1992-14301-Minutes for Meeting March 31,1992 Recorded 4/27/199292-14301 0115-0257
PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
FOREST LANDS ci_ �n 27 PM 3 ; '74
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS c I;: FENH
March 31, 1992
Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Board
members in attendance were: Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Nancy
Pope Schlangen. Also attending were: Bruce White, Assistant Legal
Counsel; Kevin Harrison, Senior Planner; and George Read, Planning
Director.
Before the Board was a public hearing to consider amendments to
Chapters 18.04, 18.36, 18.40 and 18.44 of Title 18 of the Deschutes
County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance and Map, and to
the Forest Lands section of the Deschutes County Year 2000
Comprehensive Plan. The amendments were mandated by changes in
1990 to Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 6, Goal
4 Forest lands, and affect all properties currently zone F-1, F-2
or F-3. The forest rule lists uses authorized in forest zones,
sets standards for land divisions, prescribes conditions under
which dwellings may be approved, and describes siting standards for
new dwellings.
Kevin Harrison gave the staff report. Before the Board was a
series of recommendations from the Planning Commission concerning
the implementation of the Goal 4 Forest Rule. In order to
implement the Forest Rule, a series of amendments were required:
text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; text amendments to the
zoning ordinance to described two new forest zones; text amendments
to incorporate changes in definitions and other internal
housekeeping amendments to make the entire zoning ordinance and
terms consistent; and changes to the zoning map. The Oregon
Administrative Rule describing development activities which were
permitted in the forest zone were adopted by LCDC in 1990.
Implementation of the rule was mandatory for County governments.
The rule applied to all lands inventoried as forest land which
included everything currently zoned F-3, F-2 or F-1. The Planning
Commission decided to describe two forest zones (new proposed F-1
and F-2 zones).
Kevin Harrison went on to say the criteria used to differentiate
between the two zones were included in Exhibit A to Ordinance 92-
024. The proposed F-1 zone was described as unimpacted forest
lands which had the following characteristics: predominantly open
and not developed by residences or non -forest uses, predominantly
of contiguous ownerships of 160 acres or larger in size;
predominantly of ownerships contiguous to other lands utilized for
commercial forest or commercial farm uses; land accessed by
arterial roads or roads intended for forest management, and lands
primarily under forest management. The F-2 zone was impacted
PAGE 1 MINUTES: 3-31-92
0115-0258
forest land which had the following characteristics: predominantly
of ownerships developed for residential or other non -forest uses,
predominantly of ownerships less than 160 acres in size, ownerships
generally contiguous to tracts containing less than 160 acres and
residences adjacent to acknowledged exception areas, and property
provided with a level of public facilities and services including
roads intended primarily for direct services to rural residences.
Kevin Harrison went through the draft ordinances with the Board.
Working from a draft dated March 25, 1992, he want through the F-1
zone first. The maintenance, repair or replacement of existing
dwellings were permitted outright. Under conditional uses, forest
management dwellings were allowed on those parcels lawfully created
prior to the date of adoption of this ordinance and where the
dwelling was found to be necessary for and accessory to forest
operations. This was consistent with Oregon Administrative Rule.
They had put together fire siting standards for dwellings and
structures and fire safety design standards for roads as directed
by Administrative Rule and in cooperation with local fire
protection districts and other agencies which provide for wild fire
protection. He was at a meeting of local fire chiefs last month,
and they unanimously supported these standards and offered their
assistance by doing site visits when the County was reviewing
applications for new dwellings in forest areas. The minimum lot
size in the F-1 zone was 80 acres. There were two provisions for
land division less than 80 acres: (1) for approved conditional
uses, (2) to separate a dwelling existing prior to the adoption of
the rule under certain circumstances, i.e. the parcel with dwelling
could be no larger than five acres, the parcel remaining without
the dwelling had to be 80 acres or had to be consolidated with an
adjacent parcel to meet the 80 acre test.
Then Kevin Harrison reviewed the F-2 zone the Board. The
maintenance, repair or replacement of existing dwellings were uses
permitted outright. Destination resorts were allowed as a
conditional use where mapped in a Destination Resort Zone but were
subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.113 and applicable
provisions of Title 18. Destination resorts in forested areas were
limited to the F-2 zone outside the wildlife area combining zone.
There was a provision for non -forest dwellings and forest
management dwellings. There was an eligibility test which the
property had to meet before a non -forest dwelling could be applied
for: (1) parcel had to be located within a rural fire protection
district or the resident had to have contracted for residential
fire protection; ( 2 ) the parcel had to be lawfully created prior to
January 25, 1990; and (3) the parcel had to meet the parcelization
test. The provision for non -forest dwellings was automatically
repealed 30 -days after the effective date of any goal and rule
amendments establishing secondary lands adopted by the LCDC. The
fire standards and the dimensional standards were the same as in
the F-1 zone.
PAGE 2 MINUTES: 3-31-92
0115-0259
Chairman Maudlin questioned why in the language concerning the non -
forest dwelling it referred to "capable of 0-50 cu. ft. per acre
year." If the land didn't have any trees why was it in the forest
zone. Kevin Harrison said that in implementing the rule, the staff
did not go back and re -inventory the forest lands. It was not a
requirement of the rule and wasn't something the staff had the time
or the ability to do at this point. If there were lands currently
included in the Forest Zones which were not capable of producing
timber on a commercial basis, they might be incorrectly zoned. If
they were currently incorrectly zoned, they would be incorrectly
zoned under these amendments. The staff started this process with
those lands which were already zoned forest lands. Chairman
Maudlin suggested changing the language to read "up to 50 cu. ft."
and Kevin Harrison suggested "less than or equal to 50 cu. ft. per
acre per year."
Kevin Harrison summarized that the rule required that the County
adopt a forest zone was consistent with the rule. The County could
be more restrictive than the rule, but could not be less
restrictive. He felt these two forest zones were consistent with
the rules. The F-2 zone followed the rule language very closely,
and the F-1 zone was somewhat more restrictive than the rule in
three areas: (1) it didn't allow non -forest dwellings in the F-1
zone, (2) it didn't allow destination resorts in the F-1 zone, and
(3) it limited applications for new forest management dwellings to
those parcels which existed at the time of adoption of these
ordinance amendments.
Kevin Harrison said letters had been received from Martin Hansen on
behalf of Sun Village Realty and from 1,000 Friends of Oregon which
he hadn't had a opportunity to read and, therefore, had no
comments.
Bruce White discussed how staff envisioned the package being put
together. Staff was proposing that this package be adopted in
three different ordinances: (1) an ordinance to adopt the
Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies; (2) 92-025 which would adopt
the actual ordinance language; and ( 3 ) 92-026 which would adopt the
mapping. There had not been any substantive changes made in
putting the language in this format. They did do a housekeeping
change regarding the home occupation definition. The final
ordinances would have some changes in code section references.
They made some changes on the Destination Resort designation in the
F-2 chapter, to clarify that the destination resort use in the F-2
zone could only be in those parts of the F-2 zone where it was
mapped for destination resort siting and were not allowed in the
wildlife area combining zone. There was a requirement that a
written statement be filed and recorded in the Clerk's office.
However, the Clerk's office didn't record "mere statements," so he
had to make a change in the language to reflect what kind of
document would be recorded.
PAGE 3 MINUTES: 3-31-92
0115-0260
Chairman Maudlin asked if prior to making a decision on the
ordinances, the Commissioners would have an opportunity to see the
mapping of the wildlife combining zone? George Read said the maps
on the wall reflected all of the F-2 and F-1 zoning. The red was
F-2 and the white was F-1 and the yellow were other zones not under
consideration. The wildlife area combining zones were on the
destination resort maps which were available whenever the Board
wanted to review them.
Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing for testimony.
Eric Dolson, 385 Main Street, Sisters, (PO Box 1175) testified as
a member of the Deschutes County Planning Commission. He submitted
a letter and then read from it. He asked that when the Board
reviewed the proposed forest lands provisions they remembered: (1)
the proposal already represented a compromise of conflicting
interests which the Planning Commission attempted to develop in as
fair a manner as possible, and (2) the preservation of our forest
land resource was critical to the long-term viability of our forest
products industry and the higher wage jobs that industry provided.
The Planning Commission heard from people who wanted to restrict
all development in forest zones, and those who wanted no
restriction on the use of private property. He felt the forest
zone proposal before the Board was a balance between those points
of view, which allowed for development on the less productive
lands, and restricted development on the more productive lands.
The Planning Commission was told the prime forest land had a value
of about $150 an acre, but on the real estate market they would
sell for 10 or 20 times that amount. Oregon's land use laws were
conceived to protect our resource lands against this kind of market
pressure. While some members of the Planning Commission would have
liked a productivity standard in the package, he felt it was the
best that could have been developed in the time allowed. He urged
the Board to adopt the package as it was submitted.
Chairman Maudlin asked for testimony from the proponents of the
ordinances as submitted to the Board. There was no one who wished
to testify.
Chairman Maudlin asked for testimony from anyone opposed to the
ordinances or who was requesting a change.
Robert Ball, of Ball, Janik & Novack, One Main Place, 101 SW Main
Street, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97204, was an attorney
representing Crown Pacific, Ltd. and its affiliated entities,
particularly Crown Pacific Oregon Ltd. Partnership which was one of
the principal owners of Crown properties in Central Oregon. Roger
Craig, who was General Counsel and secretary to Crown Pacific, Ltd.
was also in the audience. Mr. Ball testified that Crown Pacific
was the largest private owner of forest lands in Deschutes County
(owned in excess of 70,000 acres of forest lands). Its principal
tree farm was approximately 45,000 acres just west of the City of
PAGE 4 MINUTES: 3-31-92
0115-0261
Bend (the Bull Springs tract). The remainder of their property was
in the vicinity of Sisters and in newly acquired areas at the
southern portion of the County near the Klamath County line. A
copy of a color map of the Crown holdings was given to the Board
along with some written testimony. They had attempted to minimize
their objections because they were very much in favor of preserving
forest lands for forest uses. Mr. Ball said they had two points:
(1) they contended that the division of forest lands into two
classifications was unnecessary and ill advised; and (2) if the two
zone classes were adopted, they requested that not all of Crown
lands be classified as F-1. He said there was a proposal by the
staff, which was supported by the Planning Commission, that all of
Crown Pacific's properties automatically, by virtue of ownership,
be zoned F-1.
