Opponents weigh in on Sunburst Retreat

Five new letters opposing the Sunburst Retreat proposed conditional use permit were received by the Deschutes County Planning Department by the June 24 deadline.

All comment on the project is now closed. A final ruling will be made by a hearings officer, a process that usually takes from four to eight weeks.

Common reasons for opposition are increased traffic, noise, dust and compatibility with the area.

The conditional use permit would allow operation of a guest lodge in a Multiple Use Agricultural area (MUA-10). The proposed guest lodge is called Sunburst Retreat, and would be located nine miles east of Sisters, in the Sun Mountain area. An existing 8,609-square-foot residence at 67155 Sunburst St., owned by Hank and Kareen Queen, would be used for the retreat center.

Sunburst Retreat says the business will have massage, fitness training and nutrition counseling.

Other activities in the proposal include golf instruction, yoga and meditation, ballroom dancing, quilting, a swim spa, pool table and outdoor barbecue.

The staff report recommended approval of the permit if certain conditions are met. Queen has said he will meet the conditions and has offered additional concessions to address concerns about traffic, lighting, noise and days of operation.

Opponents say the project will negatively impact quality of life and property values. Bend attorney Pamela Hardy has been hired by opponents of the proposal. Hardy submitted an earlier letter that centered on traffic concerns.

The letter contains a traffic estimate of over 2,700 trips per year, compared to 900 by Queen, for guests, employees and vendors. The letter also calls for resurfacing roads to cut dust, use of a watering truck, and a limit on number of guests and increased traffic.

The attorney's letter also urges that conditions of the permit must be written so they can be enforced to comply with county codes.

A letter submitted by Jim and Sue Anderson said that if the conditional use permit is approved, the residents are prepared to enforce a writ of mandamus.

"This writ, as you know, was introduced to prevent disorders from a failure of justice; we therefore feel it must be used where the law has established no specific remedy, and where in justice and good government there ought to be one," Anderson says in the letter.

A writ of mandamus, according to Wikipedia, is issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly.

Anderson's letter says that seeking a writ of mandamus would be a tremendous financial burden and would generate adverse publicity.

The hearings officer's decision may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), but carries an appeal fee of $2,703. If the board chooses not to hear the appeal, the only recourse would be an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA).