:~:::::;,;j\~---Jinot become

12.Section 13.120flllll General Exceptions to Lot Size Requirements: Part of the rights in this section were consolidated into Section 13.040 Construction on and Conveyance of Nonconforming Legal Parcels. The other rights were replaced by Section 13.140 Consolidation of Undeveloped Subdivisions and Legal Parcels.

SEC+ION 13.120 General Exceptions to bot Size Requirements If a lot of record or series of contiguous units of land existing in a single ovmership were created in compliance with all applicable la'NS and ordinances in effect at the time of their creation and have an area or dimension which does not meet the lot size requirements of the zone in which the property is located, the holding(s) may be occupied by a use permitted in the zone subject to other requirements of this Ordinance. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be interpreted to limit the sale, transfer or other conveyance of such -"formi ally Created Lot or Parcel).' 111111~ , ......... m ,.,.,,·.·····"········"·· .. " .. ..,,. - ;M J~lSYiltf.,j,.; - -.- · · _--""~ . · ·, · 2<-- .• ,,i~- -· -- -,- ·:m

13.Section 13.1301111Jj General Exception for Approved Subdivision: The rights in this section were consolidated into Section 13.040 Construction on and Conveyance of Nonconforming Legal Parcels.


SECTION 13.130 General Exception for Approved Subdivision Nothing in this Ordinance shall be deemed to prohibit construction of conforming uses on nonconforming lots _or the sale _of said lots withi~ subdivision~ or la~d parti~"~ning"~'~,e,'"2~e~ E!,rior~!~!~,<!?Ption of this Ordtnance, subject to other reqwrements of thts Ordtnance.~t'VJ!iti~I~'J!IIIIfl!!li

14.Section 13.150 Vested Rightllf~JJ This was moved from Section 13.030 because it is infrequently used. It was also replaced with the latest language from ORS 215.427(3). This is generally referred to as the changing of the goalpost rule.

F. Final editorial revisions. If approved a final editorial revision will be required. This will not change the substance of what is approved by the Wasco County Court. It will be limited to editorial changes including but not limited section numbers, references to section numbers and headers and footers.

VII. County Court Options

A. Adopt the amendments proposed by the Planning Commission or further amended.

B. Do not adopt the Planning Commission recommended amendments.

C. Continue the hearing to a date and time certain to gather further information.

VIII.Staff Recommendation

I recommend the Wasco County Court adopt the amendments recommended by the Planning Commission with the additions proposed by staff today.


ATTACHMENT A Oregon Revised Statute

215.130 Application of Ordinances and

Comprehensive Plan; Alteration of Nonconforming Use

Sections (1)- (4) were omitted because they are not applicable to nonconforming uses.

(5) The lawful use of any building, structure or land at the time of the enactment or amendment of zoning ordinance or regulation 1B be continued. Alteration of any such use be permitted subject to subsection (9) of this section. Alteration of any such use be permitted when necessary to comply with any lawful requirement for alteration in the use. Except as provided in ORS 215.215, a county 1111 not place conditions upon the continuation or alteration of a use described under this subsection when necessary to comply with state or local health or safety requirements, or to maintain in good repair the existing structures associated with the use. A change of ownership or occupancy D1lt be permitted. ·

(6) Restoration or replacement of any use described in subsection (5) of this section 1111 be permitted when the restoration is made necessary by fire, other casualty or natural disaster. Restoration or replacement IIJj be commenced within one year from the occurrence of the fire, casualty or natural disaster. If restoration or replacement is necessary under this subsection, restoration or replacement IIIII be done in compliance with ORS 195.260 (1)(c).

(7) (a) Any use described in subsection (5) of this section Ill not be resumed after a

period of interruption or abandonment unless the resumed use conforms with the requirements of zoning ordinances or regulations applicable at the time of the proposed resumption.

(b) Notwithstanding any local ordinance, a surface mining use continued under subsection (5) of this section Jill not be deemed to be interrupted or abandoned for any period after July 1, 1972, provided: (A) The owner or operator was issued and continuously renewed a state or local

surface mining permit, or received and maintained a state or local exemption from surface mining regulation; and

(B) The surface mining use was not inactive for a period of 12 consecutive years or more.

