Dunes City Planning Commission

M I N U T E S  Regular Meeting - JULY 31, 2008 – 7:00PM

print file

City Hall – 82877 Spruce Street 97493

1. Call to Order and Roll Call

The regular meeting of the Dunes City Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 PM by Planning Commissioner Lee Riechel. Roll call was taken by Lee Riechel.

Present: Chairman Lee Riechel, Commissioner Ken Platt, Commissioner David Bellemore, Commissioner Sandy Jones.

Commissioner Ron Shearer and Commissioner Eggert Madsen were not present.

Others Present: Planning Secretary Lisa Ekelund, City Recorder Amy

Graham, City Attorney David Allen of Macpherson, Gintner & Diaz and members of the community.

2. Approval of Minutes

The Chairman discussed that the April minutes had not been approved.

Minutes of 06/24/08: Commissioner Bellemore moved to approve the June minutes as submitted and Commissioner Jones seconded. After unanimous vote the minutes of 6/24/08 were approved.

Minutes of 07/01/08: Commissioner Bellemore moved to approve the July minutes as submitted and Commissioner Jones seconded. After unanimous vote the minutes of 7/1/08 were approved.

3. Announcements and Informational Items

Chairman Riechel announced the topics of the evening. He said the City had retained a professional planner to aid the staff in putting together the various reports and paperwork that is called for in the code. He said his name is Larry Lewis and unfortunately he didn’t talk to him in time to get everything the way he believes it should be on the way the city does the process of staff report and findings of fact. He said there have been some changes directed by Mr. Lewis. He explained the changes of the staff report as compared to the findings of fact. He explained this is the reason for the missing findings of fact.

He introduced David Allen and said he was present to help with the Woahink Ridge PUD appeal.

Mr. Allen announced in the Norman Martin vs. Dunes City appeal, LUBA made a decision on 7/23/08 affirming in its entirety of the City’s decision. He said Mr. Martin had until August 13^{th to appeal the decision.}

4. Old Business

None

5. New Business

Woahink Ridge Estates PUD Appeal Map No. 19-12-11-40 Tax Lot 1400

At 7:15 pm the chairman turned over the meeting to Mr. Allen and then said the commission had received a memorandum that points to the code and a recommendation. He said Mr. Allen provided the code references. The Chairman said it's a ministerial type of decision and it’s the commissions place to either affirm or deny that the administrative decision was correct. He said it involves the timeline and circumstances which may have been present.

Mr. Allen gave the background of the submitted materials. He said the Commission should have his memo dated 07/28/2008 which laid out the different code provisions referenced by the planning secretary in her letter of denial dated 06/09/2008. He pointed out two letters dated 02/25/2008 and 02/27/2008 which were the letters Mr. Ward submitted to the planning secretary requesting an extension of time to submit the final plat for the Woahink Ridge Estates PUD. He then pointed out the 06/09/2008 letter of denial and subsequent to that, Mr. Ward filed an appeal letter and along with that he filled an appeal form along with the filing fee. Both of those documents were dated 6/23/08. Mr. Allen then said finally just to round out the information that would be relevant to look at would be the 02/08/2007 final order on remand from LUBA which was the order that was approved by the City Council. That final order of 02/08/2007 did a couple of things. First of all it denied the application for the stand alone subdivision but it approved the application for the PUD. Mr. Allen also referenced in a subsequent memo that he had prepared today, there was an ordinance that took effect on 03/08/2007 numbered Ordinance 189 that the council passed subsequent to their final order of approval on 02/08/2007.

Mr. Allen said he received a document from the property owners' attorney Mr. Bill Kloos. He said Mr. Kloos filed yesterday in circuit court, a petition for an alternative writ of mandamus. He said it alleges the request for an extension of time which was initiated on 02/25/2008 was subject to the 120 day requirement of reaching a final decision under ORS 227.179.

Mr. Allen said the statute applies to a final action that has to be taken on an application for a permit, a limited land use decision, or a zone change. He said that this particular request for extension of time to submit the final plat for approval does not fall within any of those categories. Therefore, reaching a final decision on that request for extension of time is not subject to the 120 day requirement. And during this process the City will have to respond in circuit court to the petition for alternative writ and the writ that will be issued and answer that writ and raise any defenses. He said he suggested in his memo one of the defenses pertinent to be raised at the outset would be a motion to dismiss the writ for lack of jurisdiction in circuit court and that will be part of the response in addition to some other issues that will be raised.

Mr. Allen said also, in the petition for writ the commission had in front of them which was filed 07/30/2008, the assertion is that because the petition for writ has been filed in circuit court, there's no longer any jurisdiction within the city to proceed on reaching a final decision. In effect, by filing the petition for writ, their attorney suggested there's no jurisdiction to proceed tonight and the jurisdiction is solely in the circuit court.

Mr. Allen said that's the assertion their attorney made and in his estimation, the jurisdiction still lies within the city even though the city will have to respond in circuit court. He said under the statutes that apply for this petition for writ, the city still has the ability to move forward and make the final decision tonight. He said the city will also have to deal with the issues in circuit court but there's nothing that precludes the commission from making a decision tonight.

Mr. Allen said he would be available for questions from the Commission. The Chairman said there was a code for the Planning Commission to hear an appeal and asked what their responsibility was.

Mr. Allen said this request for extension of time is something that is in the code. He said if the year is running up an extension could be filed within that year. He said the extension was filed past the one year period according to Dunes City Code (DCC). If a request is not made before a year is up, the PUD preliminary plan lapses and the owner has to go through the process all over again.

He said Mr. Ward addressed a code provision which allowed an extra 16 days but the code Mr. Ward used was for subdivision and not for PUD. He said the PUD provisions are clear and the application lapsed. Given the fact that the code provisions were clear, Mr. Allen said this falls within the type I decision.

Chairman Riechel said Mr. Allen's interpretation of this puts them in the type I process and there is no opportunity to evaluate extenuating circumstances. He said their findings tonight really only have to be yes the request for the extension occurred after the date of extinction for the approval.

Mr. Allen said what they are looking at is the criteria in place that was applied by the planning secretary and they are affirming the planning secretary's denial.

Mr. Allen said Mr. Ward is not present because they didn’t believe the City had jurisdiction at this point. He again made clear that this is the reason they are not present.

Chairman Riechel said the code is very straight forward. He then quoted the code regarding the timeline and appeal. He said they needed to discuss what Mr. Allen had told them. He said Mr. Allen's last paragraph in his statement if straight forward then he read it aloud. He said he personally has problems with not having discretion with this to the point of asking if Mr. Ward would challenge his position on the basis of bias because he’s been involved with this PUD from day 1. He said he believes he can render an impartial decision.

Commissioner Bellemore said he sat on the council that approved this. He said where they are sitting now is different and they could both be considered unbiased.

Commissioner Jones read aloud some of the request for extension and asked if it was disallowed appropriately. Mr. Allen explained the extension request process.

Commissioner Bellemore questioned the legal response to the 16 additional days and Mr. Allen said this applies to subdivisions and not PUD’s. He said the subdivision application was denied and then was approved as a PUD.

The Chairman said he found it difficult to go against the recommendation. He said they need a motion to affirm the letter of denial to Rob Ward on June 9th, 2008.

Commissioner Bellemore made a motion to affirm the letter of June 9th, 2008 by the planning secretary to deny the Woahink Ridge PUD extension request and Commissioner Platt seconded. After unanimous vote the motion passed.

Mr. Allen said he came for the Woahink Ridge PUD matter but said he was willing to stay.

The Chairman said he would like to set up a standard process for a public hearing with Mr. Lewis then he dismissed Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen departed from the meeting.

6. Public Hearing

Conditional Use Permit 08-04 Jones

Commissioner Jones recused herself at 7:49 pm.

Chairman Riechel began the hearing for the Conditional Use Permit 08-04 Jones at 7:50 pm.

The planning secretary read her staff report and added reference to the assessment of the neighbors view. She said it is only an estimated as they were only looking from the shoreline and not in the area where the actual structure would float.

The Chairman said the applicant has the right to have a decision based on identifiable criteria based on the staff report which has been amended. He said any testimony that can be used as a basis for appeal must be clear in reference to criteria to the point that it can be used as an appeal with LUBA. If the input data does not specifically identify against the criteria, it can be rejected. The participant also has the right to request that the proceeding be continued to another day or if the recommendation is reached by the group that the record remains open for 7 days for new evidence or testimony. It will go before City Council August 14th, 2008. He asked if there was any conflict of interest in this matter. All said no.

The Chairman asked for ex-parte contacts and to describe the extent of it.

Commissioner Bellemore said they all went on a site review and it conformed to the maps and that nothing new was discovered.

The Chairman said questions were asked of the applicant as to what goes where.

The Chairman said the applicant's rebuttal time is unlimited.

APPLICANT'S SUMMARY

Ms. Jones from 82917 Cloud Nine Rd. Dunes City said she was present to discuss their application. The history is they currently have a Dunes City permit and a permit from the State of Oregon for a 640 sq ft dock/boat house. She said as they were going through the process for the permit, the codes from the state changed stating people can no longer use treated wood piles in the lake. She said the new codes state wood piles can no longer be jetted in which has been a traditional method on Woahink Lake. She said the piling is now required to be driven and when they were faced with driving piles and not wanting to use the 36 untreated wood posts that were required by application she said it made more sense to switch to a steel piling dock. Her original 640 sq ft dock had the boathouse aligned with the structure and no outboard area. She said when they realized they were going to have to have steel piling, it made more sense to go to a floating dock and that requires the boat house to be centered on the float so it pushed them into the need for a bigger dock if they were to accomplish what they would like for their family which is a boathouse where they could store boats, life jackets and swim floats for the kids and so on, and also having an area where they could fish, swim, pull up a kayak or canoe. She said this is the history of what brought them to the CUP, just not being able to squeeze those uses into a 640 sq ft floating dock that doesn't want the weights on the edge of the floats. She said if this CUP goes forward tonight, she would rather have the motion say 997 sq ft or less that the applicant is asking for because they may choose to make it smaller. She said she doesn't want to be held to building 997. She said the 997 or less would include the gangway to the land. In the pre-proposal meeting after the application the question of lighting came up. She said they would have a dock light that switched from the house as well as the dock on a three way switch so if they are in the house they can turn the lights on the dock door off at night. It is not their intent to have lighting on the structure after it gets dark unless they happen to be using it. She said the location of the dock is pretty straight off to center of their house. She said the bank is about 80 ft from the house corner. She said there is a 50 ft setback on the shore that is delineated on the plan. She said all of the vegetation is all native. There are some tree stumps from dead trees. The only tree removed was from a rotten tree and a permit was pulled. She said they don’t plan on having any impervious surfaces like concrete or asphalt to the lake from the house. Most likely it would be gravel and stepping stones so water doesn’t sheet into the lake. She said she could provide a sample of the stain they intend to use. She said they weren't required to do an erosion control plan because of the small area involved. She said the bank where they hope to build from is sandstone. She said it's pretty stiff although it has slough in some areas where it's settled down. She said the bottom of the lake has dead trees and old lumber on it that's probably from an old dock that sank or something. She said she didn't know. She said the bottom of the lake doesn’t have any living green plants that are rooted and floating up to the top such as lily pads. She said it's kind of mucky so it could be some kind of algae in there but they are not looking at ripping out any plants that are common to the so called littoral zones as far as she could tell but she is not a biologist and so she doesn't know where the boundaries of the littoral zones concern the state. She said she say's this because the state department has new regulations where they're looking for smaller docks because they're concerned about the habitat for fish. She said if someone has questions about her understanding of it, she would like to expand on it, but she said she didn't want to take up too much more of the commission's time. She asked if there were any questions.

Commissioner Bellemore said he was trying to follow her discussion about going from wood pilings to steel pipe. He said it sounded like their expansion of the dock over the standard size had something to do with steel pipe. He asked if there was something about the steel pipe that makes an oversized dock the only feasible size.

Ms. Jones said in a way yes, if one wants a boathouse as well which is what they want to do. Because with wood posts in the lake, which was their initial intent, there are 36 wood posts, you could align the boathouse on wood post but couldn't walk around the boathouse without wading in the lake. Once they went with the steel pipes and had to center them on floats, they plan on 8 ft floats on outboard edge so the boathouse edge would be down the 4 ft line. She said she drew it like that and submitted it like that but they might go back down to a 6 ft because they could still deal with it because they would have close to 3 ft on the outboard edge. She said she didn't want to go smaller than that because she doesn’t believe it would be safe to have smaller walkways around the boat house. She said also, getting more symmetrical with the steel piling makes sense where as with the 640 foot plan, they had a rectangular boathouse and they had a certain square platform because they were trying to squeeze it all in there. When they started talking about steel pilings, it made more sense to try to do the symmetrical arrangement. When they put the floats on they put a galvanized steel space frame on top of that and then you do a composite deck on top of that. She said irregular sizes would make it more expensive and more difficult for that sort of construction. She said she would also like to add that when they go to the steel pilings, because you don't want to put in 36 galvanized steel piling, you go to the 6 it's not economical to do something other than a floating dock. She said they could still look at trying to fix steel beams between those pilings, but the pilings are really there to stabilize the float. She said they're not there as a load bearing piling. She said it would get complicated to look at load bearing piling.

Commissioner Bellemore said he was wondering if the city would have to face this again if everyone who wants to put in a boathouse using steel pilings would come in with the same request for an oversized variance.

Ms. Jones said it's a possibility if they want a boathouse as well as a dock area.

Commissioner Bellemore asked if the steel pilings, as Ms. Jones designed it; there is no way to keep it down to 640 sq ft.

Ms. Jones said it's very difficult. She said they would have to either sacrifice the boathouse, or sacrifice the deck area. She said she would like an approval for a 997 sq ft or less because she's thinking that when all is said and done, maybe something in an 800 sq ft range plus the boarding pier might be where they wind up.

Commissioner Bellemore asked the Chairman when they grant a variance like this do they need to have a set of plans to rule on or do they grant a variance for the oversize not knowing how much oversized it will be.

Chairman Riechel stated the commission conditions to what they will allow. They build the framework and the limits that the city wants to go to and then they ask the applicant, can you do what you want to do within these limitations.

Commissioner Bellemore then verified that the commission doesn't have to have a set of plans.

Chairman Riechel said no because what happens is when they come in for a building permit, the building department will look over the structure and say what is right and what is wrong.

Commissioner Bellemore said this is the first time they have had so little to go on as far as plans.

Chairman Riechel responded saying they could do something about it and go from there.

Commissioner Bellemore asked Ms. Jones if she had any intention of putting in a sand beach.

Ms. Jones said no.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Chairman Riechel asked if there were any proponents that would like to speak.

No one answered.

Chairman Riechel asked if there were any opponents that would like to speak.

Mr. Ralph Farnsworth said he had telephone calls because of the monster that was built at the South end of Woahink Lake. He said it's a set of stairs going down to a boat dock. He said he has also had calls because directly across from the Sunset Cove, they asked to put in a modest dock which was approved and that turned out to be 100 feet long. After it was under construction, two other neighbors asked to have it changed and they just went ahead and changed it without asking anyone. He said he's become sensitized to things being built on the lake. He tests the water making sure nothing affects the water to the lake, rain or shine. He said the phosphorus levels have dropped and the City needs to be careful not to give up. He said when he saw this in the newspaper at 900 ft +, he gave some thought to it. He said he build a boathouse 6 years ago. He was told there was a 640 sq ft size limit. It's done with steel pilings and it's done on floats. It's centered over the floats and he is parking a 23 ft boat and a kayak on the wall in his boathouse. He said he can walk by his kayak in the 2.5-3 ft space. He said they need to watch for wind sheer. He thinks the size is too big at 997 sq ft of which 376 sq ft will be the boathouse which would take a canoe or something and now he finds out it isn't quite right and when he looks at the sketch, he sees something that doesn't seem to be centered, it seems to have something off to one side which is confusing and when he’s confused he says no. He said based on the fact that its way outside of the code if the Planning Commission has any questions, he would be more than happy to answer them.

Chairman Riechel asked if there were any other opponents and no one answered. He said they would have rebuttal.

Ms. Jones said if something doesn’t look centered, the boathouse walls would be centered on floats and there are multiple floats under a dock of this size. She said the approval is for 997 or less and there is a good chance they would go to a 6 ft float on the outboard edge center any maybe take a couple feet off of the boathouse itself which would make the dock more likely to be 800 something square feet. She said she would like flexibility and if it’s approved they will provide exact drawings and dimensions. She said what works for one person doesn’t always work for another. She said they intend to have a lot of family using this and some people don’t have large families.

Chairman Riechel closed the public meeting at 8:30

DELIBERATION

The chairman proposed the section of code 155.2.3.200 C that specifies all of the things you could do with just a building permit. He said this has worked to produce an acceptable dock and boathouse as needed. According to Sandy is the only thing they are doing outside of that is the square footage area. If they recommend approval with the condition that all the required elements of 155.2.3.200(C) apply to this boathouse other than the exception of square footage, it takes care of a lot then build the details from there. He said this is one way they could go. He said there is a sample of stain in the car and the city should have this in hand for final inspection. He said something Sandy had said that he hadn't though of before was if you use wooden piles you would use a lot of them and anchor everything to everything else. You actually put a structure on it and elevate above the surface of the water which is the original intent but the State said no, then you get into the money of driving relatively high cost piling. The other option would be to float it and anchor it as needed to stabilize the floats.

Ms. Jones said the state doesn't say no, but they won't let you put treated wood in and their thought would be that the wood would rot out.

Chairman Riechel made comment about waterproof concrete inside of pipe. He then said the exterior light was also controlled within the code as the code says there needs to be manually switched or operated by a motion sensor but cannot be photo sensitive. He said another condition assuming they do this, could be to come to some sort of agreement to what the maximum extension into the lake to allow this structure. He said 997 sq ft is quite a bit more than 640 but even from that, you would subtract the gangway footing.

Commissioner Bellemore asked if the gangway included the 997 sq ft plan.

Ms. Jones said yes the gangway is included in the 997 sq ft.

The planning secretary questioned if discussion with Ms. Jones was appropriate after the hearing was closed and the commission in deliberation.

Chairman Riechel said this is typical during deliberation that they are able to discuss with the applicant if they have questions and if someone says it's not right, they will worry about it later. He said during deliberation, they come up with question.

Commissioner Bellemore said the chief concerns are any kind of construction method that minimizes disturbance of the bottom of the lake and as he understands it, a few steel pipes are better than a lot of wood. He said the biggest issue is the size and this is the request for conditional use. He said he is torn because the floating dock is good because they provide shade but then rules are rules. As Ralph Farnsworth said he did it within the rules.

Lee said the reason that this exists in this manner was just a streamline process to provide a standard minimum usable size for appropriate usage so all you would need is a building permit. It’s a conditional use except if you meet the requirements in section C. It’s not a variance it’s conditional use.

The Chairman asked Commissioner Platt if this fit in his idea of the code. Commissioner Platt said yes but he would like it a bit smaller.

Commissioner Bellemore said he is torn be cause he doesn’t want this to turn into a trend. He said rules are rules and as Ralph Farnsworth pointed out; he built a dock/boathouse in the same manner and kept it within the size requirement. He said if they could minimize the square footage down to 640 as much as possible he would be happier with it.

The commission discussed size options and the reasonable aspects for safety.

Ms. Jones added that the state will count the gangway in the square footage. She said the state approves 1000 and under including the gangway. She then discussed options to making it smaller.

Commissioner Bellemore made a motion to grant the conditional use permit for the boathouse with a 997 sq ft maximum. Commissioner Platt seconded the motion.

Planning secretary, Lisa Ekelund reminded the commission that they are to be making a recommendation as opposed to granting the conditional use permit.

Chairman Riechel said they were recommending and the motion will be to

recommend to the city council.

Planning secretary, Lisa Ekelund pointed out Commissioner Bellemore said grant instead of recommend.

Commissioner Bellemore said he would like to amend his motion to say recommend.

Chairman Riechel said they should write it down this far.

Planning secretary, Lisa Ekelund asked Commissioner Platt if he seconded the amendment and he nodded yes.

Chairman Riechel said they should discuss the conditions that are appropriate.

Commissioner Bellemore said he would like call to for an amendment to his motion that they recommend approval with the 155.2.3.200 (c) requirements except for area.

Chairman Riechel said this also limits the amount of stuff that you can clear or put through the shore land.

Commissioner Platt seconded the amendment and at 8:52 pm.

Chairman Riechel sail all those in favor of amendment please signify by saying aye. All said aye and Chairman Riechel said that's enough. The Chairman then asked the commission if they had any other recommendations to consider. He said the one covers so much.

Chairman Riechel said he is calling for a vote on the acceptance with conditions. All said aye. Chairman Riechel said unanimous 4.

Chairman Riechel said this is for a recommendation to the City Council that this be approved with the condition that other than for square footage, that the structure adhere to code section 155.2.3.200(c).

Chairman Riechel called for a 7 minute break at 8:53 pm and the meeting reconvened at 9:04 pm.

Conditional Use Permit 08-05 Harris

Chairman Riechel read the property address of the applicant as 5205 Hilltop Drive.

The chairman asked if there was any conflict of interest and all commissioners said no. He then asked if there was any ex-parte contact. Other than the sight review, all commissioners said no.

The Chairman asked if any other facts had arisen from the site review that was not on the staff report. He said he wanted to try something first before this was opened to public hearing because he felt he wanted to table this. He said there were troubles with the maps defining what tax lots were related in effect to parcels. After the site review the city may have come into additional findings of fact.

He said what is referred to as parcel 2 and lot 7 block 2 Siltcoos Heights second addition are exactly lot 2800 some time in the past the two lots have been combined. For tax purposes there is one lot. He said there is a problem getting started on this because it’s showing another lot being made and it can’t be done if it’s substandard.

The Chairman proposed to ask the applicant to define her property and use Mr. Ward or whomever to define the two lots in existence and lot 2800 is indeed two lots even though the county says there is only one.

The Chairman said the applicant has the right to have a decision based on identifiable criteria based on the staff report which has been amended. He said any testimony that can be used as a basis for appeal must be clear in reference to criteria to the point that it can be used as an appeal with LUBA. If the input data does not specifically identify against the criteria, it can be rejected. The participant also has the right to request that the proceeding be continued to another day or if the recommendation is reached by the group that the record remains open for 7 days for new evidence or testimony.

The public hearing opened at 9:10 pm

Planning secretary, Lisa Ekelund read the staff report.

Ms. Harris gave her name and address 83369 Osprey Way Florence Oregon. She said she was unaware of the new findings and she is not quite prepared. She said the history is she and her husband have lived on hilltop drive for 22 years. The past five years they have lived on osprey. She said it is not proposed parcel 1 and 2 it is actual and was bought 1968 and 1977. She said they were combined as one tax lot after 1977 and she doesn’t remember it happening as just a tax lot but it doesn’t change the integrity of the two parcels. She said parcel 2 is just fruit trees and a living habitat for mason bees and native pollinators. She said they want to maintain that as parcel 2. She said she did research on parcels and how it works. One of the LUBA laws is when parcels are combined into a tax lot they maintain their integrity as separate lots. She said the summary of their application is without minimizing or special conditions. The end result would make lot 3 over 1 acre and parcel 2 would shift to be a little bigger and parcel 1 would be a little bigger. Parcel 1 already is one of the larger lots and if it’s given an extra 10 feet there would be a setback as needed because the house encroaches on the parcel 2 line. She said the lot rule is tax lots are for tax purposes and if you combine the parcels it doesn’t deem the integrity of the parcels.

Commissioner Jones asked Ms. Harris why they combined them and Ms. Harris said she doesn’t know.

Commissioner Jones asked if there ever a thought to combine 2 with 3 and Ms. Harris said they want separate parcels.

Commissioner Bellemore asked for clarification as to what Ms. Harris is considering lots and tax lots and Ms. Harris explained.

The Chairman explained the difference in idea of a parcel as opposed to a tax lot of records. He said a lot can be composed of 10 different parcels. He said each one gets a different tax statement. He said the parcel is the designation of the tax lot.

Ms. Harris said it is a semantic thing. Lots and parcels were the same per LUBA when they purchased the property. The terminology is interchangeable.

Commissioner Bellemore said the pins may be there because no one pulled them up but the legal definition is what they should go by.

Ms. Harris said they have never taken any action to combine the two.

Commissioner Jones asked if the property was never vacated.

Commissioner Bellemore said if the county says there is no parcel then it needs to be acknowledged.

Chairman Riechel said perhaps there had been an error somewhere along the line by the tax assessor.

Commissioner Bellemore said they can only go by what the county says so some more investigation needs to be done.

Ms. Harris dismissed herself.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Deborah Pasternak stated in regards to lot #2 she is confused. She said it’s a conditional use permit for a lot line adjustment. She questioned if it’s a partition.

Chairman Riechel said they don’t know.

Ms. Pasternak said it’s also mentioned that the water service is provided by Siltcoos Heights community water and she believes this is run by Dan Reitz but only service is supplied to parcel 1 and 2. She said she questions if there will ever be water run on parcel 2 and she is under the impression no more rights are allowed for future parcels.

The Chairman said if parcel 2 exists and is sold, dunes city is responsible to make sure water is available in some form before it is approved.

Ms. Pasternak asked if it would then be a well.

The Chairman said Dunes City is only responsible for when the lot was created and we are looking back in the time that it was created. He said there would need to be a disclosure

Commissioner Bellemore said people have to prove they can get water to build a house.

Ms. Pasternak said she believes she was ill informed of the lot line adjustment as opposed to a partition.

The Chairman asked for rebuttal.

Ms. Harris said she would make sure the information would be provided to clarify the tax lot/parcel question.

 

The public hearing closed at 9:49

DELIBERATION

Commissioner Bellemore said nothing can be done until the question is settled. He questioned if they should table and ask for additional information, go ahead to approve with conditions, or deny. He said it could be a mistake in denying it.

Lee suggested Ms. Harris request extension to the 120 days and sign a waiver to allow time to find the needed documentation clarifying the legal description of the properties in question.

Commissioner Bellemore moved to table the matter of the conditional use permit for the Harris's with the provision that the waiver of the 120 day rule is provided within 7 days and to continue the public hearing until the September Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and after unanimous vote it passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Bellemore moved to adjourn the meeting and Commissioner Jones and Platt sequentially seconded. After unanimous vote, the meeting adjourned at 10:03pm

Respectfully Submitted,

Lisa Ekelund

Planning Secretary