April 19, 2006

1:30 p.m.

Harris Hall 

PASSED 10/18/06


Commissioner Bill Dwyer presided with Commissioners Bobby Green, Sr., Anna Morrison, Peter Sorenson and Faye Stewart present.† County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.




a. PUBLIC HEARING AND FINAL ORDER 06-4-19-6/In the Matter of Surrender of 20 County Roads, or Portions Thereof, to the City of Eugene. (NBA & PM 3/15/06). †


Bill Robinson, Land Management, said this is from statutory provision ORS.373, for the transfer of County public roads to cities.† He noted there is a road partnership in place and it was extended in a board order in May of 2004.† He added after that, the City requested a transfer with their ordinance where the County becomes involved with a resolution and order to set a hearing date.† He said they did that on March 15, setting todayís date. †


Robinson explained that the City of Eugene had received surrenders from the County before in 2003 and 2004 with Leo Harris Parkway and South Garden Way.† He added that in 2005 there was a surrender of Tenth Street and Lincoln Avenue in Cottage Grove.† He noted in this segment there are 20 County roads for 4.2 miles.† He indicated Attachment A (copy in file) has the location and description of the roads.† †


Robinson indicated they provided a legal notice by posting and they put out 31 different postings.† He said they alerted the public on how they could respond if they wanted to.† He indicated that they had responses to the posting, from Mr. Seaberry plus three residents who had called and asked for information.† He spoke with a woman in the River Road area about the public being aware of what was going on.† He noted a resident on Blanton was referred to the city for more information.


Robinson indicated the alternatives of the hearing are to approve the order, to surrender the jurisdiction of 20 roads, or portions thereof to the City of Eugene, or to deny all or any portion of the order to surrender or postpone further action.† He said the recommendation by the Director of Public Works is that the Board approve this as outlined in the final order.† He explained that the timing was significant in that it would allow the City to take possession of the roads and schedule any maintenance and upkeep for the future activity of the roads


Morrison asked if this was an annual process with the City of Eugene of if there had been a special request to take place.


Ollie Snowden, Public Works, explained that the county/city road partnership agreements they have with the City require them to request annually for surrender of roads they have annexed in the past year.† He commented that not all cities do that on an annual basis but that is what the agreement requires them to do.


Morrison asked if Lane County had received a request from the City on an annual basis to bring county roads into the city.


Snowden explained that by going back to 1987 when this started, they did not get it on an annual basis, but they tried to keep it on an annual basis as much as they could.


Morrison asked of the 20 roads that are being proposed, if any had been brought up to city standards with curbs or gutters.


Snowden responded that most were not to city standards.† †


Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing.


Jim Seaberry, Eugene, commented that at the time they go before the Boundary Commission for the approval to annex the streets, they arenít ready to provide the services to that street.† He said they have to qualify for that in order to get the annexation.†† He said they want to wait until the County does the improvement and then they want the streets turned over to the City.†† He commented that it is County tax dollars that are being turned over to the city. †


John Dodsen, Eugene, stated that he recently attended the Boundary Commission meeting.† He indicated that the last appeal that didnít go through was the school district appeal.† He said it didnít go through because the City wanted the roads around Irvington.† He said they had sewers put in and they had some type of local improvement district established in order to provide bonding to the landowners to pay for the sewers.† He said that action provided bonding to the landowners and also gave the people in Santa Clara a vote-of-right on what happens to the streets.†† He commented the whole process had gone through without anyone in Santa Clara being asked what they really cared about.† He stated the people pay County taxes and they think they should have a vote in the process. †


Jim Carlson, Eugene, represented the City of Eugene. He said the real reason they are doing this is that the IGA between Lane County and the City of Eugene requires them to ask for the transfer of jurisdiction.† He noted that this had been true since the original urban transactional agreements in 1985.† He added with each subsequent IGA there has been a requirement that the City ask for the transfer of jurisdiction and the requirement that the County accept the transfers and provide it to the City.† He added that this is based on the Metro Plan where cities are the appropriate providers of urban services and that ultimately most roads within the urban growth boundary will be transferred to the City for ongoing maintenance.†† He commented that the County is not required to bring roads up to urban standards.† He noted some of the roads that are being transferred have been improved to urban standards, but most of the roads had not. He said as a city they donít immediately initiate the improvement of those streets, just the improvement of local streets with a petition signed by 50 percent of the property owners.† He said they continue to support the IGA that calls for the transfer of jurisdiction of the roadways upon annexation.† He noted the types of roads they improve are collectors and arterials and the abutting property owners pay for a portion of the roads:† for curb, gutter and sidewalk.† He added their policy requires them to pay for a portion of the pavement.† †


Morrison noted in the past when they had come to the Board and they went through this process, there had been streets transferred to the City of Eugene that do not meet urban standards.


Carlson stated that was what happened.


Morrison said she had asked people in the neighborhood to find out if there was anything on their property taxes that indicated they were paying anything different for the street in front of their house from before the transfer to after the transfer and they all said no.† She had been receiving comments to the contrary that people are being assessed, but the streets are still bad.† †


Sorenson asked if the roads are now within the City of Eugene.


Carlson responded that many of the roads were annexed some time in the nineties, but they were not the ones that are before the Boundary Commission.


Sorenson asked what the consequences would be if the Board didnít approve the transfer of the streets.


Carlson indicated the result would be that the current maintenance agreement could stay in place but they would be bringing into question the entire Metro Plan.


Green was comfortable with the agreement.† He asked if these streets would be added to the Cityís backlog of streets needed to be repaired.


Carlson said that this was a minor part of the overall issue.† He said they have to address the larger issue of road maintenance and preservation activities.† He noted there are other reasons from an urban service provision basis that these transfers make sense.† He indicated there would be a slightly increased burden after they change the maintenance agreement. †


Morrison said the Board had a discussion on pulling the transition agreement and revisiting the IGAís they have and to move forward with that.† She asked if they were to put these transfers on hold until that conversation takes place if that would be okay.† She thought it would be more advantageous for Lane County to continue the maintenance on the streets for the citizens as they would be in good shape.† She noted they are only able to have the best road system because of the funding they receive.† She commented that even without reauthorization of Secure Rural Schools, their road fund is in jeopardy.† †


There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Dwyer closed the Public Hearing.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-4-19-6.


Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.


Dwyer commented that the people in Santa Clara and River Road got a bad deal out of this.


Green supported the request.


Stewart was in favor of the request because the roads were within the city limits and they should be maintained by the City.† His concern of taxes going† up was addressed and it wouldnít happen unless they upgraded the roads. †


Sorenson thought this cleaned the issue up.


VOTE:† 4-1 (Dwyer dissenting). †


b. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1231/In the Matter of Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Land From "Agricultural" to "Marginal Land" and Rezoning That Land From "E-40/Exclusive Farm Use" To "ML/Marginal Land", and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (File PA 04-6092, Dahlen). (NBA & PM 4/5/06). †


Dwyer explained that this decision is subject to the plan amendment and rezoning criteria sited in the agenda cover memo and attachments.† He added that evidence and testimony must be directed toward the approval criteria and failure to raise an issue to enable a response may preclude an appeal to LUBA.† He stated this was an opportunity for those present to enter information into the record.† He added that only persons who qualify as a party may appeal any decision to LUBA.


Dwyer asked if there were any ex parte contacts.


Stewart stated that last year he went to a Spencer Butte residence meeting and at that time he told the residents that he couldnít take part.† He said the questions had to deal with traffic and water and both of the issues had been discussed.† He didnít believe he had a conflict.


The other commissioners had no ex parte contacts.


Jerry Kendall, Land Management, explained the reason for this site review is to limit the proposal to 11 lots from a 32 lot potential.† He added that the applicant is agreeable to that and the language is built into the ordinance.† He noted the subject property is 322 acres.† He said the criteria is a two tier test versus the income test for marginal lands in which the facts have proven where ORS limits forest income in a five year period to having to be under $10,000 gross income threshold, and the application bears out the income test as $7,447 per year, meeting that standard.† He added the agricultural farm income test was met by a series of affidavits.† He noted that there were conflicts in the affidavits, but it was straightened out after a Planning Commission hearing in a July supplement they received.† He noted by affidavit the income test was met for farm use, meaning no farm use with an income of $20,000 per year took place on the 320 acres or in combination with the contiguous 67 acre parcel to the east during a three out of five year period starting in 1978.


