In the summer of 2011, Michael and Lynda Cole applied to the Coos County Planning Department for a determination of two discrete parcels of land on Map 26-14-02/03D, TLs 2000/100 that is bisected by a section of state highway. Normally, it is up to the applicant to supply necessary supporting documentation and planning requested additional information in order to certify the discrete parcels but the Cole’s could not or would not provide information that demonstrated that the highway is an intervening ownership and how that addresses other required sections of the county land use rules. The department requested “descriptions that show they have multiple lawfully created parcels” and in the absence of the requested information denied the application on September 9, 2011.
The Cole’s attorney, Bill Kloos, asked if planning would reconsider their decision or if the Cole’s could appeal and the department replied they would reconsider if the applicants would just provide information to “address how these are lawfully created lots or parcels”. Local zoning ordinance does not provide a process to appeal a discrete parcel determination but the matter could be taken directly to LUBA (Land Use Board of Appeals) but even then, the requested information would still be required.
Instead of providing the required proof, the Cole’s attorney instead supplied a legal argument that the Cole’s should not have to provide proof because of the dates certain laws went into effect. Planning sent the letter to county counsel to confirm whether the county’s interpretation of the rules was correct. At some point, with the prodding of Bill Grile, evidently a friend of the Cole’s, commissioner Cam Parry got involved and county counsel suddenly began working for the Cole’s instead of for the county.
Emails from planning liaison Fred Messerle to then planning director, Patty Evernden, show him implying that she is arbitrarily digging in her heels by not certifying the parcels rather than simply following the rules. Emails will also show that Evernden tried repeatedly to hold a work session with the commissioners but was rebuffed until finally Messerle insisted she attend an executive session under the auspices of “potential litigation”. ORS 192.660 2(h) allows a board quorum to meet in executive session to discuss “the legal rights and duties of a public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed”. Nothing about the Cole matter qualifies as pending or current litigation, nevertheless, during this session attended by Messerle, Parry, county counselors Oubonh White and Josh Soper, county surveyor, Mike Dado and Evernden, Evernden was effectively told to assume that two lawfully created parcels existed. [Note: Bob Main did not attend]
Counsel, it seems, had done research on behalf of the Coles, (remember the burden of proof is on the applicant, not the county), and while no actual description of the parcels was proffered, Evernden was told that research indicated there are two lawfully created parcels. By conducting a closed session, anyone, a neighbor of the Coles perhaps, with information to the contrary, was denied the opportunity to participate in what effectively became a closed land use hearing.
Evernden wrote the Coles with the good news the department was certifying the discrete parcels and resigned shortly thereafter, meanwhile, the department incurred costs in excess of the $200 paid with the Cole’s application. An invoice from the planning department for $3,222.75 to reimburse the department for time spent as a result of the board interference was sent to the commissioners on June 18 and was initialed for payment by Messerle a month ago. Commissioner Bob Main refused to sign off on the invoice and it moved on to Parry’s desk but still has not been seen on the consent calendar.
During this week’s BOC meeting, Phil Thompson asked the board a fourth time whether the taxpayer was going to be stuck paying this bill and finally received an answer from Messerle and Parry but the reason given doesn’t jive with the facts. Messerle starts by advising the audience that during the application, “..ambiguities and errors in the county’s zoning and land development ordinances” and that “resolving those internal issues required additional staff time… and that was billed back to the general fund”. That sounds reasonable enough on the surface if, in fact, there are errors and ambiguities that need fixing. “It wouldn’t have been appropriate to bill the people that raised that issue,” adds Messerle. “It needed to be fixed and dealt with within the county”.
Here is the problem with this explanation. First, no problem has either been identified much less fixed such that it is an across the board fix that benefits more than just the Cole family. If an error exists in the codes the state must be given notice and approve any changes before they can even be enacted in local zoning ordinances. This unidentified “fix” benefited one applicant and one applicant only so it is hard to see how the board’s interference in the planning process can be viewed as anything other than preferential treatment.
Parry vehemently denies the Coles received any preferential treatment. “The board did not make a decision about the dispensation of the Cole’s question in anyway, shape or form”, he claimed. “The only ask is that the folks be given an answer”. Again, the Coles were given an answer last year, they just didn’t like it and according to Evernden the board very definitely affected the outcome, despite Parry’s protestations and apparently came to their decision and instructed the director to certify the parcels during the executive session.
It is hard not to look at this and question whether Messerle and Parry are simply clueless about how planning works and what it is supposed to do or if they are simply lying to obfuscate another instance of bad judgment. Either way, it looks pretty bad and doesn’t say much for Messerle’s skill as a commissioner.
Parry flashes with anger during this exchange with Phil Thompson, incensed that his character is being questioned. All the commissioners need to do is release the audio from the executive session to lay any question of impropriety to rest. Today, I dispatched an email to all three commissioners requesting the audio and urge everyone else to do so as well. So far, I haven’t received a reply.
Bob Main
(541) 396-3121 ext 770
Fred Messerle
(541) 396-3121 ext 247
Cam Parry
(541) 396-3121 ext 281
A complaint is being drafted and a group will be filing it with OGEC soon. Meanwhile, ask the commissioners to release the audio voluntarily
I’m right behind you M and SusanP.
Until the cops come.
Ol Fred likes to call him up some coppers now and then, member?
Yup, jist another of them ‘law and order types’ right?
“Law for thee, not for me” Fred Messer lie and Cam Parry.
Cant you initiate some action with the state with me and others joining you?