UMATILLA
Meeting of
**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
** **
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
Bill
Hansell (Chair), Dennis Doherty, Larry Givens
PLANNING STAFF PRESENT:
Tamra
Mabbott, Carol Johnson, Heather Haueter
Doug
Olsen
GUESTS PRESENT:
Robert Buchanan, Norm
McKibben, Don Palmer, Pat Sullivan, John Junkin, Robert Klein
**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
** **
NOTE: THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE MEETING. HOWEVER, A TAPE OF THE MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFICE.
CALL TO ORDER:
Commissioner
Hansell called the meeting to order at
Commissioner
Hansell called for abstentions or objections to the jurisdiction of the
Board. There were none.
REMAND - VARIANCE
#V-291-06
THE PROPOSED REQUEST is to
partition the property into two parcels of 80 acres and 93.25 acres pursuant to
UCDC Type IV, Review II, Level I land divisions.
REMAND - VARIANCE
#V-292-06
THE PROPOSED REQUEST is to
partition the property into two parcels of 90.53 acres and 80.02 acres pursuant
to UCDC Type IV, Review II, Level I land divisions.
REMAND - VARIANCE
#V-294-06
THE PROPOSED REQUEST is to
partition the 359.80 acre parcel into three parcels, of 80.5 acres, 161 acres
and 132.20 acres pursuant to UCDC Type IV, Review II, Level I land divisions.
REMAND - VARIANCE
#V-295-06
THE PROPOSED REQUEST is to
partition the 231.64 acre parcel into two parcels of 83.8 and 147.9 acres in
size pursuant to UCDC Type IV, Review II, Level I land divisions.
Criteria of approval for the
proposed partitions and variance requests can be found in Sections 152.710 (B)
(3) of the Umatilla County Development Code and the remand decision of the Land
Use Board of Appeals.
Staff Report: Planning Director Tamra Mabbott noted the
contents of the packets previously distributed to the Board for review, and
available to the public.
Motion: Commissioner
Doherty moved to accept Exhibits #1-10 into the record. Commissioner Givens seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Mabbott explained that
the remand requests quote the LUBA decision.
In response, LUBA reviewed the assignments of error and remanded back to
the county.
The remand applications do
not include a variance, but circular area review. The consulting study in Exhibit #4 includes
this review, which is a component of the Type IV, Review II criteria.
Ms. Mabbott referred to the
subject parcels on a map, noting that the acreage had changed from the original
application based on a survey. She noted
that staff had thoroughly reviewed the applications and were supportive, finding
that they meet all of the standards of the Type IV, Review II criteria.
Commissioner Doherty noted
that circular area review appeared to be more of a mathematical formula than
standard criteria. County Counsel Doug
Olsen replied that it was a mathematical approach, but is more in line with the
County Development Code than our usual practice for partition.
Applicant/Proponent Testimony: John Junkin,
attorney with Bullivant Houser Bailey represented the applicants. Mr. Junkin noted that the applications had
been consolidated.
He introduced Don Palmer,
consultant; Robert Buchanan, representing the applicants; and Pat Sullivant,
local counsel for the applicants.
Mr. Junkin referred to Commissioner
Doherty’s question about the review criteria.
He noted that Type IV, Review I criteria had been used originally, and
is normally used for review of partition of parcels into 160 acres or
more. This requires a partition request,
including a variance request. At oral
argument before LUBA the issue of process came up, and LUBA went on to review
the issues of the opponents. The
applicants concur that the process to follow should be the Type IV, Review II
criteria. That process requires a circular
area review, which is a mathematical approach, so they obtained consulting
services from PGP Valuation to conduct this review. Mr. Junkin explained the circular area review
process.
Mr. Junkin pointed out that,
according to this review, the parcels sizes being created are consistent with
surrounding parcels sizes. They are not
seeking to change the zone and will maintain agriculture uses.
Don Palmer, appraiser with
PGP Valuation, Inc. explained the report he prepared for the applicant, noting
that it is a statistical analysis, and parcel sizes were based on surveys, not the
Umatilla County Assessor’s records.
Commissioner Hansell referred
to the list on page 23 of Mr. Palmer’s report, asking if they chose specific
properties, or consecutive order. Mr.
Palmer replied that they had used consecutive order. Ms. Mabbott noted that it appeared they had
purposely chose the larger parcels instead of smaller ones, so the median size was
probably larger than if they had chosen smaller parcels. Mr. Palmer added that their analysis was based
on what was being proposed, and since the applicants were proposing larger acreages
they chose larger acreages for review.
Commissioner Doherty noted
that it appeared that the review demonstrated that creating these parcels would
not change the typical size of parcels in the area. Mr. Palmer agreed and noted that the conclusion
can also be drawn that the proposed parcel sizes fit into the middle to upper
end of parcels sizes in the area.
Robert Buchanan, farmer and
general manager of Seven Hills Properties testified that the resulting parcel sizes
and shapes will not affect use. They currently
grow wheat, unimpeded by the size or shape of property, as well as alfalfa, and
multiple grasses, grains and wine grapes.
There was discussion about
agricultural productivity and how it is germane to criteria. Commissioner Doherty noted that it would be
difficult to determine what productivity really is, and wondered if it was Mr.
Buchanan’s opinion that the opponents just don’t want diversity. Mr. Buchanan agreed.
Commissioner Givens asked if
it would be fair to summarize that, regardless of parcel size throughout the
subject area or even in the
Opponent Testimony: None.
Agency Testimony:
None.
Robert Klein, of Friends of
Umatilla County requested a continuance for time to review submitted materials. Ms. Mabbott responded that all materials and
information had been available to the public for at least seven days prior to
the hearing.
There was some discussion
about whether the record may be left open, since this hearing was on remand and
it was unclear if it would be considered the initial hearing. Commissioners determined that it would be
best to allow a fixed time for both parties to come back with substantive
information. Mr. Junkin requested that
if the record were left open, it be open for only seven days for submission of
evidence by the opponent. At conclusion
the applicant would have seven days for written response.
There was further discussion
about whether or not the opponents had adequate time to review materials. Ms. Mabbott again noted that the Planning
Department had done their due diligence in providing notice and making
materials available to the public. Mr.
Klein argued that it is not uncommon to attend a hearing and request time to
review new materials. Mr. Junkin and Mr.
Buchanan pointed out that this was not a new hearing, and the applicant had
been required to provide meticulous materials prior to the hearing. The opponents know the process and had sufficient
time to review the record. Their level
of diligence should be held to the same level as the applicants.
Motion: Commissioner
Givens moved to deny the request for continuance. Commissioner Doherty consulted with
There was further discussion
about whether or not the hearing should be continued or the record just left
open. Commissioner Givens withdrew his
motion to deny the request for continuance.
Motion: Commissioner Doherty
moved that, on behalf of the request of Robert Klein, the hearing be closed and
the record kept open to allow Friends of Umatilla County seven days to file
written response and serve on counsel for the applicant. Applicants’ counsel is then granted one week
for response, and deliberation is scheduled for
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at
Respectfully submitted,
Heather Haueter
Secretary