Kendall indicated the second tier of the marginal lands test is the productivity test.† He said for that the record is undisputed that the property is predominantly 59 percent agricultural class five through eight, passing that portion of the test and the forest productivity has been highly contested.† He said what the findings say is that it averages 67.2 cubic feet per acre per year productivity potential of merchantable tree species and the applicantís forester put in productivity data that was offered throughout the hearing from the lowest to the best productivity and the findings indicate that the productivity range comes out between 26 and† 77 cubic feet per acre per year, still under the 80 cubic feet standard.† †


With regard to water, Kendall noted that was another contested issue.† He noted the property is in a water limited area.† He said an aquifer test was provided by EGR & Associates and it concluded that adequate water existed for a full potential of 32 ten acre lots.† He added the applicant had scaled back to 11 acre lots.† He noted the aquifer study was reviewed by Mike Mattick, State Water Master along with his Salem counterparts.† He added even though they had a discussion about the methodology, Mattick agreed with the conclusion that adequate water is to be found on the site for a 32 lot build up. †


Kendall said that staff offered revised findings to the ordinance that is attached.† He thought the applicant read too broadly into the Board 1997 Guidelines.† He said the Board Guidelines posed the following question:† if someone had a 2,000 acre timber operation and during that five year period they later sold off 40 acres of the 2,000 acre forest operation, if that 40 acres is automatically to be disregarded as being eligible for marginal lands.† He said the Board Guidelines stated it didnít if they provide site-specific data showing the 40 acres wasnít part of the forest operation, and then they still qualify for marginal lands.† He said the fact pattern in the present case doesnít correlate with the Board Guidelines.† He noted in this specific case there was controversy over whether a cattle operation of 25 head that were run on the subject 320 acre parcel was found on the adjoining 67 acre parcel.† He indicated it was found that those cattle were run by a livestock company and not the owner.† He said the question arose that the cattle company ran cattle on nearby lands that were not necessarily contiguous.† He added after the Planning Commission hearing, further affidavits were provided by the cattle company stating they had no nearby farm livestock operation.† He said that alleviated staffís concern.


Kendall provided new information in the supplemental packet.† He said there was a copy error in the board packet.† He noted the first four exhibits of the May 31, 2005 Planning Commission supplement were omitted.† He received a letter from Martha McMullen who wanted to be included in the record about her prior testimony concerning the water.† He added that was missing from the Planning Commission supplement.† He noted when the Planning Commission had their public hearing and followed up with a deliberation meeting in June, they voted for denial of the application on a 5 to 1 basis, based on the staff recommendation of denial because at that point the cattle operation facts were not in the record but had been provided. He noted that is why there is a recommendation for approval by staff. †


Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing.


Steve Cornacchia, Eugene, stated he represented the applicant.† He said they will incorporate all of the evidence in the record as their testimony.† He noted that this had been in process for three years.† He said when information is not provided to the applicant for review beforehand, it puts him in a situation to make a decision on the spot on whether or not he wants to respond.† He said there was enough information to tell him he needs the opportunity for rebuttal.† He stated they would not be providing any new evidence, but wanted to keep the record open for two weeks to thirty days for the purpose of responding to the Goal 1 Coalition materials. †


With regard to water, Cornacchia said the majority of the Planning Commissioners who voted against this raised issues of the farm income and the fact that Mr. Mishofsky had placed an affidavit in the record that they did not manage property.† Cornacchia said Mishofsky and his brother and their families owned the property during the applicable period and during their ownership they lived in Portland.† Mishofsky said they did not run a timber or farming operation on the property.† Mishofsky indicated he held the property for investment.† Mishofsky added their true intent was to build a golf course.† Cornacchia said because they were not able to get enough city water to be able to water a golf course, they abandoned the idea.† Cornacchia noted they came in the eighties and asked for a rezoning from timber to EFU because golf courses are allowed in the EFU zone.† He said someone discovered that Mishofsky had cited the fact that there were 25 head of cattle being grazed on the property in the eighties for a few years.† He said what Mishofsky was doing was trying to keep trespassers off his property and he believed if he had some kind of a physical presence on the property that it would limit that activity.† He maintained the cattle for C&M Livestock, Inc., to run up to 25 head of cattle (when they could) on the property to provide that physical presence.† He noted the affidavit stated if there was a payment, that it was less than $1,000 per year.† He said that in the minds of the Planning Commission, it created questions about the integrity of the applicant.