Mr. Ball continued that the F-2 zone complied with the requirements
of state law. The F-1 class was not necessary since it was not
mandated by state law, was not in the economic interests of large
property owners, and was not in the economic and land use interests
of Deschutes County. He did not feel that these classifications
had been fully considered by the County in the rush to meet LCDC
guidelines for adopting Goal 4. The new F-2 classification was
much more restrictive than any forestry classification which the
County had ever had in the past. They did not object to the new
F-2 but did object to the F-1 classification because there was a
lack of any factual basis for that classification. The
classification of F-1 was not based upon the productive capacity of
the lands. The decision was made arbitrarily based on the identity
of the owner and the size of the parcel rather than by the
characteristics of the parcel. They did not feel that these were
land use criteria and were an improper basis for making the
distinction between F-1 and F-2 lands. They wanted the County to
look carefully at the policy rationale for having an F-1
classification at all. They requested that all forest lands be
zoned F-2, or that F-1 zoning be deferred until there was time to
research the productive capacity of the lands. He said Goal 2
required that there be an adequate, factual base for making land
use planning decisions, and they didn't think there was an adequate
factual base for making the distinction between F-1 and F-2 without
taking into account the productive capacity of the lands. He said
Crown was not a developer and didn't intend to become a developer.
There were no destination resorts or developments in their business
plan. If the Board decided to keep the F-1 classification, they
felt it should be applied to most but not all of Crown's lands.
They felt there were three categories of lands which should be
zoned F-2: (1) isolated parcels which would be better managed by
small, wood lot owners; (2) nonproductive lands; and (3) lands
which were committed to residential development because they were
adjacent to residential lots or destination resorts and should have
greater flexibility. Crown needed the flexibility to sell isolated
or nonproductive parcels, or parcels committed to residential
development. These kinds of parcels were not capable of intensive
PAGE 5 MINUTES: 3-31-92
0115-0262
management. If these parcels were zoned F-1 it would severely
diminish the opportunity to sell those lands and convert the sale
proceeds to more productive uses, i.e. to concentrate resources on
productive, intensive timber management which Goal 4 encouraged.
They were asking for an F-2 designation only on three areas of
Crown property. Two were adjacent to Black Butte Ranch: Section
21 which was 317 acres which wrapped around Black Butte Ranch, and
Section 23 which was nearly 600 acres adjacent to Black Butte
Ranch. Both of these parcels were adjacent to a destination
resort, so if they were designated F-1, destination resort
expansion would be precluded. They requested these parcels be
mapped for destination resorts and classified as F-2 to permit
greater flexibility by both Black Butte Ranch and by the County if
and when it was appropriate to annex those lands to Black Butte
Ranch or develop a compatible use. The third parcel on which they
wanted an F-2 classification was in the Bull Springs area. The
surrounding uses were smaller parcels of 40-80 acres and Shevlin
Park. He didn't want there to be an inference that because Crown
was requesting an F-2 classification on these properties that they
had any plans to sell or parcelize the properties. In summary,
they proposed the elimination of the F-1 classification. If the
Board were unwilling to abandon the F-1 class, they requested that
all lands be classed F-2 until a productivity analysis could be
completed. If the Board was unwilling to do that, they requested
that the three specific parcels which he identified be zoned F-2.
Commissioner Throop expressed surprise that Mr. Ball felt the
zoning classification of F-1 was applied to Crown lands by virtue
of it ownership. Commissioner Throop said that criteria was
applied to every parcel and a determination was made by virtue of
whether that parcel met the criteria. He asked why Mr. Ball
thought it was because Crown was the owner. Mr. Ball said he
indicated there were two reasons for the classification: ownership
and size of parcel. From working with the staff, they found that
in Crown's case, both criteria were applied to arrive at an F-1
classification for all of Crown's holdings. Commissioner Throop
asked why isolated parcels could not be managed by small, wood lot
owners even if they were zoned F-1. Mr. Ball said the F-1 zone
would not permit a forest management dwelling except on lots of
record. Commissioner Throop asked Mr. Ball if he were an owner of
record of any lands in Deschutes County. Mr. Ball said he was in
the Destination Resort classification. Commissioner Throop said he
thought Mr. Ball had an interest in Section 23. Mr. Ball said
Crown Pacific owned that parcel. Mr. Ball said he had an ownership
interest in Section 21 which was an F-2 zone which was contiguous
to Black Butte Ranch.
Martin Hansen, attorney for Sun Village Realty, 1201 NW Wall
Street, Bend, 97701, testified regarding a split zone parcel of 132
acres, a portion which was zoned F-2 and a portion zoned F-1. The
parcel was under common ownership and was one tax lot (TL 600) .
They felt lots of record should be looked at as a whole unit. The
PAGE 6 MINUTES: 3-31-92
0115-0263,
staff felt the west half of the property met F-2 and the east half
met F-1. Mr. Hansen said they agreed productivity was not a
criteria of the ordinance as written, however in the staff's
analysis of their property, the only distinction made between east
and west was that "the east side contains better timber land." He
felt productivity had been improperly used as a basis to split the
property in half. A 132 -acre parcel fit within the F-2 criteria,
not within the F-1 criteria. He said it was a small parcel with an
easement through the parcel which eradicated much of the potential
use area of the property. To the north was a parcel of 40 acres,
to the west was 65 acres, to the south was an 100 acre lot, and
only to the east was there more than 160 acres, therefore,
surrounding properties were predominantly under 160 acres. To the
north was a non -forest use, to the west there was development
(public horse back riding and corrals) and highway 97. If the
parcels were reviewed as a whole, there were residences to the
west. Only to the south and east were there forest uses. The
parcel was only accessed by Highway 97 not forest management roads.
The parcel had never been under forest management, and the parcel
did meet the criteria for the F-2 zone. Immediately to the north
of this parcel was the Conklin property which also was split by
Highway 97 but was given a uniform zone of F-2.
Commissioner Throop asked Mr. Hansen what concerned his clients
about having part of their parcel in the F-1 zone since there were
very few differences between the F-1 and F-2 zones. Mr. Hansen
said two reasons: (1) one of the owners of the property was also
an attorney who felt the ordinances should be followed with
uniformity and consistency; and (2) it was possibly more
flexibility in the F-2 zone.
Chairman Maudlin asked about other properties which were split.
Kevin Harrison said these same issues were brought before the
Planning Commission, and they wrestled with how to apply the
criteria and zoning to these particular properties. On the Conklin
property, the staff recommendation was undecided. Chairman Maudlin
asked if there had been a site visit by staff. Kevin Harrison said
no.
Larry Brice said he wanted to testify about a parcel he owned which
was Section 5. It was contiguous with Black Butte Ranch and in the
same general area as the Crown land. The staff recommendation was
to change the zoning from F-2 to F-1. He did not feel that this
change was appropriate. Since his parcel was isolated forest land.
There were a number of roads which crossed his parcel, one of which
was George McAlister Road which was a heavily traveled, paved,
County road used predominantly by residents of Black Butte Ranch.
Highway 20 was within 1/4 mile of his property and there was 2-1/2
miles of public forest service roads on the property. He asked
that for purposes of forest zoning, it be taken into consideration
that there was a pending land use application on this parcel which
had been approved for recommendation by staff. There would be
PAGE 7 MINUTES: 3-31-92
011.5-0264
three separate pieces: a small 80 -acre section held one of the
largest aggregate deposits on this side of the mountain and was
zoned Surface Mining; and the two other parcels would be
approximately 240 and 280 acres in size with dwellings on them.
Black Butte Ranch with its 1,283 homes was a heavy influence on
this parcel. This property was heavily used by the residents of
Black Butte Ranch. It had been heavily logged by Crown in the
past, so he felt some intensive forest management would be required
which could best be done with smaller ownership to increase the
yield. He felt the F-2 zoning of this property was proper and
would be the most effective zoning of the property for increasing
the timber yield over time. Major power lines and easements from
Central Electric went through the property to Black Butte. He felt
it was important to try to reduce the fire danger on this parcel
because of the increased risk because of its closeness to Black
Butte. F-2 zoning would maximize the fire protection. He felt
this property might be needed for future expansion of Black Butte
Ranch, and thought the County would want to keep destination
resorts in the same location. He said this land might also be
traded into the public trust, and the F-1 zoning might restrict
that from occurring.
Larry Brice continued that he felt the time line for response had
been very short given the complexity and number of changes that had
taken place in the Ordinances in the last few weeks. He asked if
the Board would allow written testimony beyond this public hearing.
Chairman Maudlin said he thought the Board would allow seven days
for additional written testimony.
Larry Brice asked if there could be a phase-in period on those
parcels which had previously been zoned F-2 and were being proposed
as F-1 since the land owners might not have had the resources or
the time to consider all of the ramifications of this change.
Commissioner Throop said these issues had been in the process for
six months and didn't understand why Mr. Brice felt it had been a
big rush. Larry Brice said that on planning issues, he felt six
months was a fairly short period of time. He didn't think a lot of
forest land owners realized the impact of what was happening here,
i.e. taking property with an existing zone and administratively
changing it to another zone which could severely impact them.
Commissioner Throop pointed out that there was a rule adopted at
the state level in 1990 which prescribed this process, and the
first public hearing before the Planning Commission was back in
January 1992. He thought the Planning Commission had five meetings
concerning this subject, and the media had reported on it
diligently.
Mr. Brice asked Mr. Nichols to speak concerning his property.
PAGE 8 MINUTES: 3-31-92
0115-0265
Chairman Maudlin asked if he had a forest plan on the parcel. Mr.
Brice said he had submitted an application which would create a
plan, and it had been recommended for approval with a public
hearing the following week.
