minhead.gif (11357 bytes)APPROVED 8/10/94


June 8, 1994
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' REGULAR MEETING
Harris Hall Main Floor - 1:30 p.m.

Chair Jerry Rust presided with Steve Cornacchia, Ellie Dumdi, Marie Frazier and Jack Roberts present. Sharon Giles, Recording Secretary.

12.    PUBLIC HEARINGS

a.    PUBLIC HEARING, RESOLUTION AND FINAL ORDER 94-6-8-1/In the Matter of the Vacation of a Portion of East 43rd Street as Deeded in Book 236, Page 155, Lane County Oregon Deed Records (18-03-16).

Bob Ezell, County Surveyor, reviewed the agenda memorandum (see material on file). He presented visual material via overhead projection. Responding to Cornacchia regarding the potential need for a 60-foot right-of-way, Ezell stated that a 60-foot right-of-way is common in subdivisions; and, because of surveyor grades, more than 60 feet may actually be needed. He replied that 60 feet is the preferred situation for this road. Cornacchia asked, then, how a 30-foot right-of-way would be in the "public's interest?" He opted to listen to upcoming testimony before requiring an answer.

With regard to ex parte contacts, Rust stated that Mr. Wright had contacted him and he had advised Wright to testify here today. Cornacchia, Dumdi and Roberts indicated they, too, had each met with Wright. Dumdi also stated the she knew Mr. Egge, but has not discussed this subject with him. Frazier disclosed that she had not met with Wright.

Rust opened the Public Hearing.

Lew Wright, 2125 Ridgeway, distributed a map to Board members. He confirmed that he had spoken with all Board members except Frazier.

Wright indicated that he was not against moving the road south, but was against only having a 30-foot right-of-way. He stated that he was willing to dedicate whatever property necessary, all from his side and all the way down, to make this a proper roadway. Wright observed that his family has owned the property for over 40 years and that this opportunity for additional right-of-way would solve all present and future road problems.

Vern Egge, 90263 Egge Road, passed on this opportunity to speak, reserving his right to speak later.

Ron Land, 2705 East 43rd, remarked that he was the petitioner and is the owner of lots 1200, 1300, 1400 and 2200. He stressed that the entire area is zoned F-2, with much of the property being forestry deferred, thus not allowing one house per lot without a special use permit. Land stated that the area includes 28 parcels on approximately 100 acres with only four houses. He remarked that the present road has been there almost 40 years. Land observed that about four years ago, this Board approved a conditional use permit for the construction of houses on lots 1500 and 1600, which permit required that a facilities permit be acquired and the road be constructed. He continued that in September of 1991, Egge started construction, without a permit, in that area. Land emphasized that for the last three years he has been trying to get the easement moved to where the road actually exists today. He stressed that the road ends at their house, although there has been some additional construction that is involved in a stop work permit as it was constructed without a permit. Responding to Rust, Land stated that he objects to a 60-foot right-of-way as there is no reason that it would be in the public interest, even with potential construction of two additional homes.

Jeff Savage, 542 Panda Loop, indicated that in September of 1991 he purchased lot 1500, which came with a conditional use permit for construction of a non-forest dwelling in an F-2 zone. He remarked that he cannot afford to hire an attorney and seems to be caught in the middle of this issue as he is between Egge's lot and Land's lot. He asserted that the Lands have gotten decisions in their favor since they had one of the commissioners up for "Sunday coffee and cookies." Savage claimed that the Lands purchased lot 2200 for the sole purpose of preventing Egge and himself from building homes on their lots. He mentioned that in order to reduce the grade of the road, more easement is needed. Savage noted that the existing road is a single lane mud path, not a road. Savage stated that his CUP expires in December. He asked the Board to choose Option Two. Responding to Roberts, Savage stated that, should the Board approve the vacation, subject to a 60-foot right-of-way, upon which the Lands chose not to vacate, this would still meet his needs, although requiring substantially more fill.

Cindy Land, 2705 East 43rd, commented that three people want to develop F-2 land outside of the Urban Growth Boundary in an area not set up for huge development. She asserted that Wright's land is in forestry deferral. Land stressed that she and her husband have not impeded their neighbors' ability to put in a road and have worked with them to put together a plan that would not require destroying the front half of their homestead. She stated that the current easement is a "paper easement" as there is no roadway in it and they (the Lands) are asking that the easement be moved into the actual traveled roadway. Responding to Cornacchia, Land explained that the zoning of tax lot 1200 is F-2, although her house was actually built when the zoning was Rural Residential, prior to the change in the zoning.

Don Eliason, 2620 East 43rd, offered his support to the Lands in their attempt to preserve their rights, although the project does not personally affect him. He stated that any development should be done with integrity in terms of community involvement.