Cornacchia noted a majority of the Planning Commission based their decision to not recommend approval on the water issue.† He indicated in the record there was a report from EGR & Associates that states there was enough water to respond to the people who stated their wells went dry.† He reported it was an aquifer of fractured rocks where there were pockets of water.† He said that in Christensonís report, in every situation where there had been a well gone dry, a new well had been drilled.† He said the static water level of the new wells is near where the static water level was of the original well.† Cornacchia said Christenson explained it is because people overuse their wells in an area of small fractured rock water.† ††


Cornacchia said without any evidence contrary to Christensonís from a licensed engineer, the members of the Planning Commission decided that they were going to reject Christensonís expertise and his experience and they were going to say there wasnít enough water.† Cornacchia said they find in the record there is more than enough evidence to support the finding there is adequate water to meet the future domestic water needs of the 11 parcels.


Cornacchia explained that on the issue of the 1997 interpretation the Board made, when they do analysis of farm or timber management, it is that parcel and the contiguous parcels around it at the time.† He said there is a reasonable expectation or interpretation that it could be nearby properties.† He said they are required to address the farm management on that particular property and all properties owned by the applicant or the owner at that time.†† He said they did it for both the farm and the timber operation.† He noted the affidavit in the record from Mr. Minty of C&M Livestock Company states what they did was a favor for Mishofsky.† He indicated they owned nothing in the area and only ran cows on his property.† He added it is not Mr. Mintyís management of the property; it is Mishosfkyís management of the property as he is the owner.† Cornacchia said that was how Mishofsky managed the property and he did it with 25 or less head of cattle throughout the period and generated less than the income figure required by the statute.†† Cornacchia noted on the timber side, Just made the same argument that because Mishofsky owned timber mills and owned forest lands elsewhere, that this land had to be added to everything he owns and is counted.† He said the reasonableness of that type of interpretation gets lost if the consideration is the land itself and whether that land is capable of producing the kind of income from forestry and agricultural to make a significant contribution to those industries in Oregon.† He said they proved that piece of property was hard to grow trees or crops on.† He added that Just raised the capability of agriculture.† Cornacchia said the test requires a finding of the actual income from 1978 to 1983, not the propertyís capability.† He said the capability issues are reserved for 85 cubic feet per acre per year test.† He said the concepts of management and income are skewed together.


Cornacchia said there is a series of aerial photos in the record that date back 70 years.† He indicated from the standpoint of vegetation, little had changed on the property.† He noted the vast majority of the property does not grow trees.† He said they can show there have been no trees for 70 years and they know that trees will reproduce themselves.† He said the trees had not reproduced because of the soils, wetness and the slopes.† He added it is demonstrated by substantial evidence by their consultants.† He stated that nothing in the record refutes the professional consultantís reports and testimony.† He said there is no geologist or company talking about EGRís report except for the people who live in the area that contest it.† He said the Board has the evidence and analysis from someone who works and is trained and is experienced with nothing to refute it on a comparable basis.† He added there is nothing in the record except for Justís understandings of certain types of publications and no other consulting forester in the application† †


Cornacchia explained the final issue was productivity of the property for Ponderosa Pine.† He said that Mr. Sitchko had addressed Ponderosa Pine in this application and others on its viability and value in Western Oregon. †


Jim Belknap, Cottage Grove, said he is a land use consultant and a forester.† He was not involved in this application.† He commented that there was a lot of misleading information that had been presented.† He represented Dahlen in the subdivision of a 67 acre parcel of land that abuts this piece that is zoned marginal land.† He noted it was in processing that application for the subdivision when he became familiar with this piece of property.† He indicated they did extensive soils analysis on the tract to determine what the density would be on the adjoining 67 acre piece.† He added they also drilled two wells.† He said they have a requirement to address state statutes and County codes and to determine if the property fits.† He believed it did.† He said he spent time on the property.† He said it meets the criteria in state statute and County code in every measure and it is only the misinformation that had caused the application to drag on.† He said the property qualifies as the designation of marginal land.


