October 26, 1994

1:30 p.m.

Harris Hall Main Floor


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








a. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 8-94/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 15 of Lane Code to Revise the County Special Assessment Policy for Public Improvement (LC 15.636).


Rust read this Ordinance into the record.


Ollie Snowden, County Engineer, briefly reviewed the agenda memorandum.  He commented that one more area may need clarification -with regard to the status of a private road.  Snowden stated that the way the language is written, if a property fronts onto a county road project but the access is from another county road or a local access road, that property would not receive an assessment (it would be deferred until access was taken directly from the road).  He continued that if the property fronts on a county road project but takes access to the road via a private access easement, the property would be assessed.  Snowden explained that what is in between is a private road, remarking that if someone fronts onto a county road project but takes access via a private road, they would be assessed.  He stated that if the Board is comfortable with that, then the language should be left as is. 


  Cornacchia questioned the rationale on the private easement.  Snowden explained that the rationale was to capture a situation where there may be two or more adjoining parcels owned by the same person or the parcels are devoted to a single use.  Stephen Vorhes, Assistant County Counsel, remarked that it may be a case where ownership of the adjoining properties, both of which abut on the project road, takes access across others.  Roberts clarified that an assessment will only be taken if a private easement leads onto the project road and the property abuts the road.  Cornacchia commented that if there is access from the project being improved, then he has no problem; but, if the determining factor is the type of access, then he sees no difference between a private road and a private easement.  Vorhes stated that the Ordinance at this time does not differentiate between private access or private road as long as it is an abutting property.


Rust opened the Public Hearing.  There being no one present who wished to testify, Rust closed the Public Hearing.   


MOTION:  Approval of the Ordinance.  Roberts MOVED, Cornacchia SECONDED.   The Secretary polled the Board.  VOTE:  5 AYES. 


b. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 1057/In the Matter of Renaming South Alvadore Road to Spires Lane.


Rust read this Ordinance into the record.   


Bob Ezell, County Surveyor, provided overhead projection of the location in question.  He indicated that the Rural Fire Department petitioned Lane County to rename South Alvadore Road to Spires Lane due to communications problems on similar sounding road names.  Ezell briefly reviewed the agenda memorandum.  He read a portion of the Fire Marshall's February 24 letter (see material on file).  Ezell summarized that there is opposition to this renaming.  


Rust opened the Public Hearing.  


Chip Darling, Lane Rural Fire District, provided a map depicting the road situation in that area and stressed that the issue is fire and life safety.  He observed the potential for 911 delays due to the lack of clarity in the two addresses that would be affected.  


Bonnie Harrison, 90156 South Alvadore Road, stated that South Alvadore Road is a dead-end road.  She expressed concern about the cost to homeowners to change materials with addressees and the cost to the county to change maps and road signs.   


Manford Samuelson, 90144 South Alvadore Road, commented that friends and service people do not have problems finding their address.  He commented on the historical significance of the road name.  With regard to clarity, he noted the similarity between the name Spires Road and Squires Road, which is only one mile away.  Samuelson indicated that 911 has taken care of such problems by asking for the nearest crossroad, which pinpoints the area and eliminates confusion.   

Rust closed the Public Hearing.   


Dumdi observed that there are only two affected residences.  Responding to Rust, Darling agreed that the fire districts could live with keeping the name, but it does present the potential for error.  Rust indicated his respect for the fire department coming forward, stating that this is a close call and he chose to side with the citizens.  Responding to Frazier, Ezell indicated that the physical road is a dead-end, but the actual dedication continues.  Roberts stressed that when fire and life safety professionals say there is a risk, it is hard to say no, noting that it would be hard to second guess their professional judgment.  MOTION:  Approval of the Ordinance.  Roberts MOVED, Rust SECONDED (for discussion).  Dumdi indicated the need to look at the fire and life safety position, expressing her regret for the inconvenience the change would cause her constituents.  Cornacchia concurred with Dumdi.  Rust re-opened the Public Hearing.  Harrison observed that Alvadore Road is gravel and South Alvadore Road is paved.  The Secretary polled the Board.  VOTE:  4 AYES, Rust NAY.


c. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance PA 1064/In the Matter of Naming a Public Road Osprey Lane.


Rust read this Ordinance into the record.   


Ezell briefly reviewed the agenda material.  Rust opened the Public Hearing.   


Ann Morrow, EPUD, thanked the Board for this road which was constructed with EDAP funds.    


Rust closed the Public Hearing.  MOTION:  Approval of the Ordinance.  Roberts MOVED, Frazier SECONDED.  VOTE:  5 AYES.             




a. CONTINUED/ON THE RECORD HEARING AND ORDER 94-9-27-20/In the Matter of Hearing Arguments on an Appeal of a Hearings Official Decision Affirming the Planning Director's Denial of a Vested Right (File PA 0434-93; Applicant/Appellant: Hildebrand).


Michael Copely, Associate Planner, briefly reviewed the history of this item.   


Ethel Carlson stated that she is the current owner of the property in question.  Rust advised Carlson that the basic question is whether there was a continued use of the property.  Carlson replied that it was used until late 1985 as the property had a mobile home on it with a renter.  She stated that after that time there were numerous break-ins on the property whereupon they decided to remove the mobile home until they were able to build on the property in a few years.  Responding to Cornacchia, Carlson indicated that after her husband's parents passed away, the property was deeded to her husband's two sons, with a lifetime residency for her late husband.  She stated that the property fell back to her after the death of her husband in June, 1986, when she stepped in, bought the property and paid the back taxes.   


Rust closed the Public Hearing.  Noting that this case would need to be defendable with Lane Code and state law, Cornacchia stressed that the Board has tried to carve out an exception, but it is difficult since the persons to whom the property passed have not shown interest.  Carlson reminded Cornacchia that she had bought out the interests of both sons.  Cornacchia summarized that this is a non-conforming use; so, if the property is not used, then the non-conforming use is discontinued.  He noted that there has not been continuous possession or intent of the estate of the family.  Roberts agreed that this case does not fit within the exception guidelines.  MOTION:  To uphold the Hearings Official decision and deny the appeal.  Roberts MOVED, Cornacchia SECONDED.  VOTE:  4-1, Dumdi dissenting.  Copely indicated that he would prepare an Order with findings. 


There being no further business, this meeting adjourned at 2:16 p.m.





Sharon Giles

Recording Secretary