Earl Nichols, professional consulting forester from Bend, testified
that he had worked in the Bend area for about 25 years. He was
very familiar with Mr. Brice's parcel. The land was "marginal" and
near 50 cu. ft. in productivity. It had an even aged, young stand
of trees which needed intensive management. He felt allowing
private individuals to take over these lands would give them the
intensive management they needed. The purpose of Goal 4 was to get
the forest lands in the best production as possible as quickly as
possible, and he felt private ownership would do that. Because of
the impact of being next to a destination resort, if a person was
going to invest a fair amount of money ($4,000-$6,000 a year)
trying to improve land, they needed to be there to watch their
investment or they might lose the whole thing. The property owner
needed to flexibility the "do the right thing for their land." He
didn't know of any other parcel that had more public access than
this parcel. He felt there needed to be an F-2 buffer between a
developed area and an F-1 zone.
Commissioner Throop said he thought the resource element of the
comprehensive plan had a map from the Oregon Department of Forestry
which described productivity, and that Mr. Brice's parcel was in
one of two areas which were described as the "highest productivity
lands in Deschutes County." There was one segment of land west of
Black Butte and another east and south of the Newberry Volcanic
National Monument. He asked if Mr. Nichols disagreed. Mr. Nichols
said yes he felt it was much lower on the productivity scale, and
he had done testing on this parcel. The land further west of this
parcel was much more productive. This winter, he had looked at six
other parcels near by, and this parcel was one of the poorer ones
he had encountered.
Commissioner Throop asked what kinds of uses Mr. Nichols believed
would produce the highest productivity for Mr. Brice's parcel. Mr.
Nichols said in the plan he developed, the first focus would be the
production of timber. It would have to be compatible with the
wildlife in the area, so they couldn't put timber on every acre.
Commissioner Throop asked Mr. Nichols what kind of development he
would recommend? Mr. Nichols said his concern was that "somebody
be there and take care of the land." The owner should be on the
land so that it could be managed properly, and provide for the
security of the property. Commissioner Throop asked if he were
arguing that there needed to be a dwelling on each of the three
parcels (once partitioned) for forest management purposes? Mr.
Nichols said there would only need to be two dwellings for forest
management purposes, since one of the parcels was zoned for surface
mining. Commissioner Throop asked how the Planning Commission
proposal for F-1 on these parcels conflicted with what Mr. Nichols
PAGE 9 MINUTES: 3-31-92
0115-02.66
was proposing. Mr. Nichols said if the F-1 zone would allow the
dwellings, it would go along with what they were proposing.
Commissioner Throop said the F-1 zone would clearly allow the
dwellings if they met the forest management criteria which would
also be required n the F-2 zone since the application was in prior
to the adoption of the ordinance. Commissioner Throop asked if,
given that, the F-1 was incompatible with what Mr. Nichols was
proposing. Mr. Nichols said not if the dwelling would be allowed,
however he thought the F-1 criteria would be more difficult to meet
because he felt the F-1 lands would be scrutinized much closer than
the lands zoned F-2. Commissioner Throop said the standards were
the same for a forest management dwelling in the F-1 and F-2 zones.
Bill Boyer, 17575 Jordon Road, Sisters, testified that there were
many good features to the Planning Commission recommendation. His
suggestions were intended only to help improve the proposal. He
felt the "parcelization of prior existing property" wording could
be construed to include the use of a barn, and he suggested it be
reworded to make it clear that it referred to a residence.
Permitting additional residential houses on F-1 forest land
shouldn't be allowed since a major distinction of F-1 was that it
was commercial forest land. The timber companies had done well in
the past at harvesting the timber without having personal
residences in the forests. In the F-2 section, he felt there was
an inconsistency. The purpose was to conserve forest lands,
however destination resorts were permitted. He felt this violated
the County's obligation to the people to manage land so as to
prevent the destruction of forest areas. He felt destination
resorts were mini -cities and residential communities and should not
be allowed in the forest zones. Good planning should try to avoid
irreversibility and the County could not go back to forests once
mini -cities were allowed. He also suggested taking out the section
which referred to including cultured Christmas trees. He
understood this had been a troublesome provision on the west side
of the Cascades because people would use it as a gimmick to get a
house in the forest areas. Concerning the fire siting and road
standards, he felt stronger fire protection language was justified.
He recommended approving dwellings only if the land was within a
fire protection district.
Bill Gove, Bend, testified that he worked for a company which owned
a large ranch located in Deschutes County and other eastern Oregon
counties which contained some timber. They did not have property
involved directly in this zoning, so he felt he could be candid.
After dealing with the difficulties associated with restrictive
zoning, he concluded the Central and Eastern Oregon Counties were
either "reluctantly or enthusiastically helping the state
government to convert large portions of rural areas in these
counties into lands which he couldn't call anything else but park-
like lands." In the proposed forest zoning ordinance, the County
was not looking at the character or productivity of each piece of
land, but at the ownership and size of the parcel. He felt it was
PAGE 10 MINUTES: 3-31-92
0115--0267
clear why the County would be attracted to this approach because it
would create park -like lands without paying for them. The County
was using zoning to make the lands undevelopable and unusable
except in their natural states. He reminded the Board of the
various "taking" cases which were starting to "win their way
through the court system."
Chairman Maudlin said he was probably closer to agreeing with him
than the other Commissioners, however he pointed out that the
purpose of this hearing was to take testimony of the proposed
forest zone language.
Bill Gove responded that the County was getting so restrictive in
its zoning that he felt the County was leaving itself open for a
case of "taking" and would have to compensate landowners for that
taking. Every day, large landowners were being asked to join legal
organizations which were created to deal with this "taking" issue.