(C) For purposes of this subsection, "inactive" means no aggregate materials were excavated, crushed, removed, stockpiled or sold by the owner or operator of the surface mine.

(8) Any proposal for the verification or alteration of a use under subsection (5) of this section, except an alteration necessary to comply with a lawful requirement, for the restoration or replacement of a use under subsection (6) of this section or for the resumption of a use under subsection (7) of this section llJIO be subject to the


provisions of ORS 215.416. An initial decision by the county or its designate on a proposal for the alteration of a use described in subsection (5) of this section Iiiii be made as an administrative decision without public hearing in the manner provided in ORS 215.416 (11).

(9} As used in this section, "alteration" of a nonconforming use includes: (a) A change in the use of no greater adverse impact to the neighborhood; and (b) A change in the structure or physical improvements of no greater adverse impact

to the neighborhood.

(10) A local government • adopt standards and procedures to implement the provisions of this section. The standards and procedures may include but are not limited to the following: (a) For purposes of verifying a use under subsection (5) of this section, a county

B adopt procedures that allow an applicant for verification to prove the existence, continuity, nature and extent of the use only for the 10-year period immediately preceding the date of application. Evidence proving the existence, continuity, nature and extent of the use for the 10-year period preceding application creates a rebuttable presumption that the use, as proven, lawfully existed at the time the applicable zoning ordinance or regulation was adopted and has continued uninterrupted until the date of application;

(b) Establishing criteria to determine when a use has been interrupted or abandoned under subsection (7) of this section; or

(c) Conditioning approval of the alteration of a use in a manner calculated to ensure mitigation of adverse impacts as described in subsection (9) of this section.

(11) For purposes of verifying a use under subsection (5) of this section, a county Ill not require an applicant for verification to prove the existence, continuity, nature and extent of the use for a period exceeding 20 years immediately preceding the date of application. [Amended by 1961 c.607 §2; 1963 c.577 §4; 1963 c.619 §9; 1969 c.460 §1; 1973 c.503 §2; 1977 c.766 §5; 1979 c.190 §406; 1979 c.610 §1; 1993 c.792 §52; 1997 c.394 §1; 1999 c.353 §1; 1999 c.458 §1; 1999 c.1103 §10]


October 3, 2008

. Wasco County Court c/o Todd Cornett, Director 2705 East Second Street The Dalles, Oregon 97058

Re: Legislative Hearing: Nonconforming Use Updates (File# PLALEG-08-08-0001)

Dear Judge Erickson and Commissioners:

Friends of the Columbia Gorge has reviewed and would like to comment on the above-referenced matter. Friends is a non-profit organization with approximately 5,000 members dedicated to protecting and enhancing the resources of the Columbia River Gorge. Our membership includes hundreds of citizens who reside in the six counties within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.

The County's proposed amendments to the nonconforming use rules improperly encourage the expansion of nonconforming uses in contradiction to the purposes of the County's land use ordinance, the purposes of the nonconforming use standards, and Oregon case law.

First, the County's land use ordinance clearly explains the purposes ofland use planning. The purposes include promoting the public welfare, encouraging the most appropriate use ofland, preventing excessive population density and overcrowding ofland, and encouraging the orderly growth of the County. Wasco County Land Use and Development Ordinance ("LUDO'') § 1.020. The proposed amendments would contradict these most fundamental purposes by allowing the expansion of uses that have previously been determined to be inappropriate through the zoning designations.

This contradiction is evidenced in the currently defined purpose of the nonconforming use guidelines. The purpose of the guidelines is to discontinue nonconforming uses or structures or to change those uses or structures to conforming status. LUDO § 13.010. These purposes are consistent with Oregon case law regarding nonconforming uses. As a general matter, nonconforming structures are not favored and are often phased out over time. See Parks v. Bd. of County Comm 'rs ofTillamook County, 11 Or. App.177, 196-97, 501 P.2d 85 (1973). In contrast, the proposed amendments would include provisions thatwould allow, and even encourage, expansion of nonconforming uses.

Of particular concern, the reason for this deviation from the County's land use ordinance and the general principles of land use planning is to accommodate the economic interests of a single landowner. As the Staff Report to the Phinning Commission explained, the reason for allowing the

522 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 720, Portland, OR 97204 • (503) 241-3762 • www.gorgefriends.org Printed on recycled, secondarily chlorine-free paper

expansion of nonresidential nonconforming uses is that the amendment would allow A ventura Resorts to propose a development with "greater economic viability." Staff Report at 11. Thus, the proposed amendments would disregard the purposes of the County's land use ordinance and the principles of land use planning to enable a single landowner to expand a nonconforming use for its own economic benefit.

In addition, the proposed amendments would not ensure adequate protection to areas of the County that would be impacted by expanding nonconforming uses. The proposed amendments would require that

· proposed alterations be reviewed to ensure impacts to the "neighborhood" are not increased or are reduced. Draft LUDO §§ 13.090(C)(l). However, the "neighborhood" is defined to include the surrounding area that could be "materially impacted" by a proposed alteration. Draft LUDO § 1.090 (Definitions). Defining the scope of review by the phrase "materially impacted" is ambiguous and unnecessarily narrow. "Materially impacted" may be narrowly interpreted to exclude considerations of the community's general welfare, the appropriate use ofland, appropriate population densities in an area, and other considerations central to the purposes ofland use planning. If the County adopts the proposed revisions it must define the scope of review to any atea Within the County that would be impacted, not just areas that would be "materially impacted."

Because of these inadequacies, the County should not adopt the ordinance amendments as proposed. Thank you for this opportunity to comment, which preserves our standing.

_Sine~

-~0? Land Use Law Clerk

Friends' Comments, Nonconforming Use Update File # PLALEG-08-08-0001 Page 2

Comment to Wasco County Court from Mark Cherniack and Susan Conklin, 1890 Paradise Ridge Rd. Mosier, OR 97040

WASCO COUNTY NONCONFORMING USE ORDINANCE

Although the ordinance is greatly improved by the removal of all expansion and/or intensification language, there are some remaining issues.

1. If discontinuation or abandonment is determined to be a likely consideration in the determination of a NCU, the NCU should be reviewed as a Type II decision, requiring public notice and allowing public comment.

As the ordinance is written, the Planning Director could decide without public notice or input that an R. V. Park had the right to a nonconforming use of 540 sites.

2. It is unclear whether an applicant applying for alterations must meet ALL criteria for Non-Residential Nonconforming Uses. Criteria #Cl b3 states that: "an increase in one individual adverse impact may be offset by reductions in others as to effect a total reduction in adverse impacts."

For example, this could result in a decision that a decrease in visual impacts would allow for an increase in impacts to natural resources (water). Another example: an R. V. park could reduce its outside storage (Cl b 7) in exchange for an increase in light, dust, and noise impacts (Clb5).

Allowing an increase in one impact to be offset by reductions in others will be complex and require a high level of subjectivity for alterations of uses.

We suggest that ALL criteria applicable to alteration of a NCU be required to be met rather than allowing them to be balanced one against another to achieve an overall improvement of circumstances.

To:

Fax#: From: Subject:

COMMENTS:

FAX TRANSMISSION

Todd Cornett Wasco County

(541) 506-2561 Michael J. Ully

PLALEG-08-08-0001

Michael J. Lilly 6600 SW 92nd Avenue

Suite 280 Portland, OR 97223

503-294-0062 Fax:503~52~33

Date:

Pages: 3 (including this cover sh et)

Land Use Ordinance Arnentment Chapter 13 Nonconfonnaing Use Building and Lots

Michael J. Lilly Attorney at Law

6600 SW 92nd Avenue, Suite 280 Portland, OR 97223

Telephone: 503-294-0062 Facsimile: 503-452-4433

Email: mikelill [email protected] y .com

October 14, 2008

Wasco County Court c/o Wasco County Plarming Departm.ent 2705 East 2nd Street The Dalles, Oregon 97058

By Facsimile Re: PLALEG-08-08-0001

Land Use Ordinance Amendment Chapter 13 Nonconforming Use Building and Lots

I am an attorney representing Kenneth Thomas who owns a signifi ant number oflots in Wasco County, some of which will be affected by this re ision.

Mr. Thomas objects to the new section 13.140.B. Consolidation of L gal Par<'els Created Solely by Deed. As I indicated by letter to the Planning Commission, this lot consolidation section is unfair and violates state law We still believe that to be the case, but this letter will focus on the fact that th new ordinance is a poor idea.

't!:.)VV6.

This ordinance would undercut the concept of a lot of record in Wa co County. When two parcels were conveyed in a single deed, the new ordin ce requires the land owner to prove a "clear intent" tliat the grantor intende that the parcels were to be kept separate. According to the new ordinance, the 'clear intent" must be determined by looking at the face of the deed. This is pa · cularly unfair because hundreds, perhaps thousands of deeds were prepared in . e past without knowing that in the future such a requirement might be imposed. Why should such a requirement be imposed retroactively? Under this new or · ance minor drafting point such as whether or not there are parcel headings on e paragraphs of the legal descriptions would determine whether the lots ar kept separate. Nothing under state laws requires or permits you to create this s ecial provision.

Since Section 13.140.B didn't exist when deeds were being created efore 1974, it makes no sense to infer anything about the grantor's intent based olely on new and minor technical requirements about the language in the deed. the

language of a deed prepared in 1973 cannot be expected to match up with e special requirements of an ordinance proposed 35 years later. Your new ordinance says that lots will be combined unless each metes and bounds description has a separate heading. What possible difference does it make o the County whether or not each part of a legal description in a deed has a sep ate heading? Why should that be a determining factor in whether lots are maintained as separate lots or not? The answer is that separate headings s ould not be a factor at all. There is no need for the County to engage in a campai n to consolidate lots. Lot consolidation is not required by state law, and the stat has passed statutes designed to protect the status of existing lots. The County s ould not attempt to subvert these state statutes that were passed for the protecti n of land owners.

Mr. Thomas also objects to Section 13.140.A to the extent that it cont ins any provisions inconsistent with or in addition to ORS Chapter 92 and oth r state statutes. The law and procedures are set forth in ORS, and there is no nee for a county ordinance adopting some parts of Chapter 92 but not others. This s mply creates the possibility for confusion and misunderstanding.

With respect to the other changes in the nonconforming use ordin that are being proposed for the benefit of the Golden RV Par~ Mr. Thoma concerned that the changes will have the effect of relaxing the fire safety standards that would be imposed upon the park, and further encouraging levels of development encroaching on rural lands. It makes sense to allow to continue to engage in pre-existing non-conforming uses. But expansion those non-conf(,rming uses onto rural lands creates an increase risk of fire d conflicts with agricultural uses. In other words, expansion of non-conformi g uses makes existing land use conflicts worse. That is a bad idea and the Co nty should reject it.

cc: Kenneth Thomas

PLALEG-08-08-0001 Staff Proposed Updates

14 October 2008

The following updates are being proposed to the language that is included in the County Court Packet:

Page CC 20

Section 13.040(8)(2)

Contiguous properties created solely by deed prior to 4 September 1974 consolidated onto a single deed~t ~nr timf] s~alliJe considered separate for development purposes if they meet eitherm~fi511fl!Jil§Wi!lf!tl!ll/llifF!fll~

Page CC 43 Section 13.090(C)(1 )(a)(1)

The nonconforming use is in compliance with ••···• ··••··· .~> ~·m·····r~· ~~~fi!/j§m~ji'rJ. ··· all conditions or limitations associated with its creation or approval;

Page CC 43

Section 13.090(C)(1)(a)(4) & (5)

The pr~posed alteration shall not result in greater nonconformity to ~fflfJ!f:!mlllfl~ setbackl or resource buffer requirements unless the alteration will extend a structure further away from and perpendicular to the property line or resource. Any proposal that would extend an existing structure further toward the property line or resource, or expand an existing structure parallel into a setback or buffer shall also be subject to Chapters 6 & 7, Variances and any other applicable review criteria;

Relocation shall result in conformity with all fttfiR.~f!mll1J~ setbaci<§ and resource buffer requirements unless there is no other location on the property that could comply with all setback and buffer requirements and the relocation would remove the structure from an undesirable location according to the Wasco County Land Use and Development Ordinance such as a water buffer or floodplain. If the relocation cannot conform to all setback and buffer requirements the application shall also be subject to Chapters 6 & 7, Variances and any other applicable review criteria;

Page CC 44 & 45

Section 13.090(C)(1)(b)(3)- (10)

(3) The alteration will result in an overall reduction in adverse impacts to the neighborhood. Each application for alter~ti.9.~ .. ~i .. ll .. ,iQ~I~9~.~n.~n~IX~is of the current adverse impacts to the neighborhood Mtllizliq·i•~h;in~ougn'ii\gfiitaelr:>w. and how the alteration reduces the total of the adverse impacts. An increase in one individual

adverse impact may be offset by reductions in others as to effect a total reduction in adverse impacts;

(!lJ~;fi.}An evaluation of the character and history of the use. its relationship to development in the neighborhood and how the alteration would affect this;

mf1{f)J The comparable degree of noise. light, vibration. dust. odor, fumes, glare or smoke detectable within the neighborhood between the existing nonconforming use and the proposed alteration;

f§lliB'jThe comparative impact to public facilities and services including but not limited to: roads, fire and police protection. sewer and water facilities. telephone and electrical service, or solid waste disposal facilities between the existing nonconforming use and the proposed alteration;

{fll[ft}' The comparative amount and nature of outside storage, loading and parking between the existing nonconforming use and the proposed alteration;

Jl'l.(~j The comparative hours of operation between the existing nonconforming use and the proposed alteration;

f§S'ffl The comparative effect on identified natural resources between the existing nonconforming use and the proposed alteration; and

l#m;lllg]The comparative effect on water quality, quantity or drainage in the neighborhood between the existing nonconforming use and the proposed alteration.

October 15, 2008 TO: Wasco County Planning Department and County Court From: Friends of Wasco County RE: Nonconforming Use Ordinance Amendments

Although the ordinance is greatly improved by the removal of all expansion and/or intensification language, there are some remaining issues .

. 1. If discontinuation or abandonment is determined to be a likely consideration in the determination of a NCU, the NCU should be reviewed as a Type II decision, requiring public notice and allowing public comment.

(As the ordinance is now written, the Planning Director could decide without public notice or input that an R.V. Park had the right to a nonconforming use of 540 sites.)

2. It is unclear whether an applicant applying for alterations must meet ALL criteria for Non-Residental Nonconforming Uses. Criteria #Cl.b.3. states that: "an increase in one individual adverse impact may be offset by reductions in others as to effect a total reduction in adverse impacts."

For example, this could result in a decision that a decrease in visual impacts would allow for an increase in impacts to natural resources (water). Another example: an R.V. park could reduce its outside storage (Clb?) in exchange for an increase in light, dust, and noise impacts (Clb5).

Allowing an increase in one impact to be offset by reductions in others will be complex and require a high level of subjectivity for alterations of uses.

We suggest that ALL criteria applicable to alteration of a NCU be required to be met rather than allowing them to be balanced one against another to achieve an overall improvement of circumstances.

I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I

I I I I

I I

I I I I

Thank you to the Wasco County Planning Dept for the work they have done in responding to citizen input over the course of this public feedback process. I am very concerned about the potential expansion of nonconforming use by entities in Wasco County, specifically Mosier, relative to the possible adverse effects on the water resources lying within our fragile and declining basalt aquifers. I have personally experienced adverse effect in my rural residential home of over 32 years due to the increasr.&Q- number of wells and commercial pumping pressures in the Mosier Valley; have had one Artesian well run dry, had to drill a new well; than have had to further deepen that well! Studies have been conducted since the early 80's an~have been tracking the progress of the US Geological Survey and the Oregon Dept of Water Resources ever since. Most recently the Mosier Watershed Council heard preliminary results of an extensive groundwater study conducted in the Mosier Valley, with a final report due soon after the 1st of the year. Their current projections of water needs and development over the next 10 years do not include extensive growth in the rural residential area. Meanwhile recommendations are still being formulated as what can be done to reduce the continual decline of our aquifers. I strongly urge you to establish protections within any change in this ordinance that would ensure communication with local homeowners and thorough consideration of the work our governmental water resource agencies, local, state, and federal, have done in analyzing this critical water resource situation before allowing any new or further increase in the demands made upon our declining aquifers by entities who were granted nonconforming use in the 1970's when this water issue had not yet been identified or grown so in magnitude. I expect the county to be extremely cautious in responding to any request for greater water consumption in our area when all indicators question the sustainability of our current resources!

Thank you ...

Susan Gabay 2050 Mosier Creek Rd P 0 Box 151, Mosier, Or 97040 10/15/08

Wasco County Court Economic Development Commission update: October 15, 2008

• Rural Fire Training Center: Robin Cope has submitted a contract extension, which the EDC has recommended for adoption by the County Court. The request would extend the timeframe through April30, 2009 and include an additional $1,700. Would this additional amount be allocated from funds not disbursed in the prior budget year or must it come from the $10,000 allocation in the current budget year? Robin provided positive information from the grant request to State Farm Good Neighbors. They have promised to provide funding.

• Roll-Over of Unexpended Funds: The EDC would like to request that the County Court roll-over unexpended funds from 2007-08 and on a continual basis for use in hiring grant writing contractors and for economic development work.

• EDC Website: In order to bring the EDC site current with the new Cmmty site, the EDC requests that the County Court approve up to $550 for developing a new EDC site to match the County site. Funds would be paid to the County's website contractor. This will accomplish the goal of bringing the new look and feel to the EDC site and allow EDC staff to directly edit pages.

• County Planning Ordinances and Destination Resort Overlay: Language is being developed with the participation of the County planning office to allow for the creation of a fund to help cover the costs of priority zoning projects with economic development potential.

• Columbia Gorge Renewable Energy Zone: Next meeting of CGBREZ will occur on October 31st at 10:00 a.m. at the Port of Hood River. Congressional Representatives are invited to attend and the EDA has been invited to speak on the new funding focus related to renewable energy opportunities.

• Discovery Center/Oregon Solutions: The Discovery Center application is tentatively scheduled to be reviewed by the Oregon Investment Board at the November meeting. This timeframe will allow further consultation with the Discovery Center and the County Court.

• Inventory of Properties: Wasco County GIS Department has provided maps and data files for industrial and commercial zoned property in Wasco County. Staff will be reviewing this information and requesting additional information from City of The Dalles and Port of The Dalles to gain further knowledge regarding land resources and issues to be included in the inventory that have been previously developed.

• Juicy Ideas: The first annual competition of Juicy Ideas launched October 13th. The secret item was revealed to be plastic bailing twine and students have ten days to create a new product and upload their experience to YouTube. The competition website is: www.juicyideascompetition.com

• Economic Development Administration: David Porter, our federal EDA representative, will be in the Mid-Columbia region October 28th through the 31st. He is scheduled for a breakfast meeting with the Wasco County Outreach Team at 7:30a.m. on October 31st.

• PSAP Census 2010: The 2010 Census Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) allows, following Census guidelines, the review and update of the boundaries for census tracts, block groups, designated places, and county divisions. The accuracy in designating these areas is important in the way that statistically reports are then available for the next ten years and how federal funding gets distributed. Training for planning agencies and economic developers will be provided on November 18th at 9:00a.m. at MCEDD.

