The URL can be used to link to this page

1992-34434-Minutes for Meeting September 23,1992 Recorded 10/14/199292-34434 0119-1002 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES EFU ZONE AMENDMENTS DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; September 23, 1992 Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. at the City of Bend Public Work Building. Board members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Nancy Pope Schlangen. Also present were: Bruce White, Assistant Legal Counsel; Kevin Harrison, Senior Planning; George Read, Planning Director; Karen Green, Community Development Director; and Catherine Morrow, Planner. The purpose of the hearing was for the Board to receive testimony on amendments to Chapter 18.16 (Exclusive Farm Use Zones) of Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, and to the Agriculture section of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan. The amendments were part of the County's periodic review of its comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances as required under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197.628 through 197.649, and affected all properties currently zoned EFU-20, EFU-40, EFU-80 or EFU-320. The proposed amendments primarily addressed EFU zone boundaries, minimum lot sizes for the creation of new farm and non-farm parcels, review criteria for the authorization of the new farm dwellings, and plan policies relative to agricultural lands. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing and asked for a staff report. Kevin Harrison said the Board had been given a copy of the final recommendations of the Planning Commission concerning the County's periodic review of its EFU zones. The purpose of the review was to assure that the County's Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations complied with statewide planning Goal 3 -Agricultural Land. The Goal in conjunction with ORS Chapter 215 and implementing administrative rules defined agricultural lands, required counties to zone such lands for exclusive farm use, and described appropriate uses in the EFU zones. The goal distinguished between farm and non-farm dwellings and between farm and non-farm divisions. The primary focus of this review was the County's standard for farm dwellings and farm divisions. The basic requirements of Goal 3 were that the minimum lot sizes used in the EFU zones be appropriate for the continuation of the existing commercial agricultural enterprise within the area. Farm dwellings could be approved when the property met the minimum lot size for the zone and where the dwelling was found to be one customarily provided in conjunction with farm use. So in order to meet the County's requirements under period review, the County had to define PAGE 1 MINUTES: 9/23/92 0119-1003 commercial agriculture in the County, determine whether there were area or sub -areas of the County with a distinct agricultural enterprise in terms of types or sizes, determine the farm unit size appropriate to maintain each area's commercial agricultural enterprise, and balance all relevant information to determine the parcel size appropriate to maintain the area's commercial agricultural enterprise as a whole. Mr. Harrison continued that staff had reviewed the permitted use and conditional use sections of the zoning ordinance to assure that those provisions conformed with state law. However, they did not take any testimony on whether any listed use should be included in the permitted use or conditional section of the zone, and they had not made any recommendations in that regard. Mr. Harrison said that the County contracted with Oregon State University Extension Service to provide assistance in the documentation of the required standards, and appointed a 24 -member advisory committee to work with the OSU research team. The research team met with the advisory committee six times over last winter and spring and presented their final report to the Planning Commission in July. To supplement this study, the County contracted with the Bureau of the Census for a special tabulation of the 1987 census of agriculture and with Western Attitudes to conduct an original survey of agricultural operators. All of this information had been submitted to the Board, and these documents were to be incorporated into the resource element of the comprehensive plan to provide a factual basis for the plan and the implementing ordinances. The Planning Commission reviewed the data base and recommendations in July and August and their final recommendations were contained in the draft ordinance Chapter 18.16 - Exclusive Farm Use Zones, the draft comprehensive plan section and a draft findings. Mr. Harrison went on to point out how the recommendations of the advisory committee differed from those submitted by the Planning Commission. The underlying finding from this process was that the County's standards for farm divisions and farm dwellings were not consistent with Goal 3 and therefore changes were required. The advisory committee recommended the use of the data base in a three - tiered zoning model to implement the data. The Planning Commission concurred with this recommendation. The advisory committee identified seven agricultural sub -areas or subzones with boundaries which generally followed existing zone boundaries. The Planning Commission recommended that the Sisters subzone be incorporated with the Cloverdale subzone, and that there be minor boundary adjustments between the Cloverdale and Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzones. The advisory committee recommended that the County seek an exception to Goal 3 to waive some of the commercial requirements for the Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzone. The Planning Commission recommended that the County treat this subzone like the other subzones and use the commercial standards contained in the profile PAGE 2 MINUTES: 9/23/92 0119-1004 in the final report. The advisory committee recommended a three tiered approach for land divisions and dwelling unit approvals. The key component identified in the tiers was irrigated acreage. The Planning Commission recommended deletion of tier 3 for land divisions and were split over whether to apply both tiers one and two to land divisions. Half the Planning Commission felt that land divisions for farm use should be limited to tier one and the other half felt that both tiers one and two were appropriate. The Planning Commission also recommended three tiers for dwelling unit approvals and added consideration of assessed farm use value to the structure to acknowledge the presence and role of unirrigated lands in farm use in Deschutes County. The advisory committee recommended use of the current zone standards as a floor in tier 2 land divisions. The Planning Commission recommended use of the lower quartile irrigated acres for the floor of tier 2 in each subzone . The advisory committee recommended setting an income test for tier 3 based on numbers derived by multiplying the median irrigated acres by yield and price figures for indicator crops which were contained in the commodity table of the final report. The Planning Commissioner recommended that the income test be based on multiplying median assessed farm use value times a multiplier which was used by the Assessor's Office. The advisory committee did not discuss and made no recommendations on non-farm dwellings or divisions. The Planning Commission recommended that the County be no more restrictive than state law concerning non-farm dwellings, and recommended a minimum lot size of 20 acres on non- farm divisions with a cap or limit of three new farm parcels that could be created from any one parent parcel. Mr. Harrison then went through the draft ordinance and draft comprehensive plan and highlighted the areas which were different from the past ordinances as indicated in the attached. Chairman Maudlin asked if a parent parcel was split into three sections, would those three parcels become parent parcels which could be split into three parcels? Mr. Harrison said no. When a tract of land was divided into three, new non-farm parcels, none of the resulting parcels could be further divided. Chairman Maudlin asked who would keep track of these divisions. Mr. Harrison said it could be built into the final decision on the proposed partition. It was standard practice that when the Planning Department received an application and there was a reference to a previous file, that file would be reviewed for previous restrictions. Chairman Maudlin asked about the farm review committee which would review the farm management plans. Mr. Harrison said this concept originated with the advisory committee and had traveled throughout the process. It would be a County -appointed committee comprised of people with agricultural expertise, i.e. OSU extension, people with agricultural economics. The advisory committee recommended there be at least one or two local farmers or ranchers on the committee. PAGE 3 MINUTES: 9/23/92 0119-1005 This committee would review the farm management plans and determine whether or not the proposals were feasible or economically possible. The review committee would provide written comments to the Planning Department which would be part of the record for the hearing on that application. Chairman Maudlin asked if the recommendation would have to be favorable before the application could be approved. Mr. Harrison said if the committee felt the application was not feasible, he thought the Hearings Officer would have no choice but to deny the application. Mr. Harrison said a good part of the recommendations in the Agricultural Lands section called for deletion of a lengthy narrative of the 1979 planning process when the Comprehensive Plan was originally put together. Planning staff didn't feel this was a necessary element to the Comprehensive Plan and could be reduced to a couple of paragraphs to "get down to the heart of the section which is goals and policies." Commissioner Schlangen pointed out that the third paragraph outlining the climate and soils was part of Mr. Pease's plan and his report began with that sort of statement. She asked why the statement was not needed. Mr. Harrison said the Comprehensive Plan was organized with a resource element which was the factual basis for each section of the Plan. The data which resulted from the farm study, including the final report from OSU, the survey, special tabulations, and other associated data would be incorporated into the resource element. The resource element was where you would look the factual basis for the Comprehensive Plan policies and implementing ordinances. Commissioner Schlangen expressed concern that our response to DLCD in Salem concerning the difference in the agricultural situation on this side of the mountains should be clear and perhaps a cover letter was needed. Mr. Harrison said the resource element was a component of the Comprehensive Plan and had to be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. All of these resources were going to Salem with the Comprehensive Plan and ordinance. Drafts had been submitted already, however Salem was unconvinced. Mr. Harrison went through the changes recommended concerning the Agricultural Lands section of the Comprehensive Plan. On Page 7 (5 ) the current policy included flexibility to farms who might need to sell an isolated unproductive piece of land in order to continue farming. That language was being deleted from the plan because of a recent Supreme Court decision (Smith v. Clackamas County) which said that could no longer be done. In the past, the County had recognized that most farm parcels had a mix of quality of land, and where there was an isolated unproductive portion of the farm, i.e. a rock ridge, the County had previously used this policy to allow for a non-farm division allowing a non-farm dwelling on the small unproductive piece. The decision from the Clackamas County case covered a similar situation. The property was an orchard with a small corner of the property located across a County road. The small corner was not managed as part of the orchard because of the road, and they wanted to partition the property and get a