Jim Just, Eugene, said the application involves 320 parcels.† He said there are two tests for marginal lands:† income test and a productivity test.† He noted the income test asked whether the 320 acres was managed as part of a farm operation that produced $20,000 in income during three of the five years from 1978 to 1983 or part of a forest operation that was capable of producing $10,000 over a growth cycle.† He said the operative words were farm and forest operation.† He said it talks about operation, not ownership.† He said the extent of the C & M farm operation had not been identified and there was nothing in the record that addressed what the income of the farm operation was.† He said it was clear the legislature wanted actual income records or other receipts that showed the farm operation, but they didnít want to require local governments to have that kind of information.† He said if they didnít have the income tax records, then they could look at objective OSU data to calculate what the farm operation could have produced during that period of time.† He noted a cattle operation on this land was capable of producing in excess of the $20,000 in annual income.† With regard to forest operation, he said it is the operation itself that is the subject of the income test and they didnít know Mishofskyís income.


Dwyer asked how many acres it took to support one cow.†† †


Just responded there is a chart in page six of their testimony that gives the productivity in AUM. †


Ann Woeste, Eugene, said if there were ever trees produced on the land, that the potential would be there. She didnít have an objection to a division of 11 parcels of land being approved.† Her concern was what would happen if 32 parcels were approved.† She said there was a difference between 11 and 32 parcels and the sustainability of water.† She asked what guaranty there would be if this was approved that it would stay at 11 parcels.† †


Kendall responded that the way the ordinance is written, it does limit it to 11 parcels.† He said if the Board adopts this ordinance as proposed and they want to change the number of lots, they have to come in for a plan amendment revision and they would come back for more public hearings.


Allan Gemmell, Eugene, said he lives in the Spencer Butte area that is water restricted.† He said in the letters of April 2003, and July 2004 by the hydrologist, the findings were based on aquifer tests that were done 20 years ago, not on a current test.† The hydrologist specifically sited a well that was drilled on Camas Lane showing there was adequate water.† He noted that well went dry two months after it was being put into use.† He also included well logs of the area.† Gemmell said it doesnít show the current status of those wells.† He noted at the Planning Commission meeting he submitted a list that was prepared three years ago for another issue that was further down the Willamette. He said it shows the wells on Camas Lane, south of the proposed property, being 12 wells: five wells are dry, four wells produce less than two gallons per minute and only one has adequate water. He added that the hydrologist in his report stated there is adequate water if the owners put in storage tanks and if they donít use their wells to full capacity.† Gemmell noted in the application by the applicant, it was not stated to limit the application to 11 lots.† He stated the applicant had not put a covenant on the property to prevent that.† He thought if the Board approved this, that it needed to be limited to 11 lots.† He commented that water is a big issue and some of the wells are dry.


Vorhes explained that this approval authorizes the further application for the division by rezoning it to residential; with a site review that imposes the limitation on the number of lots.


Martha McMillen, Eugene, said she lives on the property next to the Dahlen property.† She owned the well that was used for the aquifer study.† She said the well was drilled in 1985 and she bought the property in 1987 and within one month after she moved in, it went dry.† She said that Mr.† Christenson said she probably over-pumped it.† She didnít think so.† She had since drilled five wells on her five acre parcel.† She said the Board needs to consider this.† She didnít think people would want to build there and not irrigate.† She said the Board needed to consider the validity of the EGR report because it didnít state the truth.† She noted that nothing was mentioned about the 1990 logging of the property. She indicated there were over 100 million board feet taken out.† She asked the state forester and she was told that in 1990 it was reforested, and in 1994 it was signed off as a viable reforestation plan by the forester at that time.†† She did see cattle on the property.


Helen Reese, Eugene, said she was neutral.† Her concern was having it written somewhere that the development would be restricted to 11 lots and not 32.† She asked if it became 32 lots if it waived any statutes for requirements.† With regard to water, she had lived on the property for over five years and the second year she planted trees on the property and she watered the trees for about 15 minutes and later in the day there wasnít any water left.† She asked what constituted domestic use of water.† She had water issues for putting in 32 lots.


Chet Bowers, Eugene, said his property is adjacent to the Dahlen property.† He had lived there for 25 years and observed the trucks loading timber off the property.† He noted a truck left the Dahlen property on a regular basis with a large container of water being hauled in.† He said if this property is sold to people, they will want to build large houses.† He said the question is what the backup provision is for water.†† He said Dahlen already has to haul water onto her property.† He asked if that issue was taken seriously. †He didnít know if they should take the word of experts who lack the technology on how pockets of water are connected.† He said the well that was the basis of Martha McMillenís purchase of the property produced 24 gallons per minute and it met the test that was required by the County and then it failed.† He asked if the wells that had been identified as the source of an adequate aquifer will fail after a short period of time.


Stewart asked about the County regulations that state there needs to be a 24 hour test.


Bowens said it was required by the person in charge of granting permits based on the adequacy of water.† He noted that person was no longer in the department but he gave him a credit from requiring the test.


Jim Gillette, Eugene, said everything in state law is for preservation of open land.† He said he has 500 acres next to the Dahlens.† He wanted to turn his land into a park. He said the Dahlens are fighting him with a park.†† He said if they are taking land out of open space, they should not fight people next to them who want to preserve open space.† He wanted to see the County do an errors and omissions change without the extent of the landowners.† He said he lived without water on his property for several years.† He said more trees could be grown on small parcels.† †


With regard to Jim Gillette, Cornacchia said they would end the opposition of his plans if Gillette would limit the ATV use of his property below Cornacchiaís clientís kitchen window.† With regard to water, there are two dwellings on the property.† He said the owners living in the home bring in water.† He added the applicantís house that is to the west has an operating well that had been pumping for nine years at over 39 gallons per minute.† He added there was also testimony about the other wells that were drilled on the property, one over 100 gallons and the other 14 to 18 gallons.† He said the testimony of the people from Camas Lane had to do with their wells.† He said they all have wells operating now that are on five acre parcels or smaller, next to each other. He said they made it clear from the start that the applicant lives on the property and she is not interested in a small acreage subdivision.† He said she wants to do a parcelization that continues the open space and the large acreage ownerships of that area.† He said in addition to the planning limitations, when the city brings in the property to the UGB and annexes it, he believes they could rezone and create smaller parcels without effort.† He suggested that they place deed restrictions on each of the 11 lots and those lots could not be subdivided or partitioned to any acreage below the original acreage until such time they are annexed into the City of Eugene.†† He said it limits the size and meets the issues.† He said there will be two beneficiaries of the restriction: the subdivision property owners and the County.† He indicated that means the deed restriction could not be lifted off the property without the Board of Commissioners taking action to do that.† He believed there was enough protection that this is going to be an 11 parcel subdivision.


Cornacchia said the Mishofskys did not take 100 million board feet off the property.† He said what was taken out was 900,000 board feet and that was part of Sitchkoís analysis.


Sorenson asked about the relevance of the water. †


Cornacchia said the Board could deny the application if the Board finds they had not demonstrated that the 11 parcels will have adequate water.† He didnít think there was relevance of water.†† He said the issues of water have to do with the agricultural classes.† He said that was for the productivity for agriculture. He said it had nothing to do with the site index capability numbers that NRCS puts together, it has to do with the soil.† He added by adding soil and water, they depart from the NRCS system they are using.


There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Dwyer closed the Public Hearing.


Dwyer said they want to continue the matter to a date and time certain.† He said they will leave the record open for a rebuttal without the submission of new evidence for three weeks and they will continue the deliberation to May 24, 2005.


MOTION: to leave the record open for the applicantís opportunity for final rebuttal with a three-week period for that to be submitted by May 10 and the Third Reading, Deliberation and Possible Action for the Board on May 24.


Morrison MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0. †


c. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 06-4-19-7/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA 05-6234, CBM Family LLC ).


Steve Hopkins, Land Management, indicated that the application was requested to be placed on hold last week by the applicant. He indicated that he already sent notice of that fact.† He stated that staff recommended opening the hearing, taking testimony and delay making a decision until October, as per the applicant.† He indicated that the applicant has a different interpretation than the County Administrator and the applicant wanted the court to decide.


Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing.


Mike Reeder, Eugene, representing the CBM Family LLC, said they requested the hearing be postponed until October 25, because the ownership issue will be decided in courts.† He said they have no objection to having people testify today.


Herman Terry, _________________, stated he voted for Measure 37, but thought Measure 37 was being used wrong.† He said the LLC is not a family, but an entity.† He wasnít sure what they were dividing and how many lots they wanted to put in.† He commented that this would be on four pieces of property.† His concern was water and roadways.† He was concerned about the title.


Stewart said the date the property was put in LLC was in question.† He noted it recommended only 40 acre minimums. He said the LLC was not given any preference.


There being no one else signed up to speak,† Commissioner Dwyer closed the Public Hearing.


MOTION: to roll this matter to October 25, 2006.


Morrison MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.














There being no further business, Commissioner Dwyer adjourned at 3:50 p.m.



Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary