Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'll call this meeting to order.

It is August 20th at 6 p.m. Let's start with the flag salute, please, if everyone can see. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Again, good evening. It's good to see everyone here. My name is Dan Burke. I'm the current planning commission chair. I'll allow the commission members to introduce themselves, starting on my far left. Jacob Gibbs. Tim Allen.

Andy Odds.

Michael Widmer. And if staff could introduce themselves as well.

I'm Jeff Fleerbach, planning manager. Josh Gibson, senior planner.

And Lisa's hiding over there. Yeah. There is a sign-in sheet in the back. There should be agendas in there. Please sign that if you're wanting to speak tonight. If he crashes the party, just call her. First item on the agenda is the minutes from the previous meeting on June 18. So I'm hoping everyone had a chance to review that. So I'll be looking for a motion. Motion to approve. Do I have a motion? Do I have a second?

I can second it.

I'll second it. And moved and seconded. Any other discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Okay. As far as our agenda for tonight, we will be removing the third option, the gypsy investments. That's been withdrawn, right, Jeff, at this time? Okay. And our first item on the agenda is had properties LLC planning department file number 26-032 request for a comprehensive plan amendment of four units of land totaling 0.97 acres from medium density residential RMD to high density residential RHD together with the zone change from R1 single family residential to R2 multi-family residential. So do I have any commissioners that have any conflict of interest or ex parte contacts or any site visits? Do we have a qualified parties list on this one, Jeff?

We do. For the agenda items, for both agenda items, if you can pass those around.

Okay, so it looks like in favor, we've had properties LLC applicant and title holder. Dustin Jinks had properties LLC and Thomas McIntosh applicants representative. Are any of those folks here tonight? Okay. Would you like to speak? Yep. Yep. Okay. If you real quick could just give your name and your address real quick, and if you're in favor of who you are and so on, then I'll All right. Is there anyone else here that would like to speak in favor? Anyone neutral? Anyone opposed? Okay. Okay. At this point, staff, you can give a staff report.

Good evening, Chair Burke and fellow commissioners. I'm submitting exhibits 1 through 14 into the records. the applicant had properties llc is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment from medium density residential rmd to high density residential rhd of 0.97 acres comprising four legal lots of record together with the zone change from r1 single family residential to r2 multiple family residential the property lies within the city of myrtle creek urban growth boundary located on the north side of henry street approximately 75 feet easterly from its intersection with Taylor Street. The properties are currently vacant. The properties are described as tax lots 1300, 1301, 1403, and 1404, 1507 AC of Township 30, Range 5, And property numbers R29750, R120746, R130893, and R130894. And they are subject to the irrevocable offer to dedicate and right-of-way protections overlay. Notice that the proposed amendment was provided to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development on July 14th, 2026, which is at least 35 days prior to the initial evidential hearing on August 20th, 2026 today. Property owners with 100 feet affected public districts and agencies and the South County Planning Advisory Committee were notified of this request by mail. Notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation. As of the writing of this staff report, no comments have been received. Based upon the findings outlined above, planning staff recommends approval of the requested comprehensive plan amendment from medium-density residential, RMD, to high-density residential, RHD, and zone change from R1, single-family residential, to R2, multiple-family residential, of 0.97 acres comprising four lots of record, which meet the criteria of Chapter 6 and Chapter 3 of the Douglas County Land Use and Development

So at this time, would the applicant or applicant's representative like to come give some testimony? And if you can come up, state your name and your address, and then your testimony.

My name is Dustin Jinks, 440 Clark Street, Mark Creek. I'm the owner and applicant. As we all know, there is a shortage of housing units in Douglas County. There's all changes to add density in existing areas. That's what we're planning on doing.

Any questions? So your intention is to build multiple family housing on all of these?

Correct. That's one of the options. Duplex is one of the options. Worst case, it would go back to a single family.

So looking at the aerial map here, I see like a home or some kind of a building back behind it.

So there's right away through the property for them. Yep. There's an easement. There's actually two homes back there. Uh, there's one currently that we're building. There's an existing one that's on that map. And then there is a duplex on the corner of, uh, Henry and Taylor. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. At this point, we don't have anyone else in favor or opposed or neutral. So we will close the public portion. Do we have any comments, concerns?

Similar to I think your question, Andy, this isn't necessarily to you, but to staff on the constraints of multifamily or the limits, I guess. What does that mean from single family to multifamily? How many units do you want to talk about?

BUILT OUT TO THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT, YOU'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT 30 UNITS. SO THAT'S BASED ON COMBINING THREE TAX LOTS TOGETHER ON THE WEST SIDE OF THAT ACCESS TO THAT HOUSE IN THE BACK BECAUSE THERE IS A 25-FOOT EASEMENT BETWEEN THOSE. SO IF YOU GIVE OR TAKE A FEW, I MEAN, IF THEY WANTED TO BUILD IT OUT THE BEST THEY COULD, IT WOULD BE 30. BUT THERE IS PROBABLY SOME involved as well. There are depending on how many plexes you have. There are different standards for, there's not so many standards for a three plus or a three plex. There's bicycle requirements for four plex and then five plex, five plex and above. Then there would have to be some type of agreement or covenant that indicates that 50% of those units have to be for affordable housing. So, but yeah, you're looking at if it was everything.

I'm looking at the bookends here.

So I'm assuming within the city, so there's utilities available as far as water, sewage, all that?

Correct. They are both in tri-city water and sanitation. Okay. So that would be one thing that they would need to approve of. Yes. So for every two units, there needs to be three parking spaces. And then there's also access requirements. So Public Works would have to have, I think, I believe an 18-foot paved access into wherever they decide to put the units. Nice.

Just for clarity, I was curious what the... Any other discussion?

If not, I'll be looking for... Our purview doesn't go to what you do. It's more of just, I'm curious. I didn't understand what the... Understanding the high-density residential. Yeah, what does that fully encompass, regardless of what your plans may or may not be. It's just education on what's possible to make sure.

So I'll be looking for a motion.

YOU WANT ME TO READ THE WHOLE THING? JUST THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FILE.

26-032. OH, THERE WE GO.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT FILE. SO I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FILE NUMBER 26-032. I'LL SECOND.

MOVED AND RAISED FOR SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? None being heard, all in favor?

Aye. Did the deferral go to Michael for the second? Okay. Thank you, Jim.

Just for the record, second place doesn't get you a blue ribbon.

Yes. We anticipated with the lack of neighbor concerns that we could have findings So if we want to all kind of speed read them We can still yep

They're the same as what's in the file, right?

Yes. Yeah, and the findings then are a summary of what just transpired that we, by doing findings now, we saved the client to waiting a month for them to be signed at the next meeting. So when we can, we'll try to do that.

Friend's on now.

Evening, Rick. Can you guys hear me? Yep. Yep.

Can you hear us? Yep.

We're currently, Brent, on... We're finalizing finding of facts for the Had Properties LLC, the Planning Department File Number 26032. And the Number 3, the Gypsy Investments, has been withdrawn.

Yeah, if you want to make a motion on those findings. So I'll make a motion that we approve the add properties LLC.

But this is findings of fact. Thank you. Per file 26032. I'll second that.

Any other discussion? If none, be heard. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

And I'll just write in Andy's name on here.

I said aye, if you didn't hear me.

OK, I'll add another one.

Trust me, we can hear you. Right. To clarify, if I might, for your motion to be officially official, as amended to include Andy Owens and Brent Atkinson.

Brent's on here. Oh, sorry. So we're good with that, with the amendment to add? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. And seconded. Any other discussion? All in favor? All right, the next item on the agenda is a hearing for Bruce and Nicole Leatherwood, Planning Department File Number 26-016. It's an appeal of a request for a single-family dwelling not in conjunction with farm use on 9.85 acres unit of land located east of Platt K Road on the north side of Furr Vista Road, approximately three miles east of Sutherland. So we have a qualified party list. Real quick, do we have any commissioners with conflict of interest, exporte contacts, or site visits?

No.

Okay, we have a qualified party list. So those in favor, is Bruce and Nicole Leatherwood here?

I'm Nicole.

Okay, just you. Is Oregon Department of State lands here? I don't see anyone. And then opposed, I have a Robert DeVito. Okay. Mark and Debbie Smith. Yeah, I'm Mark Smith. Okay. Thank you. Brent and Marissa Yeager. Here. Okay. And then is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor? Okay. What was your name?

Erica Tender.

And what's your address?

203 Johnson Street.

Okay. Anyone else on the neutral side? Anyone else opposed that would like to speak?

Okay.

All right. At this point, we would have this ask of the staff for the staff report.

Good evening, commissioners. Commissioner Chair Birx and our other commissioners, we'll give you the Staff Exhibits 1 through 16. And they are for the Staff Exhibits portion. And I'll give you a brief summary of the report. So... So the matter before the Planning Commission is the appeal of the Bruce and Nicole Leatherwood request for a single-family dwelling not in conjunction with farm use. It's called a non-farm dwelling on a 9.85-acre unit of land located east of Platte Bay Road on the north side of Ferb Vista Road, approximately three miles east of Selwyn. Subject property is vacant of development. The planning director issued a decision on the request on June 23, 2026, approving the request of non-farm dwelling subject to several conditions of approval. During the approval period, a timely notice of appeal of the planning director's decision was filed on July 2, 2026, by applicant Nicole Motherwood. In summary, Ms. Leatherwood appealed the imposition of Conditions 2 and 3 of the decision based on several issues and concerns and asserted that these conditions were placed without valid explanation and with unjust cause. Condition 2 relates to the property owners being required to record with the Douglas County Clerk an agreement to participate in private maintenance program for the local access road for Vista Road. serving the subject property unless an existing agreement, maintenance agreement is already in place for the roadway. Condition number three relates to requiring the applicants and property owners to provide certification from a consulting civil engineer licensed by the state of Oregon that Fur Vista Road, which serves the subject property, is in substantial conformance with the road improvement standards set forth in LUDO section 4.20.28 . for issuance of a building permit for the requested dwelling. Ms. Leatherwood asserted that the two imposed conditions are discriminatory without just cause, placing undue hardship on the property owners. During the administrative review of the dwelling application, several objections were raised by the neighbors who live on Firm Vista Road, which included concerns about additional traffic, the driveway location, road deterioration, and visibility and safety hazards and access of the roadway. For Vista Road is an existing local access road under the comprehensive plan. It is a publicly dedicated roadway that is not under county maintenance, but is maintained by the property owners that use the public right-of-way. Conditions two and three were applied as conditions of approval to help mitigate the neighbor's concerns about the use of For Vista Road. The grounds for the appeal are addressed throughout the report. The subject property is located in an area of mixed resource and rural residential properties. The properties are located immediately to the west, north, and east, and over a half-quarter mile to the southwest. Along Platte Cave Road are zoned FG, exclusive farm use grazing, and to the southeast along Purvis Road are zoned FF farm forests. The FG and FF zones permit a variety of farm and forest uses. The majority of these surrounding resource properties are developed with or have approval for single family dwellings. The adjacent nearby properties to the south along the first portion of Ferguson Road and along Flat K Road and just a lane to the south are zone 5R, rural residential five acre. This enclave of rural residential properties is developed primarily with single-family dwellings. In the FG zone, LUDO 3.3075.9 permits a single-family dwelling not in conjunction with farm use, technically called a non-resource dwelling, subject to the criteria of Article 43, Section 3.43.100. A non-resource dwelling is considered the same as a non-farm dwelling, and the Pursuant to Sec Ludo 2.400.8, the hearing on an appeal of an administrative decision shall be de novo, which means the Planning Commission can render a decision on the matter without reverence to the previous decision, as if the case was being heard for the first time. The Planning Commission can review all issues in the matter and not just rely on the grounds for the appeal. Procedural findings of fact, the planning director issued that administrative decision on June 23rd, 2026. A timely notice of appeal was filed on July 2nd, 2026 by Nicole Leatherwood, property owners within 750 feet of the subject 9.85 acre property. effective service providers governmental agencies in the north county planning advisory committee were notified by mail of the appeal hearing on july 23rd 2026 a notice was published in the news review at least 20 days prior to tonight's hearing so the staff report kind of addresses a lot of the different criteria particularly for the dwelling but really for concern tonight is at least based on the appeal. It's going to be more the access and appeal issues. Just to give you a brief summary of those. So LUTO 4.100.5 provides that a unit of land shall be considered to have access by way of the street, either private or public, if the unit of land abuts the street, has legal right to use the street, and the street provides actual physical access to the unit of land. The subject property is accessed via Platt K Road, thence via Firm Vista Road, and an existing local access road. Records from the county surveyor and the Douglas County Public Works indicate that Firm Vista Road was dedicated as a public right-of-way in 1911. As related to the specific parts of the appeal, appellant, Ms. Leatherwood, had submitted specifically objected to the imposition of conditions two and three, which were kind of outlined a little bit previously, asserting that those conditions were placed without valid explanation or unjust cause. The staff report does try to explain to those. And so to address condition number two, this condition was applied to mitigate concerns of the neighbors about the additional traffic impacts to Burr Vista Road. It was added as a reasonable and appropriate condition that is typically required in land use approvals when a new use introduces additional traffic on a privately maintained road. In the appeal, Ms. Leatherwood explained how she had researched the applicability of existing road maintenance covenants to other property owners along Fur Vista Road, including those neighbors who had complained about the road deterioration. She asserted that the Douglas County Clerk's Office and a local title company did not find any evidence of recorded covenants regarding road maintenance for the neighbor's properties. It was noted in the staff report that whether evidence or not the recorded covenants for the roadway maintenance exists on the neighbor's property is not relevant or pertinent to the review of the applicant's non-farm dwelling request. The purpose of the requested condition is to ensure that if property owners who live on Ferguson Road decide to form a road maintenance program in the future, the property owners of the subject property would be required to participate in such a program. To address condition number three, staff required condition number three, which is regarding the certification of the road, to mitigate concerns regarding traffic impacts. Although Vervista Road is a local access road, it is recognized as a private road since it is privately maintained by the users of the roadway. It currently provides access to four or more units of land. During the administrative decision, staff determined that it was appropriate and reasonable to apply the same road standards that would be imposed if the applicant property owners were applying for dwelling on a private road based on the traffic concerns raised by the neighbors. To help mitigate those concerns and the potential deterioration of Furvista Road, staff still finds that it is reasonable and appropriate to apply the standards of LUTO 4.350.7D3 as a condition of approval to ensure the roadway will be in substantial conformance with the road improvements set forth in Ludo sections 4.4202A to C, which state that Ludo design criteria is the finished top surface width of the road shall be a minimum of 12 feet. The road bed shall have an all-weather surface of suitable material and good repair and of sufficient depth to ensure a solid road bed, but in no place less than four inches of crushed rock. C is turnout shall be provided no further than 600 feet apart and not less than 50 feet in length and eight feet in width, excluding taper. One of the concerns expressed by the applicant in the appeal is about potential improvements on the roadway. And she was concerned about liability. To clarify the applicant's question on liability, staff mentioned in the staff report that whoever is hired to make the improvements is required to be licensed, bonded, and insured. The work they perform to meet the necessary requirements is reviewed by an Oregon professional license engineer who assumes liability as she or he certifies that the roadway has been improved and is in substantial conformance with the required improvement standards. Conclusion. Based on the sightings in the staff report, exhibits, and applied conditions of approval, the requested non-farm dwelling on the existing 9.5 acre unit of land can be found to meet the applicable criteria set forth in Article 43 of the Douglas County Land Use and Development Ordinance. Action alternatives. The Planning Commission can close the public hearing and move to either alternative number one, Planning Commission denies the appeal and affirms the Planning Director's decision to approve the application based on the findings of the staff report and her testimony brought forward through the public hearing process, which recognize the approval criteria can be met subject to the original conditions of approval as follows. So condition number one, is the non-farm dwelling and its essential and accessory improvements and structures, including septic system and water source, shall be sited in substantial conformance with the plot plan provided with the application. The non-farm dwelling and its essential and accessory improvements and structures, including the well and septic system that will serve the subject dwelling, shall be located entirely with the area of generally unsuitable soils as identified on the submitted soil study and site plans. Condition two, the property owner shall record with Douglas County Clerk an agreement to participate in a private maintenance program for the local access road, for Vista Road, serving the subject property. This recorded agreement obligates the owners, their heirs, successors, and assigns to participate in any private maintenance program which may be formed by the users of the road and to share the cost of maintenance in proportion to the benefits of their respective properties. A sample of such agreement may be attained by the Planning Department. A copy of the recorded document shall be submitted to the Planning Department. If there is any existing road maintenance program in place for the road, which includes the subject property, a copy of that documentation will suffice to fulfill this condition. Condition 3, pursuant to LUTO section 4.350.7D, The applicant property owner shall provide certification from a consulting civil engineer licensed by the state of Oregon that Fur Vista Road, which serves the subject property, is in substantial conformance with the road improvement standards set forth in Ludo 4.220.2.A to C. Fur Vista Road shall be certified from its intersection with Platt K Road, County Road 75, through the point where the driveway veers north to serve the proposed rule. Condition four, the applicant property owner shall submit verification to the planning department that they have initiated the process for the subject property to be annexed in the Fair Oaks Rural Fire District. Unless otherwise provided by the fire district, the necessary paperwork for the annexation may be obtained by the planning department. Condition five, the property owner shall sign and record with the Douglas County Clerk a restrictive covenant for resource management. Such covenant shall run with the property and shall specify that owners of adjacent and nearby land will be allowed to conduct normal resource management practices on their properties and that the owners and subsequent owners of the subject property waive all rights to object to legal resource management activities. The required form can be obtained from the Planning Department A copy of the recorded document shall be submitted to the Planning Department. Condition 6. The applicant's property owner shall provide documentation from the Douglas County Assessor's Office that the subject property has been disqualified from receiving special farm or forest assessments, tax assessments, in accordance with ORS 215-236. Condition 7, once the appeal period has expired and the above conditions have been met, the applicant's property owner shall contact the planning department to obtain a planning clearance worksheet for authorization for the construction or placement of the non-farm dwelling. Planning clearance will allow the applicants to proceed with on-site services and building department for permitting processes. Advisory statement number one, the applicant's property owners are advised that the non-farm dwelling must comply with the provisions of RRS 215-236. which includes the subject property being limited from any future farm and forest assessments. Alternative number two, the Planning Commission approves the appeal and approves the application with modifications to conditions two and or number two and or number three, or with additional conditions of approval based on findings of facts and or testimony brought forward through the public hearing, which recognize the approval criteria can be met. Any questions?

So, quick question. This is a fairly complicated one, it looks like. So this was approved administratively. In that process, the applicant appealed it. And during that process is when it opened it up to the other issues that were brought up by the neighbors. Is that kind of the?

They were actually brought up during the administrative review. And that's why some of those conditions were, condition two and three were added to help mitigate those concerns. Gotcha. Okay.

Understood. Perfect. Perfect. Okay. That was the only question I had. Anyone else have any other questions?

I want clarification on non-farm dwelling versus residential. i'm used to seeing you know that we're going to put a residence so can you clarify that piece for me well in the

exclusive farm use grazing zone or like farm forest, one of those kind of zones, there's usually an option to get like a farm related type dwelling or a dwelling that's not in conjunction with farm use. So it's either in conjunction with farm use or not. And there could be other options depending on the zoning of the property. So it's kind of case by case, but a really common application is called a dwelling not in conjunction with farm use or what we call a non-farm dwelling. Usually it's a parcel, maybe depending on the size of it, it could be 10, 15 acres or less. usually and then somebody's applying and they they apply to the criteria which are pretty extensive and lots of things that have to be done to to try to obtain that approval but there's usually some soils documentation from soils consultant they actually had a land use consultant the leatherwoods did and they also have to do like a land use study around the property and some things like that so it's different than like across the street where it's already zoned for a dwelling because it may be years like 40 years ago or so when the The zoning was established in the early 80s that that area to the south, that zone 5R, a dwelling would just be a permitted use. But this kind of dwelling, they have to go through a review. There is notice to the neighbors, and the neighbors have an opportunity to comment or agencies as well to provide their feedback.

Thank you.

Any other questions for our staff before we move forward? All right. I was gonna ask it later, but I guess I'll ask it now. Kind of on line with your question, Mr. Chair, if comments hadn't been received during the administrative process, would conditions two and three been included?

Most likely not, because it is a local access road. So typically, but they're not uncommon to be done. Sure. Because, but it wouldn't be unusual for the road maintenance to, because it pertains not just to private roads, but for local access roads. The road certification may or may not have been required.

Questions? Okay, if not, the applicant would like to come forward. Nicole, do you want to come forward, state your address again, and then-

So I am Nicole Leatherwood, and I think, yeah, my address is 31410 Furview Lane, Crosswell, Oregon. Oh, my gosh. Furvista, Furviews. And so I was told that you guys did receive the paperwork and the pictures that I emailed earlier today. Were you able to review those? Because I do have another copy if you would like it.

They came in today. Well, so I received them today as staff to present at the hearing on your behalf. So officially, then, we're going to recognize those as you as the applicant. Those will be applicants exhibit number one. And I did make one copy, so I don't know if you have.

Yes, I have more copies.

There's the official applicants exhibit number one. It consists of a couple pages, double-sided, of written testimony and then additional excerpts from the two pages of text from the land use ordinance. And then I don't remember how many pictures.

Too many? I think there's like 10 pictures is what I had submitted, or 11.

And the pictures are...

of the existing width of the roadway?

Yes, as well as some of the concerns regarding the deterioration of the road. And one of the comments was that it was unsafe from one of the driveways where our proposed driveway was, which we disproportionately I didn't know when I was supposed to start. I'm sorry. I apologize.

Was that the only exhibit you had was just that?

Yes. I have another copy of the pictures here, but I guess I can give them to you. You're good. Do you have enough copies? I'm just trying to make sure I was prepared.

Jeff will put it in as an exhibit.

All right, so I am Nicole Dotherwood. I have filed an appeal on the conditions placed upon my nonpart dwelling application, file number 26-016. I filed an appeal to conditions number two and three placed upon my dwelling application because I disagree with the terms of these conditions and the ordinances, ordinances, ordinances referenced with justification to impose. Condition number two reads, property owners of R149517 are required to sign a road maintenance covenant and file the covenant with Douglas County Clerk or join an existing road maintenance group if one exists and provide documentation of joining. For Vista Road is a county public access road. Anyone can drive on it and all land or homeowners have a right to access and And as neighbors, we should all have equal rights and responsibilities. placed upon us. Without any of my neighbors having a publicly recorded cabinet on file for road maintenance, how can it legally be required of me to comply with this condition, considering the blatant inequality towards my family? My proposed driveway is approximately 660 feet from Platt K Road, making it the first house on Provista Road, utilizing less roadway than all other households. In order to do road maintenance, rules in public roads under county jurisdiction chapter 12.05.030 explained that the board may enter into an intergovernmental agreement with a special road district formed under ORS 371.305 to 371.385 for maintenance and repair of a local access road or The county road official may issue permits under section 12.05.150 of this chapter authorizing any person to maintain and repair a local access road. There is no special road district for Vista Road, which can be defined as an area residents vote to establish a district which levies a property tax to fund road maintenance and follows Oregon State Legislature Chapter 371 road districts and road assessment plans. Looking into a personal permit to do road maintenance, it was explained to me by Steve Williams, the county has not been issuing permits for road maintenance on county public access roads, not IN THEIR MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS. IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT DOUGLAS COUNTY IS REQUIRING PRIVATE LAND OR HOMEOWNERS DO MAINTENANCE ON COUNTY PUBLIC ACCESS ROADS, NOT ON A PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT, BUT SEA WAS UNSURE OF RETAINED LIABILITY AFTER WORK COMPLETION. CONDITION NUMBER THREE STATES PROPERTY OWNERS OF R149517 ARE REQUIRED TO CERTIFY FOR VISTA ROAD THROUGH AN OREGON LICENSE ENGINEER TO MEET LUDO 4.420 2A to C. This condition also requires my family to do any maintenance that is required to bring the road up to certification standards. I guess, as Lisa did say, it would be a licensed contractor, but we would have to pay a licensed contractor. from the intersection of Platt K to my proposed driveway. By requiring my family to certify for Mr. Road, which is a county public access road, as stated by the planning department, it would create an undue hardship upon my family. With that being said, claims have been made specifically by Mr. and Mrs. Yeager, Mr. DeVito, and Mr. and Mrs. Smith to planning in regards 2 for Vista Road being a narrow, single-lane road that is facing deterioration. LUDO 4.420.2 requires a private road with a subdivided plot to meet standards such as the road be 12 feet wide, provide pullouts 50 feet long and 8 feet wide, not including taper, every 600 feet. and make sure the road be of suitable material as well as in good repair with four inches of crushed rock. You can see from the images that I have provided, has everyone, yeah. You can see from the images that I've provided for Vista Road is a very well maintained It's very well maintained and the road is wide enough for two vehicles to pass. At the narrowest part of Forbista Road, where it intersects Platte Cay, Forbista measures 14 feet 8 inches wide. At the end of my property boundary, the road measures over 16 feet wide. Based off of these images, there are no unsafe blind spots, lack of ability to pass, or significant wear or deterioration on Forbista Road. making these claims false. Clearly, for Vista Road is a well-established county road. Douglas County Planning Department should be aware of the size and usage. There is obviously no need for engineer certification as the road has been accepted and adequate for use up to this point in time for all residents and the public. When confronted with information on liability when maintaining or updating the road, Douglas County Planning was originally unsure of liability. but now has stated that anyone hired to do work must be licensed, bonded, and insured, then the work would have to be certified by an Oregon licensed engineer who would retain liability. Douglas County Planning did not touch on whose jurisdiction it would be to enforce county right-of-way on each side of Forvisa Road in order to create pullouts eight feet wide and 50 feet long, not including tapers. Douglas County Planning also did not explain who would enforce neighbors to remove structures or foliage that was encroaching their roadway. It is considered trespassing to damage any trees or shrubbery that is on my neighbor's property, even if they are hanging in the roadway. Douglas County Planning refers to Ludo Chapter 4 frequently in their justifications for the conditions placed upon my non-farm dwelling application. Ludo Chapter 4 is the chapter of land use and development ordinances pertaining to new divisions of land. However, my parcel is not a new division of land. During my property boundary survey with David Edwards, he found the original lines from Sutherland Land and Water Code dated back to the 1900s. Douglas County Planning staff recognizes that my plot was created in the early 1900s in their staff report, yet are still imposing improper conditions. Furthermore, Douglas County Planning Department has claimed they did not have access to any public covenant records, even though they should be available for access at the county clerk, and in their staff report claim that it is irrelevant that none of the other residents of Forbista Road have signed covenants. If I understand correctly, Ludo 4.415C 2D explained that if I fall under land division criteria in a rural area with a road that does not have a county maintenance contract and is considered a privately maintained road, then all other parcel owners are required to sign and approve covenants with the planning director as well as comply with road maintenance or comply with establishment of a homeowner association and to create levies for maintenance. Douglas County Planning Department has not been able to provide adequate or timely information on the stipulations that have been placed upon my non-farm dwelling application. Only when I filed an appeal was I given more information but that information still lacks substance. Planning openly admitted to no legality behind these imposed conditions and stated they were only to appease neighbors. Additionally, planning has entertained false claims from my neighbors that I am illegally starting construction and breaking fire laws. I have every right as a private landowner to be on my property and complete active agricultural duties. Agricultural work on my property falls under DFPA regulations, not the planning department and has nothing to do with my non-farm dwelling application. To summarize, the planning department hasn't necessarily placed these conditions upon my family without great reason and have no legality. They simply wanted to appease my neighbor's complaints. Fur Vista Road is of exceptional condition and the claims my neighbors made of deterioration and narrow width are false. Conditions 2 and 3 are completely irrelevant to my property and application due to the nature of the fictitious statements from my neighbors, as well as my property does not fit criteria for Ludo Chapter 4 because it is a well-established plot not being subdivided. I would like these conditions removed from my file.

All right. Thank you.

Do you have any questions?

Not at this time, I don't think. You'll have a chance to come back and give a review. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we have one other person in favor. Erica Kendrick, want to come up and give your name and your address?

Erica Kendrick, my address is 203 Johnson Street, Sutherland, Oregon, 97479. And I don't have a lot to say other than that I think what she said was very well researched. And I agree that it does seem to be discriminatory and put undue hardship on one individual without considering the other people that do use that road being responsible for that maintenance. Thank you.

Thanks.

Okay, we don't have any neutral, so those opposed. Robert, you want to come up first?

You're going to have to say it loud.

Robert, do you want to come up and give your testimony, sir?

Evening. Hi. You can state your name and your address, sir. Robert DeVito, 293 Bermista Road, Sutherland.

Okay.

Okay. basically I guess we'll go back to the original complaint based on the drawing they had and they were going to put the driveway just right across from the driveway that goes to myself and Mark Smith and right by the Yeagers so that was the original complaint and then I noticed When I got a response, it said the driveway would be 300 feet west of our driveway. OK, well, that's fine. But I do want to confirm that that's what it's going to be, because when you look at the map of the proposed house there, it doesn't say 300 feet. So that's number one. And my other complaint was Assuming, because they dug a test hole for the septic, it's real close to my well. My well is just across from it. Now, I learned they've got to be at least 100 feet away from a septic or a well. If it's 100 feet or more, then that's acceptable. But I can't tell by the way they're digging out there. So those were my major complaints. septic and where the driveway's going to be and then and then any and damage down to the road because we do have a private road maintenance thing out there and it's verbal it's been that way for 24 years that i can remember when i bought the house 24 years ago we had a neighbor up up on fur vista and one of his friends and they came around everybody in the road was just shot i mean it was just toe chuckles you know you high center on it, you know, it was so bad. So he went around to everybody and said, for $150, we can blade the road and rock it. So everybody did that. All the people that were living there at that time in 2002. Since then, there's been, you know, times where they have to go back out there and put a little, you know, the chuck holes start to appear a little bit, you know, and they fill them. And that's the way it's been for 24 years that I know, right? It's all verbal and everybody chips in. There was no written thing or anything about it, right? So that's the way the road maintenance thing has come down over the years. Now, I don't understand why if somebody wants to go out there and tear up the road that they don't want to help chip in. I mean, it's not like maybe there's 12 of us living out there. And each and everybody has horse trailers, big trucks, and we just all chip in whatever damage is done, right? It's not paved. It's rocked. And one inch minus. And it's good, and it's solid, and it's been good since they did it 24 years ago. And that's just, that's the way we do it out there. That's the way we roll. I don't understand why One person on a road, somebody with a new house is going to bring all the trucks and bring everything out there and go, hey, I don't want to pay for this. There's no signing contract and everything. We're just all neighbors out there, right? And we all get along and we all pay for everything. But I do want to say, in the last month, there's one thing that I and many of the neighbors out there do not appreciate. On July 12th, There was all this action going on that's right across from my driveway, real close to the Yeagers, and Mark Smith lives in back. And they have, it used to be all cow fields, and the cows kept it down now, and now you get about two feet or so of dry grass. And it's pretty high fire danger. And these guys are out there on a Sunday, two trucks out there in the field, an excavator, a dump truck, Digging holes. And we couldn't figure out what's going on, right? And then the excavator was about 200 or 300 feet north of my driveway. Digging back there, I don't know what for. And they stopped. And then they went, the excavator went about 500 or 600 or 700 feet toward Black Cay. And they were back there digging and digging and digging with a dump truck. taking loads of dirt and going northwest of the property and dumping it. Well, somebody called the DFPA, and it was around 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and they put a stop to it. So they left all their equipment out there, the excavator, the dump truck, one red truck. They just left it out there in the silver truck that was in there, and they have their gate right there across from our driveway. He left. Okay, so the next Saturday, now I assume the DFPA told them, hey, you know, you can't do this, right? It's a high fire danger. Next Saturday, here they were out there again. No excavator and no dump truck, but two trucks driving out in the field, people walking back and forth, and here come the DFPA again and stopped it. So that's what I don't appreciate, how... I mean, where we were living out there five years ago, we wouldn't have big fires, Rock Creek and over, right? We all had to evacuate. First it was level two, move the animals, level three, go. So for days and days, we all, everybody, we had to evacuate. So now somebody goes out there and starts doing, you know, I don't appreciate that. I mean, we're all, and... They live back there somewhere, too. I mean, they have hundreds of acres there. So that's that part. I just wanted to mention that. So as far as I'm concerned, I want two things confirmed. Where are the septics going to be in relation to my well? And where are the driveways going to be in relation to the road? Because see, the driveway is right there across from our road. Now what? You got a house. Everybody's going like this. And that's why we said... You know, we complained about it. And it's not false. And it's not fictitious. It's a fact. Everything that we said, you know, was a fact of what could happen out there. And that's it. That's all I have to say. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir. And Mark and Debbie Smith. State your name and your address, sir, if you would.

Mr. Smith, I live at 295 Fur Vista Road. It seems like the main subject of this meeting is Fur Vista Road, and there's multiple access points to the Leatherwood parcel that don't have to use Fur Vista Road. They can drive across their own property. There's a gate and a culvert at Platt K., that accesses to their property, and they do not have to use Fur Vista Road. There's also another old railroad bed to the north that is also an access road into their property also. So the whole meeting's about Fur Vista Road. They don't really even need to use Fur Vista Road. They have access to their property. And I second everything that Bob just said. Thank you.

All right. Thanks, sir. Brent and Marissa Yeager?

Brent Hager, 335 for Vista Road. I agree with everything this commission laid down for the stipulations of them having their property rezoned, as in the stipulations of the engineer looking at the road, the passing lane. It is a single lane gravel road. If there's any vehicles that meet on the road, we always have to stop, pull off into the deep ditch and wait for another vehicle to pull by. So I do agree with everything this commission said on the first approval, and I would hope you guys uphold what you agreed to the first time. And I did submit photos with timestamps of them in the field during high fire danger.

And the way it works, Mark, is it's the planning department that puts out the first official ruling. Now we're reviewing it. Okay. So just to give you clarification on that.

Sorry. And thank you for your time.

Okay. All right. Thank you, Brent. Okay. I think I've got everyone on the opposed for testimony. Did I miss anyone, Jeff? I think I did. I don't see anyone jumping up out of it. All right. Okay. This is an opportunity for the applicant to come up and give a rebuttal, if you so choose.

So like I provided you with the photos, you see the condition of the road. The proposed driveway was addressed in the original concerns in the application approval, as well as the septic system was also addressed, I believe. It all has to be within regulations, within the site and everything. Not sure what us working in the field has to do with my drawing application, but I do have a fire DFPA waiver that my husband received in order to work, as well as images of him working in the field with the auger and all the fencing materials. If you want to put that in his exhibit, give that to Jeff.

I'm not sure if that would pertain to this, Jeff, in this situation.

I just wanted to make sure that happened.

I think clarification-wise, I understand the concern with FIRE. I think everyone does. But I think in this process, I'm not sure it applies to this appeal. Is that correct, Joe?

Yeah, I mean, right. So as Chair Burke said, you can submit it.

If it doesn't apply, I'll just keep it.

Yeah, it is something that's been raised but not part of the approval criteria. Correct.

It has nothing to do with my application. All right, so that is the only rebuttal that I have. All right.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Okay, okay, I'm going to close this public portion, and we'll deliberate to decision. I have a couple questions that were just brought up for just, and I guess, remind me, Lisa, here, you talked about this a little bit. Our job in this process at this point is to review the appeal, correct?

Yeah, you could technically look at other things as well, but the majority of this the road.

And the stipulations that were put on there. The other questions that were brought up originally, I guess they do kind of apply though because the stipulations that were put in place on 2 and 3. The driveway location and the septic to well, can you guys speak to that as far as neighboring properties? Has that been met?

Based on the plot plan, the plot, the road is going to be about 300 feet from the intersection that the DeVito's and the Smith's share a driveway. And then the Yeagers are just on the other side, a little bit further to the east. And from that location, the driveway was closer to going to be towards the west end of the Leatherwood property, which was approximately like 300 feet or something like that, quite that distance from that driveway. So it was going to be. not right across the way.

So it's met the stipulations that the county has in place currently?

We just said it had to be applied for as per their plot plan. We didn't specify in there specifically. It's just you have to be in substantial conformance with how they proposed it. Okay, gotcha.

And then the concerns with the septic to well, how does that work, I guess?

We'll have to meet the DEQ standards, and that's through Douglas County On-Site Services. So the septic The location of the test holes will have to be approved. And they also have to be in the area of generally untouchable soil. So they have to meet the criteria for the non-farm building too. So it is a little more complex. So they can't just put the septic any place. So there are some limitations.

So the concerns that were brought up will be addressed by DEQ as far as locations to existing water sources on other bodies?

Yeah.

OK. Perfect. OK. That was my questions on that. Thank you very much, Lisa. Did anyone else? I'm sure we've got questions here. So if we want to start, Jake, you want to start? I think I had my one.

I have rhetorical questions, so no. So I'll take my chance and I'll say them. And then I appreciate the comment on how the road's been maintained in the past. I don't know, I haven't heard anything that said that would be done otherwise going forward. So that's a question that's not pertinent to staff or the board, but I don't know why anyone would assume that a neighbor wouldn't act like a neighbor on these roads that have been maintained this way for a long time. So that just strikes me as...

I guess that was a clarification for me is so none of the existing property owners have any kind of covenants or anything in place.

that we know of. We did not do a legal search to find out, but it sounds like Ms. Leatherwood took the kick to look into that through a title company and some other things, but we don't have records for that to go searching through the clerk's records.

But now we're asking her to take on that liability and none of the other property owners do.

So theoretically, if someone else on the road wants to apply for a dwelling, obviously these issues are something on the road that may become an issue or maybe one of the property owners that already have a home, they want to replace it with a new one. The access issues will probably become an issue again.

That is something that happens where through the land use process, whether it is... scenario similar to this or an actual land division, wherever the trigger of the land use requires that agreement to participate in private maintenance, then that easily could be a scenario where the development pattern that might be in place was pre-existing. So you may not have anybody else that was required to do a covenant because their development occurred prior to the rules coming into play that we're now utilizing from 81 forward in theory, 81 being the year that the comprehensive plan and ordinance were put into place for us. Now that's evolved over time.

Is this applying, it's one thing to put the words in there, but does this apply a financial cost that no one else is having to put there at this point?

As far as the agreement to participate condition? The two conditions. The agreement to participate, that has a fee from the standpoint of a fee to record the document with the county clerk's office. And then a road certification that that can vary, you know, as far as which engineer somebody is able to hire.

Okay.

So I'm... Brett, you're not muted. No. I'm confused on a piece where I just want to understand to participate in any private maintenance agreement program which may be formed by users of the road. So... Currently there isn't a written maintenance agreement, correct? Based on testimony.

Based on testimony, that would be true. What that would mean is if they never form one, then the Leatherwoods will never have to participate in one. But by signing the agreement, them or future owners of their property, if they actually do form a formal road maintenance program, then these owners of the subject property would be required to participate in that. They can argue about amount and the cost of those things, like how much they're being assessed, but the idea behind it is that that property would be required to participate in any future maintenance if one is formed.

At that point, then, a formal maintenance apparatus occurs and It has to go through the county for assessment, and it's paid for in that manner?

Well, it could be a private maintenance. Because right now it's privately maintained according to the testimony. They're just shipping in. So it could be totally private maintenance. They could go through a formal thing with the county and form a special road district where then they get assessed through their taxes for road maintenance and improvements. There's probably several different programs they can do if they actually wanted to improve the road to a bigger standard.

But it does have to be written and it does have to be something that all of them participate in.

If they're doing something formal, yes. It would require participation by whatever number of users that are on the road and have You know, how would they determine that?

So what if it's not formal? Where does that land, this owner, if it's not?

So this means on their title report, there would be a documentation that that document has been filed against the property. They don't actually have to participate in roadway maintenance because unless they're doing something because you want to chip in and help like the other neighbors are doing. But the formal association would not be in place until they actually form something. But right now, it's just more of a mechanism why they're applying for something, a mechanism to kind of permit the county to provide them that, hey, in the future, if they do have a road association formed or special district or something, these properties would be kind of required to participate in that program if they do something. But they don't necessarily, like I said, it may not, I mean, if they never form a formal road association on the road, in other words, it may not have to do anything for years. This kind of depends on what happens with the road itself.

See, I don't mind the language so much. I guess having the certified engineer come in and the cost for them to bear, I guess,

I have a difficulty with that. That's a different provision.

Yeah, that's the second one. But as far as the first one, I think requiring someone to be part of what is going on and taking place verbally with no teeth on it to me makes sense. I GUESS SPEAKING TO THE SECOND PRODUCER. I DON'T KNOW. I GUESS FIRST OF ALL, I GUESS ADDRESS THE FIRST ONE. I DON'T KNOW HOW EVERYONE ELSE.

I JUST FEEL LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF THIS IS RULES FOR THE EVEN NOT FOR ME. IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE APPLYING RULES TO A DUE PROPERTY OWNER GET ON THE BLOCK. THE REST AREN'T HAVING TO INCUR. I'M OPPOSED TO THAT. I WOULD AGREE. THERE'S, I MEAN, SOMETHING ABOUT NEIGHBORS. YOU KNOW HOW TO MAKE IT WORK. In my world, you shake hands, you maybe get angry, shake hands, you figure out how to make it work. At the end of the day, we all get the work done and we all contribute accordingly. But just to make it formal like this, I can't roll with it.

So I'm going to share on that where my thoughts are that it sounds like the road never has been certified. and that this new owner's on the hook for bringing it up to that. Am I understanding that correct, or do the other folks have to share in that if for some reason it isn't certifiable now?

This is condition three, Tim. Oh, I'm sorry. Where it would be the engineer comes in and we have to put in the turnouts and those things, that component. Is that what you're addressing?

But it's right now it's the only person that legally would have to pay for it would be the new owner. I think it's the same for both A and B, or number two and three. So I don't agree with either of those restrictions.

Michael, you have any thoughts? What I'm understanding, too, is that it only, it's just saying that the new owners have to participate if they form a formal association. Is that correct? Yeah. I don't have a problem with that.

And nothing can be made to do. Go ahead, Michael. Sorry.

I was just saying that in that case, it's only they can work it out verbally. There is nothing in writing. But if they do put it in writing, then the new owners have to participate with the existing owners to make the So I have no problem with two either, I don't think. Three, I don't understand.

Go ahead, Brett. Is that how it is? Is it if they form a formal one, then they have to participate? Or is it, okay, I thought it was that they had to automatically be responsible.

No, it would be only if they did. So it kind of means that down the road, if they actually do form a formal road maintenance association, then the property owners would be required to participate in that agreement. But they're not required to establish an agreement.

I read it wrong.

I think if I'm tracking with this, looking down the road, the if statement's important, Brent, so I appreciate you clarifying that. And then... If this was more fully developed and you couldn't get neighbors to agree on who was going to maintain the road and they formed the association, then it seems prudent.

I can see the logic.

Yeah.

Staff-wise, I mean, I get the component that you guys are trying to establish some kind of precedence for moving forward. I guess my concern is the undue financial cost. So I kind of, I think we're hearing a little bit of both.

There's a filing fee to record the document, is what I heard.

To record. So I guess, is there a cost if if that language is at least there that they're required to be part of a road district or something moving forward. Is there a cost to them for that?

Yeah, there'd be a fee with what the clerk's office requires for the filing fee for the document. It's usually like a one- or two-page document. So it's probably maybe $80, $90.

I'm not sure what the current fees are with the clerk's office, but...

What has been precedence with these kind of things? We don't always see these. I mean, this is pretty typical for you guys. Or is this not typical? Or I guess you said that earlier. You didn't really put these stipulations on until you had some concerns with the road come up.

Right. It is a fairly standard. where it comes up through different types of land use requests and then Like I yeah, I did state earlier that this you know is recognized as then a tool for or a mitigation I understand why you guys would look at that.

But I also yeah, okay.

Yeah, but a local access road is similar to a private road And so that's where the other condition number two, if we segue to condition number three, but to get back to your question, yes, there's a big difference between the cost of filing a covenant with the clerk's office and paying an engineer to then go out and do an assessment of the road.

But again, this road is not county-owned. This is basically, what is this road again? Explain that to me, Jeff.

Yeah. Local access road, then, another term is dedicated or platted. So when it was first, I believe the staff report said 1911. Right. So it's been around as a platted dedicated roadway. There are many instances where a platted dedicated roadway has Nothing as far as the road goes, a Jeep trail, if you will, two ruts to ones that are paved. Now the pavement might be 12 feet wide or it might be 14 feet wide because what you then have is the county does not have any maintenance responsibility whatsoever. And over time, that road gets built out to what satisfies the needs of those neighbors that utilize that road.

And I've seen this situation before on a fairly traveled road where you had a few people that were taking care of the road. It was kind of that old style where everyone would pitch in, and then all of a sudden, everyone wasn't pitching in. Ultimately, they formed a road district at that time, and then everyone was forced to participate. But I think it's a tough piece to me to require someone to be treated differently than the existing owners. That's just my take on it, though.

My take on the engineer as testimony from the people in opposition was that they would go around and pass the hat years ago and just maintain the road and then have to have engineers. So I think that's a way to continue that for number three. I think number two, since it is an if statement, I think we approve number two and say number three.

Is that a motion?

Can we modify this?

That's what number two was. You could modify.

So we can say, OK, we'll take these, but not those? Because I mean, number one absolutely satisfies Mr. DeVito's concerns. I mean, if you're going with DEQ specs, if I read that correctly, the placement of that.

I think what we're talking about is alternative number two and getting rid of number three in this, but retaining the rest, including number two.

So you're saying, Tim, the alternative two, but then you're wanting to keep right here versus... Where's the condition number two again? Oh, that's right there. On the page you're looking at.

It's on the back page.

Okay, there it is. Okay. Okay, so you guys are floating the idea of alternative two, which is basically approving the modifications, but only approving number two. And then X name and everything else. Well, what about the fire? You're basically just taking three. Just taking three. Okay.

There hasn't really been any

So we keep number two, yes to delete number three So just a question on number four being the next into the Fair Oaks rule fire district is Are you just not automatically in the fire district with the property?

No, if you're not in the district, you have to go through the annexation process So we're all these other properties in the fire district any of them are many are all I don't remember looking back on them for all of the others. A lot of them on the south side of the road, but none of the, the Leatherwoods own a lot of property on the north side of the road, and not all of that is inside the fire district. So the Leatherwoods was a big property that the grandparents owned, and then the, so it's, because their old lot So there's probably, I don't know how many you guys, it might be 25, 30 lots that you guys have that's about 100 acres total or something. So I don't know how many lots. But a lot of those are not in the fire district. So once they do development, they'll probably be like other properties in the county. They'll have to be annexed to get fire protection.

So, I mean, if they're in those other properties that the Leatherwood Zone catch on fire, they just burn it and nobody comes out and fires it?

That's a TFPA issue. If there's no structures, they've

We've talked about this one before. We had that other, it was just kind of that same deal. We had some people arguing about whether or not being added to the fire district.

Because no one wants to pay for it.

But I mean, reality is we, I don't know, in my opinion, at some point someone has to pay for it. And we've got to try to get people into fire districts.

Isn't that baked into your taxes?

I mean, part of your tax base? But you do have, like, the distinction between Douglas Forest Protection Agency. They will come out and fight.

The grass all around your house, but they won't put your house out. Yeah.

It's literally, that's how it's described, yes.

Grass put out in time, the house won't burn.

And then, right, so. Good point. Yeah, the vacant land gets response by. So is there a fee to that? Yes. Yeah. Taxation, when you look at properties, they are sometimes taxed as being inside fire district and in DFPA. And those, yeah. So your taxation, you pay into both.

I think that purview, though, sorry, the purview to this is two and three is what she's appealing. So I think we need to. We can act on any of these, make more, but the appeal is on two.

I make a motion that we keep alternative number two and get rid of three.

I have a motion. Do I have a second?

So to clarify, we're taking alternative number one, deleting.

Alternative number two. It would be the second one, which gives us the modifications. Then we would keep everything but three. So one, two, four, five, six, seven would stay.

denies that she's appealing the whole thing. We're saying we're going to keep the appeal, except we're kicking number two out.

Alternative number two is on the back side of that page.

Oh, I see it. So that means, but if we approve the appeal, that wipes all of this out, right? We get modified. I think it's that two gives us...

It's only appealing two and three. It's only appealing two and three, so we're just focusing on two and three. I got you.

So we would just modify it, and like Brent said, we're just removing two. I'll second.

Okay, I'm with you now. I'm in agreement with that. Okay.

Okay, so we have a motion. It's been seconded. Any other discussion? None being heard. All in favor? Aye. Okay.

Aye. There he goes.

Okay.

So I will just clarify then, with the conclusion of this evening, we have a... decision rendered by you as the Planning Commission that will be summarized in a findings of fact, which the findings of fact will be prepared for next month's meeting for your signature. Once the findings of fact are signed at the next month's meeting, then that will start the appeal period, because there is then an appeal period for your decision that has been rendered.

And just for people in the public, so you can appeal this, and basically the next step, it would go to the Board of Commissioners. Correct, Jeff? Yes. We appreciate everyone coming in, and we hear you. It's just a narrow piece here, so we try to listen to it all and stay focused on what we have before us. Okay, the next item on the agenda here. Business from the audience. Do we have anyone else in the audience that wanted to speak tonight? I think everyone was here for the, okay. Business from the Planning Commission. Anyone have anything? Gentlemen? Brett, you got anything?

I think he's sleeping.

And then the business from the planning department. Jeff, what do we got coming up?

Next meeting, we'll have the findings that I just mentioned, and we'll also have a new agenda item, which is another climate and zone change request from HAD Properties LLC. This one will be a little bit more involved. We're helping... With our land use ordinance, you can run applications concurrently. So plan amount zone change is very normal to see run concurrently. This time he's getting his bang for his buck, and it is a plan amount zone change and subdivision request. The subdivision request also having a variance request in conjunction with that to vary the lot width requirements. So... That will be coming in September. That is in Tri-City also, different part of Tri-City. The, you'd have, chapter six speaks to the plan amendment criteria. The zone change is article 38. And then chapter four for all the land division requirements. So that's subdivisions.

I'm going to ask for someone to send that to me.

Yeah, and we can yeah, we can we can definitely discuss that there's we can get you links to our website because then they have At home but just to be of service to folks and efficient it would be really helpful It always helps does I always?

But I usually talk to Jeff prior the meetings to get an idea so I'd say if anyone has any questions I try to do that, but it's

materials come, and I don't know what my schedule may look like during business hours.

Jeff, if it seems too complicated and no one likes additional meetings, but we could have a work session if you felt like that was worthwhile. If you felt like that. It's just a thought, and I don't know how everyone else feels about that.

Those are always possible, but know between I would hope that with once notice goes out or you know at some point there'll be a trigger event where you might say okay I want to know more about this in advance and you know feel free to reach out and then we can direct you to the approval criteria in the ordinance and then of course too if you if you do choose to brush up on comes the staff report is going to be then specific to that property in that request so that you know then you can kind of tie it all together I guess it's all helpful yes you got anything else Jeff No, that's what we got. Okay.

All right. Well, we'll adjourn the meeting.