• Next EDC meeting: Thursday, November 20th, 10:00 a.m., Maupin.

---Jim Donnelly and Amanda Remington, EDC staff

October 15, 2008

TO: Wasco County Court

FROM: Dawn Baird, Associate Planner

SUBJECT: Road Naming Request- Pine-Oak Road (2N 12E 20): PLAROD-08-09-0002; David Brandt

Error in staff report- this is a private road, not a private easement road, per Marty Matherly, Public Works Director.

Request

On September 8, 2008, a request was received by David Brandt, with the appropriate fee, to name an existing private road, lying north of Dry Creek Road in Township 2 North, Range 12 East W.M., Section 20.

The proposed road name is Pine-Oak Road.

Location: This road is located north of Dry Creek Road, approximately ~ mile west of Silver Gray Road, approximately 5Y2 miles west of The Dalles, Oregon. The replatted, unnamed private road is approximately 1,000 feet in length, and currently serves four single family dwellings. The easement width ranges from 30-60'.

Background:

The private road was originally created through a subdivision plat, Fairview Orchard Tracts, on 4/6/1910. Through a series of land use and road vacation/road rededication actions, the road has been moved from its original location to its current location. The road does not meet public or private road standards. There are four existing single family dwellings located along this road. New development must meet fire safety standards, but owners will not required to bring the existing road up to private or public road standards.

On December 6, 2007, the Wasco County Planning Dept. approved a conditional use permit (CUP-07-118) for a new nonresource dwelling for David Brandt on property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Dry Creek Road/(proposed) Pine-Oak Road (2N 12E 20, tax lot 3700). A condition was made requiring Mr. Brandt to make application to name the existing private road because of the number of existing ( 4) and potential (3) residences that may ultimately use this road for access purposes.

This area of the County is currently growing in residential use. Naming the road will help visitors, and delivery and service persons find the property they are looking for. In addition, it is vital for the existing road to be named so that emergency services such as fire trucks, ambulances, and other emergency vehicles can find people or property locations in the most efficient manner , possible.

Request for Road Naming- PINE-OAK ROAD PLAROD-08-09-0002 (Brandt)

Page 1 of 2

Process

Any request to name a road must be approved by the Wasco County Court. If a petition signed by 100% of the property owners abutting the affected road is submitted with the request, no public hearing is required to be held before the Court.

Mr. Brandt did not submit a petition signed by all affected property owners, therefore, a public hearing was scheduled before the Wasco County Court today.

Marty Matherly, Wasco County Public Works Director, has reviewed the proposed road name and it is not similar to any other existing road name in Wasco County.

Options

The Wasco County Court has the following options in this matter:

1. Approve the request and name the easement road identified in the previous maps "Pine-Oak Road".

2. Approve the request to name the road, but adopt an alternative name for the private road.

3. Deny the request.

4. If additional information is required/desired, continue the hearing to a date and time certain.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends that the County Court name the road, but has no recommendation regarding the proposed name.

Notice of the final decision will be sent to all parties originally notified, plus any additional parties heard by the Court.

Request for Road Naming - PINE-OAK ROAD PLAROD-08-09-0002 (Brandt)

Page 2 of 2

WASCO COUNTY COURT REGULAR SESSION OCTOBER 15, 2008

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Technology Program Grant Terms and Conditions Agreement.

2. Third Amendment to Department of Human Services 2008-2009 Intergovernmental Agreement #124850 for the Financing of Public Health Services between the Oregon Department of Human Services and Wasco Sherman Counties.

3. Resolution in the matter of Wasco County providing Workers' Compensation Insurance Coverage for Election Volunteers.

WASCO COUNTY COURT REGULAR SESSION

October 15, 2008

DISCUSSION LIST

ACTION AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:

1. Selection of Court Member to contact Y1 02 tomorrow morning between 8 and 8:30a.m. to report on today's Court Meeting.

2. Discussion on the formation of the Complete Count Committee, as recommended by the U.S. Census Bureau on September 10, 2008.

3. Amend Court's Motion of October 1, 2008 in the matter of waiving the Scenic Area Review Fee for The Dalles Area Habitat for Humanity. The Court waived $840.00, when the actual fee is only $820.00.

4. Motion to rename Erica Jones' title from Human Resource Secretary to Administrative Assistant.

5. Discussion regarding the Wasco County Wage and Classification Committee as to the Committee's responsibilities and purpose, and the need for said Committee.

6. Email from Heidi Oshsner, Hood River County Board of Commissioner's Office, dated September 23, 2008, in regards to a meeting between the governing bodies of Wasco and Hood River Counties.

7. Discussion on the planning process for the use of the County owned Tenth Street Property located between Webber Road and Walnut Street in The Dalles, Oregon.

8. Consider of the request from The Dalles Area Habitat for Humanity for the Court to waive the Environmental Health Fees of the Wasco Sherman Public Health Department in the amount of $485.

9. Consideration of the request from Karen LeBreton Coats, County Clerk, to have the Court adopt a Resolution covering the election volunteers under the County's Workers Compensation Insurance coverage.

10. Discussion on the recommendation of the Wasco County Economic Development Commission for the County to approve an Amended Personal Services Contract with Robin Cope.

Page 1 - Discussion List 10/15/2008

11. Approval of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, Economic Development Program, Oregon Investment Board Grant Application for the Gorge Discovery Center Oregon Solutions Local Match Request.

12. Consideration of the recommendation of the Wasco County Wage & Classification Committee in regards to the Administrative Assistant Position at the Wasco Sherman Public Health Department, dated October 8, 2008.

13. Discussion on the memorandum from Rocky McVay and Kevin Davis, dated October 7, 2008, in regards to the Reauthorization of Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.

14. Discussion on the Oregon Government Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion No. 08A-1003, No. 08A-1004, and No. 08A-1005.

15. Discussion on insuring the Wasco County Fairgrounds.

16. Discussion on documents which need to be approved by the County Court versus County Department Heads.

17. Discussion on the possibly adoption of a County Ordinance establishing Railroad Tracking Grinding Regulations.

18. Discussion on the proposed Personal Service Contract between Wasco County, Oregon and Pine Hollow Fire Department.

Page 2 - Discussion List 10/15/2008

September 4, 2008

Wasco County Court

Eric A. Gras berger

3147 SW 1261h Place

PORTLAND, OREGON 97229

Direct Dial (503) 294-9439

Fax (503) 220-2480

email [email protected]

511 Wasl1ington Street, Ste~ 302 The Dalles, OR 97058-2237

RE: Wamic Rural Fire Protection District

To Whom it May Concern:

I recently received your notice concerning the formation of the Wamic Rural Fire Protection District. I am a property owner in Wamic but was unable to attend the initial hearing regarding this matter, and will be unable to attend the Sept 1oth and October 15th hearings as well. For the record, I want to indicate my full support for the formation of the fire district.

EricA. Gras 78876 Wood ck Road

. Tygh Valley, Oregon, 97063

Mailing Address:

Eric A. Grasberger 3147 NW 126th Place Portland, Oregon, 97229

Portlnd3-1639369 .1 0099999-00001

September 4, 2008

Wasco County Court 511 Washington Street, Ste. 302 The Dalles, OR 97058-2237

RE: Wamic Rural Fire Protection District

To Whom it May Concern:

I recently received your notice concerning the formation ofthe Wamic Rural Fire Protection District. I am a property owner in Wamic but was unable to attend the initial hearing regarding this matter, and will be unable to attend the Sept lOth and October 15th hearings as well. For the record, I want to indicate my full support for the formation of the fire district.

Sincerely,

Thomas A. DiChiara 78750 Woodcock Road Wamic, OR

Mailing Address:

Thomas A. DiChiara 2824 NE 52nd A venue Portland, OR 97213

presented by Amanda Remington, Wasco County Economic ... Archives/2008/1… · 1:30 p.m. PRESENTATION on economic development in Wasco County; presented by Amanda Remington, Wasco

Documents