Larry Thorp, 644 North A, Springfield, indicated that he is an attorney and represents Vern Egge. Thorp reported that Egge received a Special Use Permit to build a house on his property in 1991, thus requiring that a road be developed down to the property. He indicated that Egge worked for two years trying to get a design for a workable road. Thorp recalled that the Board had accepted the road as a public right-of-way, noting that the County's transportation department had warned the Board of potential problems regarding lack of adequate right-of-way width, grades, etc. Thorp stated that the road cannot be built with the 30-foot right-of-way. He displayed a map on overhead projection showing that the proposed Lands' relocation is at the top of the steep hill and that the fill cannot be done in a 30-foot right-of-way because of backslope. Thorp concluded that the solution is additional right-of-way. He noted that Wright will dedicate the additional right-of-way and will work with the Lands to relocate the portion in front of their house further to the south so there would be more protection for their home. Thorp submitted a letter received from the Lands' attorney last week. Thorp maintained that the Lands are against development in the area and are obstructionists. He recommended that the Board deny the request and advise the Lands that they would consider a relocation request in conjunction with additional right-of-way and working with the neighbors. Responding to Frazier, Thorp indicated that a condition in the Special Use Permit requires obtaining a facilities permit "onto" a public or county road. He continued that it was only after staff said a road must be built that anyone realized that County standards would have to be met. Responding to Cornacchia, Thorp stated he has a letter from Roy Burns, Land Management Manager, indicating that the standards for a private road easement in this situation would be the same as for a public road.

Rick Satre, 132 East Broadway, #536, commented that he is a land use planning consultant and is here representing Donna Wooley specifically with regard to the vacation request. He stated that Wooley is in favor of the request, contingent on a minimum 30-foot right-of-way dedication and that her concern is strictly that she be provided with legal public access.

Wright spoke again briefly, clarifying that the size of the lots in the area averages 5 acres.

Rust closed the Public Hearing.

Cornacchia indicated that he was interested in Option 2 of the recommendations. He stated that he is not convinced that the application is in the public's interest. Cornacchia remarked that the best situation seems to be a 60-foot right-of-way, providing the same opportunities for development that the Lands had.

Dumdi concurred with Cornacchia and noted that the properties are zoned F-2 and, unless laws change dramatically, there will not be opportunities for massive development.

Responding to Frazier, Stephen Vorhes, Assistant County Counsel, stated that a UGB change would involve the three jurisdictions and rezoning would depend on the plan designation that would follow if the UGB was extended out. Bob Ezell, County Surveyor, reported to Frazier that rural roads' standards are 50 to 60-foot rights-of-way. Frazier indicated that she was not supportive of the application and questioned what kind of criteria would be chosen under Option 2 for the reasons to request a 60-foot right-of-way.

Roberts indicated that he was leaning toward denying the vacation based on the "public interest" argument, noting that he has a little more trouble going the next step and saying that it would be granted if a 60-foot right-of-way were agreed upon. He commented that if the parties could reach agreement, then the public interest would be met. Roberts referred to Thorp's letter which makes reference to a cash offer/settlement. He suggested that it may not be inappropriate for Wright, Savage and Egge to pay for the wider right-of-way. Roberts indicated that if the dollars could be worked out, he would probably be inclined to support the vacation and the realignment.

Rust remarked that he would like to give the parties to this situation 30 days to come together and work out a solution. He noted that if the parties cannot agree, then he would probably vote in favor of a 50 to 60-foot right-of-way, based on the slope issue. Rust observed that solutions could include cash, realignment, etc. He expressed hope that the Lands would try to be accommodating.

Roberts observed that the Board is not prepared today to grant the vacation due to the concerns regarding the effect on other neighbors. He noted that the County does not have the power to require a 60-foot right-of-way and suggested that if all parties can agree, the public interest will be satisfied.

MOTION: This issue be set again for July 20 at 1:30 and that the record be left open until one week prior for submission of written material by the parties of record with regard to resolution. Cornacchia MOVED, Dumdi SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.

13.    OTHER BUSINESS

ORDER 94-6-7-9/In the Matter of Approving Award of RFP CP 93/94-10 for Purchase of an Integrated Help Desk, Asset Management and Change Control Software System.

Responding to Frazier, Bill Hoyt, Regional Information Systems Director, stated that the Help Desk is for RIS internal use, with a possibility that the County can use it internally if that can be worked out. MOTION: Approval of the Order, with review in one year. Cornacchia MOVED, Frazier SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.

7.    PUBLIC WORKS

b.    REPORT BACK/Lane County Hearings Official Expressions of Interest

Van Vactor summarized that there were some expressions of interest in the range of LCOG and asked if the Board wished for staff to explore that. Rust stated that if there was no clear distinction, he would prefer to stay with LCOG. There was concurrence from the Board.

14.    COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

Frazier stated that she has a request from the McKenzie Hatchery Task Force and the Forest Service asking for a letter of support for the hatchery information center and the highway rest stop improvements. There was consensus from the Board for Rust to sign the letter prepared by Frazier.

Frazier indicated that several constituents have asked for an evening portion to the public hearing scheduled on June 22 for finalization of the budget. Dumdi concurred with Frazier. Rust noted that considerable written material has been received on the rural issue with regard to resident deputies and he expressed hope that some of these issues can be resolved with potential plans for placement of a measure on the September ballot. Roberts observed that the Board does accommodate people with evening hearings from time to time; but noted that there has been plenty of time for people to give input and that people are still encouraged to write or call. Rust and Cornacchia concurred with Roberts.

Rust briefly discussed the agenda for the next meeting with regard to the Metro Plan amendment process.

There being no further business, this meeting adjourned at 3:01 p.m.

 

Sharon Giles, Recording Secretary

go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices


Contact the webmaster@co.lane.or.us Read the Lane County Liability Disclaimer and User Agreement
Updated: 09/19/05 URL:
Copyright 1997 Lane County Information Services.  All rights reserved.