Win Francis, 1199 NW Wall Street, Bend, testified that the criteria
which seemed most logical and appropriate to differentiate between
the F-1 and F-2 zones was productivity of the land, but understood
the County did not have the time or resources to do a study. If
the Board used criteria which wasn't the "best" criteria, the Board
was taking the risk of adopting ordinances which didn't work. He
felt the Board had to make value judgements. He asked if it was a
good use to have a residence on the property and have people who
were willing to spend their own sweat and money to manage the
property in a different way than it could be managed if it were
commercial, i.e. cutting by hand, developing water on the property,
habitat enhancement; and would the trade off of having a house on
the property be worth having this good use? Were lands
commercially managed by large timber owners who used less intensive
management a better use of the land? He felt there was room for
both uses, and both uses were appropriate in different situations.
He didn't think a blanket statement could be made that commercial
timber practices were the best use and that having people living on
land in a forest section or an unproductive farm land section was
necessarily a bad use.
Commissioner Throop asked if there was a conflict with what Mr.
Francis was saying in the F-1 or F-2 ordinances. Mr. Francis said
yes. The standard of "necessary and accessory to forest
management" for a dwelling was not only thing which should be
considered. In certain instances it might be appropriate to have
a non -forest dwelling on forest land. Commissioner Throop said the
state forest rule was very prescriptive in this area. Mr. Francis
said he had read the state provisions, and the County had added a
provision in the F-1 zone for no non -forest dwellings. He was
concerned that the best criteria was not used in determining the F-
1 zone, and then if you were zoned F-1, you could never have a
house unless you could justify it as necessary to manage the
timber. Commissioner Throop asked if he were suggesting that the
PAGE 11 MINUTES: 3-31-92
0115-0268
County allow the non -forest dwelling provision to be placed in the
F-1 zone also. Mr. Francis said no, he just wanted the make sure
the Board had considered all of the possible ramifications, and
were doing what they wanted to do.
Chairman Maudlin said he thought Mr. Francis was trying to find a
different criteria for determining whether the land should be zoned
F-1 or F-2. He said the Board had discussed this same issue in its
work session. He said the County was admitting that they were
probably not using all of the criteria necessary to decide which
parcels were F-1 and F-2.
Mr. Francis said he was now testifying as a representative of
Robbie Raptor and her specific situation.
Robbie Raptor, 54655 Jack Pine Rd., Bend 97707, testified that she
was the owner of a piece of land known as "the rock" (21-10-6). In
1983 she bought the property to retire on, and to make into her own
personal forest with grass and animals. The property had been
logged, there had been no cleanup, and it needed a great deal of
work. There were two dwellings on the property which were both
occupied. Her daughter's family lived in the other dwelling. The
original access to the property was 5-1/2 miles through Forest
Service land. The Forest Service decided to no longer allow them
access, so they acquired deeded easement across the Jack Myer
property and an easement across BLM land. They now had their own
road which was 1/2 mile long with access through Fall River
Estates. They built the road to BLM standards and brought in a
phone line down that road. They had bids from Midstate Electric
concerning bringing power to the property down the same road, and
they owned their own well. In 1986, they called in the state
forester, Larry Hoffman, to get a forest plan which would be the
best for the land and the animals, and not necessarily for profit.
They followed the forest plan since 1986 and had put more than
$6,000 into this plan. They've made no income from the thinning
they've done. Her plans for the future have now been changed. All
she ever wanted to do was retire, build a house on her property and
continue managing her "personal little piece of forest." However,
her job was phased out in 1987, so she had to sell the property to
survive. She had 147 acres which she did not want to split up.
She hoped to sell it to someone who would take care of it the way
she had intended to. She felt that if her property were zoned F-1,
the County would be taking money away from her. With the F-1
zoning, she felt she could only get $150 an acre for it, and it
would be "virtually unsalable." Her retirement money was in this
property and she was "scared to death." The land was only marginal
for growing trees.
Chairman Maudlin asked why she felt the property would be more
valuable if it were zoned F-2. Ms. Raptor said someone could buy
the property with the same intentions that she had: to manage the
property but to live on it also. If she were considering buying
PAGE 12 MINUTES: 3-31-92
0115-0269
the property today, and it were zoned F-1, she'd think the only way
she could build a home on the property was if she was going to make
a commercial tree farm out of it. She didn't think the land was
productive enough to have a commercial tree farm there.
Commissioner Throop said he couldn't see any differences between
the F-2 and the F-1 zones as they related to her circumstances.
The state rule was very clear on approving a non -forest dwelling.
Even if the property was zoned F-2, she would not qualify for the
minimum standards for a non -forest dwelling as provided by the
rule. So either the F-1 or F-2 zoning would require that any new
dwelling be a forest related dwelling. He couldn't see where the
zoning would make any difference in her circumstance.
Win Francis said if there was not distinction, then why not leave
the property F-2. Commissioner Throop said the County had to look
at the criteria and make a zoning judgement on all of the forest
lands in the County. Win Francis said the reason this parcel
didn't meet the F-1 criteria was because it didn't meet the size
criteria, it had two dwellings on it, it was accessed through a
subdivision, then through a easement, and then through a BLM
easement raised to their standards. Because of that, he didn't
think the parcel met the criteria for F-1 zoning. He felt there
was a nebulous effect on property zoned F-1 which he couldn't
explain which would affect the property economically.
Chairman Maudlin said he had heard a lot of testimony about
people's fear of being zoned F-1, while the only difference was you
couldn't have a non -forest dwelling in a F-1 zone and destination
resorts could be on F-2 lands, except in wildlife zones, if they
met the criteria.
Kevin Harrison pointed out that in the F-1 zone, forest management
dwellings were limited to parcels which existed at the time of the
adoption of the ordinance. In the F-2 zone, you could create a new
parcel for a forest dwelling.
Commissioner Throop pointed out that there was an 80 acre minimum
lot size in the F-1 and F-2 zones, so this parcel would not qualify
for division in either case. He said if the specific provisions of
the ordinance were reviewed, the zoning would make no difference to
this particular parcel.
Ms. Kaptor asked, then why change the zoning from F-2 to F-1?
Paul Patrick, 54655 Jackpine Rd., Bend 97707, testified that he did
not have a financial vested interest in the property but had
resided there for the last 8-1/2 years. When they first got the
property it was a mess from previous logging. The productivity on
this land was 40 cu. ft. per acre per year-- "marginal at best."
75% of the land had lodge pole and 90% of that was diseased. There
had always been a habitable dwelling on the property since it was
PAGE 13 MINUTES: 3-31-92
01x5-02'70
deeded by the president of the United States. Some lot nearby were
undersized and zoned F-2, so why should this parcel by zoned F-1.
If the land was not productive, why shouldn't he be able to put a
shop on it. He had several people look at the property, and they
required that he have a site plan and a building site permit before
they would buy the property; so prospective buyers were also afraid
of the F-1 zoning. He said the parcel did not meet the criteria
for the F-1 zone so there was no reason to zone it F-1.
Commissioner Throop pointed out that the parcel was currently zoned
forest specific. Mr. Patrick said that in 1987 there was a map
which showed this parcel as RR -40. Commissioner Throop said there
was no such zone in this County. Mr. Patrick said it might have
been in the Assessor's files.
Martin Hansen said he would submit further testimony in written
form.
Gladys Biglor, 62139 Cody Road, Bend, 97701, testified that she
agreed with some of the other speakers in that she believed
productivity standards should be used as the main criteria for the
distinction between forest lands. She attended one Planning
Commission meeting and was disturbed because she never heard any
forestry terms being used. What she did hear was "parcel size,"
"destination resorts," and "residential development." What she
didn't hear was "sustainable yield," "suitability," "capability,"
"productivity," "survivability," and "regulated timber." The
minimum standard which the USFS used for forest productivity was 20
cu. ft. per acre per year. One of her biggest concerns was the
impact of residential development on intensively managed forests
and the practices used in intensively managed forests, i.e.
harvesting, cutting trees, thinning, spraying insecticides and
herbicides, mechanical planting, and fuel reduction (underburning,
slash burning, chipping). A lot of people objected to intensive
forest management practices and took legal action to restrict such
practices. Forest fire was another impact. In 1988, there was an
82 acre stand of timber which burned because of improper use of
charcoal briquettes or faulty electrical systems on private land
adjacent to Forest Service land. In the Awbrey Hall fire area, the
forest service left the burned snags standing for survivability of
the planted seedlings and wild life habitat. Adjacent private land
owners used the opposite forest practices and clear cut their
standing snags. The USFS was getting requests from private land
owners to modify its forest practices to accommodate residential
developments near the USFS lands. She requested that the Board
leave the file open on the issue in compliance with Section
22.24.040 which indicated that a copy of the staff report would be
available for inspection at least 15 days prior to the hearing.
Commissioner Throop said he understood that provision dealt with
quasi-judicial site-specific applications and did not relate to
legislative proceedings like this one. Bruce White said
PAGE 14 MINUTES: 3-31-92
0115-02'71
Commissioner Throop was correct. He said this was a legislative
process because it was being done on a county -wide basis. George
Read said the initial staff report had been given to the Planning
Commission two or three months ago.
Gladys Biglor said she went to the Planning Department three times
last week and on Friday was able to get a copy of the draft
ordinances, because she was told they had not been completed prior
to that date. It was difficult to make an intelligent response in
such a short time. She found it disturbing to hear that there
might be a few more changes which the public would not be able to
review and comment on. She requested again that the file be left
open for a reasonable period of time.
Chairman Maudlin said the time schedule was not to his liking
either, however the County was under time constraints and had to
make a decision by April 15, 1992.
Commission Throop said a group which Ms. Biglor was affiliated
with, ARLU-DeCo, was pressing the County to complete periodic
review within the time lines, and he felt the County had very
little flexibility because of this pressure.
Gladys Biglor said she didn't feel that all of the blame should be
put on ARLU-DeCo since the County had asked for and received
several time extensions in the past. She felt County citizens
placed their trust in County planners when it came to proper land
use decisions, and productivity standards were needed to make the
proper land use decision in Forest Lands. She felt any land use
agency would have good stand information on their forest lands, and
she felt that should apply to County forest lands as well.
Commissioner Throop pointed out that these lands were private lands
not County lands, unlike the Forest Service and BLM which owned
their lands. He said the County did not have the physical
capability to do the kind of productivity work she was describing,
and the planning staff and Planning Commission had tried to put
together the best possible process to be able to achieve what was
required under state law in the time frame allowed. Doing a
complete productivity analysis would probably take a couple of
years. He asked her to point out specifically where she had
concerns about mistakes which had been made because productivity
information was not used.
Gladys Biglor said she had not said there were any "mistakes."
Commissioner Throop then asked where her concerns were. Gladys
Biglor said her concern was any place where F-2 lands were
surrounded by forest service lands and developers would impact
forest owners, i.e. Crown lands where residential development could
occur would impact what types of management they would be able to
do.
PAGE 15 MINUTES: 3-31-92
0115-0272
Commissioner Throop said currently 100% of Crown lands were zoned
F-1, and most of the lands zoned forest were in the F-1 zone. He
asked if she could point out parcels which would fit her concern.
Gladys Biglor said the F-2 parcels. Commissioner Throop asked
which ones. Ms. Biglor said those parcels which had large forest
lands around them. Commissioner Throop asked that she point out an
example of such a situation. Mr. Biglor said she saw F-2 land
throughout the mapping and there were lands discussed this evening
where that was the case. Commissioner Throop asked her to point
out which ones on the map. Ms. Biglor said it was up to the
applicant to show where those lands were.
Rod Bonackr, PO Box 1565, Sisters, 97759, testified that this
ordinance had "come a long way since January" and a lot of his
concerns had been addressed. He appreciated the amount of work
staff had put into this ordinance, and he supported it. He
originally had concerns about the lack of productivity standards,
but understood the time constraints. In most cases, he felt the
criteria the County used came up with the same results that the use
of productivity standards would have. In borderline cases, he
would like to see productivity put back into the equation. He had
a couple of questions. In the siting standards it mentioned trees
being pruned to four times the flame height. Flame height was a
technical term used in describing fire behavior and varied
depending on the type of fuel and fuel moisture. He suggested
dropping the flame height wording and replacing it with the height
of the fuels or eight feet. He asked why non -forest dwellings were
required to be within a rural fire district, but it was not a
requirement for forest management dwellings in the F-1 zone. Kevin
Harrison said that language was taken from the State Administrative
Rule. Mr. Bonackr said there was nothing wrong with the County
applying a siting standard more restrictive than state law, and
suggested that the County do so. Where the goal was to preserve
forest lands for timber production and other forest uses, he
questioned the need for some of the conditional uses, i.e.
cemeteries, airport expansions, and processing of mined materials.
He was also confused why there were conditional uses for private
hunting and fishing lodges. He assumed this language was intended
for commercial operations, but it was not clear. He thought the
language might allow a hunting cabin where a forest dwelling would
be denied. If the hunting cabin was left in, the same fire and
siting standards should be applied to them. Chairman Maudlin said
he was concerned about the same language.
Nancy Hall, 51000 Brosterhous, Bend 97702, testified that LCDC
allowed, under conditional uses permitted, even more stringent
standards. She suggested the following conditional uses be
deleted: private hunting and fishing operations without lodging
accommodations since were are already 14 resorts on the Deschutes
River; exploration and production of geothermal, gas, oil etc.;
cemeteries; accommodations for the private, seasonal limited to no
more than 15 guest rooms; expansion of existing airports;
PAGE 16 MINUTES: 3-31-92
0115-02'73
destination resorts; and temporary concrete and asphalt plants.
She felt productivity tables should be prepared on each soil type
found in forest zones. She did not feel that the public was
adequately informed of the nature of the forest land proposal nor
were they alerted of the correct date for this hearing.
Dan Van Vactor, 552 NW Riverside, Bend, 97702, testified that he
was in support of the forest plan as received from the Planning
Commission. He wanted to know when the Board was going to have a
work session on this issue. Chairman Maudlin said it would be
announced at the end of the meeting.
There being no one else who wished to testify, Chairman Maudlin
closed the public hearing.
Chairman Maudlin announced that the Board would allow until 5 p.m.
on Wednesday, April 8, 1992, for written testimony. There would be
a work session on Monday, April 13, 1992, at 11 a.m. with a
decision on Wednesday, April 15, 1992, at 2:30 p.m. in this room.
^n
DATED this day of ,-� , 1992, by the Board of
Commissioners of Deschutes Coun y, Oreg n.
% Tom hroop, Co sion
LT T-
<.INU.N.,Na a gen, olmiss
Ana
i� � NOWN,
11
J
Recording Secretary 'Biudlin,
PAGE 17 MINUTES: 3-31-92
. 0115-02,74
PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LISTING
PUBLIC HEARING TOPIC:
DATE•t l ��2 TIME•
ADDRESS CTIY ZIP
1.
2. f�- L- L--
3. L F F/Z�A9V` r
4.
5.
6.
7
Llt, Z-� c� ��
lid i �21
8.
131-z/
13 o y & h 121s -%s -
7s -%S"9.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18
19