non-farm PAGE 4 MINUTES: 9/23/92 0119-1006 dwelling. The decision throughout the court system was that the property being considered had to be found to be generally unsuitable for farm use. In the past the County had applied that test to the small isolated unproductive portion of the property being divided off, however the courts said that test had to be applied to the entire parent parcel. Chairman Maudlin asked if the property owner would lose his farm deferral because the smaller section wasn't being farmed. Mr. Harrison said he understood that under special assessment a number of kinds of land could be included, i.e. lands not actually in farm use but part of the farm parcel, however that was not his area of expertise. The language being deleted also included obscure language prohibiting non- agricultural subdivisions. The proposed language would make that more explicit. Mr. Harrison submitted testimony to the Board which had been received from DLCD and expressed concern with the use of tier three for approval of dwellings on existing lots. They didn't feel the methodology used to define the income test satisfied the administrative rule in the goal. The County and DLCD had a fundamental difference regarding this issue. The second communication was from 1000 Friends of Oregon and the third was from Nancy Hall who felt there were three fundamental flaws with the study and that the County should abandon what had been done and start over. He didn't agree with the three points she raised, and in each instance he felt the County had done what she said the County should have done. Ken Johnson, 2238 SW Meadowbrook, Redmond, testified that he was a retired member of the Planning Commission and was on the farm committee. He concurred with Commissioner Schlangen's concern about the deletion of the policy on farming problems. He understood it would be in the resource document, however that document was seldom seen by anyone other than Planning staff. He said the data did verify what everyone in Deschutes County already knew: agriculture was tough, irrigation was critical to Deschutes County agriculture in terms of dollars per acre, and small scale agriculture was very important to the overall agricultural base of Deschutes County. The proposal before the Board was generally sound, however he had one personal concern. Locking the land divisions and farm dwellings to irrigated acres as the sole base could lead to a split up of the irrigated parcels into smaller irrigated parcels which he felt would be detrimental to larger scale agriculture in the long run. That was why he had supported tier 2 as a more flexible option for land divisions. He felt it was unfortunate that open space was part of Goal 3, since Goal 3 was for agriculture and farm lands. Preserving open space did not preserve the farm use or the farm land. He felt the "best use" was not a land use goal even though it should have been. However, in the County's plan, policies, and ordinance, he felt the County could lean toward a "best use" while still complying with the conflicting, state land use goals. PAGE 5 MINUTES: 9/23/92 0119.100'7 Commissioner Schlangen said the Board had just received a letter from the DLCD which didn't address "best use" for Deschutes County, i.e. llamas or other exotic animals on small parcels. The letter said ,you must be principally directed to farm use, and principally engaged in farm use." She said Deschutes County had many "subsidized farms." The Board thanked Mr. Johnson for his years of service on the Planning Commission. Eric Dolson, PO Box 698, Sisters, read the attached testimony into the record. Kitty Warner, PO Box 7413, Bend, 97708, asked whether the existing MUA-10 parcels would still be recognized. Kevin Harrison said deleting MUA zoning from the agriculture section of the comprehensive plan would have no effect on the existing zoning. The Planning staff felt the appropriate designation for the MUA-10 zoning was rural residential and therefore policies for MUA-10 zones would be in the rural residential section of the comprehensive plan not the agriculture section. George Read said he felt MUA-10 zones were inadvertently left in the agriculture section of the plan when it was acknowledged, therefore this was just clean up of a clerical error. Ms. Warner expressed concern that the buyer of a piece of property sometimes had to expend thousands of dollars on attorney fees, buying cattle, putting land into production, hiring surveyors and soil planners; so she cautioned that this process should not have an additional economic impact on the people involved. If there was to be a technical review committee, it shouldn't be a large number of people, and they should be able to act quickly. She suggested that the committee include a banker and a builder. She was concerned about the number of irrigated acre in some of the subzones, and felt they were significantly different from what she originally saw from the data base. She felt it would require that a number of people go to tier two or three to get their approval since the number of irrigated acres was so high. Her major concern was the prohibition on page 15 that no more that three non-farm parcels could be created in an EFU zone. She felt many parcels in the County would be affected by this prohibition. She gave an example of a 700 -acre EFU-zoned parcel with 200 acres of irrigation and 500 acres of marginal land. Limiting division to three parcels would mean three parcels with 166.6 acres which could only have one home. She felt this prohibition should not be considered until after the marginal/secondary lands process was completed. Commissioner Throop said subdivisions in EFU zones were already prohibited and asked if she felt that was not an acceptable standard and wanted it weakened. Ms. Warner said even though DLCD would not like it, she felt it was critical that this prohibition be removed until after the secondary/marginal lands process. Commissioner Throop asked under this proposal how an application for a dwelling would be processed? Would someone have to put PAGE 6 MINUTES: 9/23/92 0.19-1008 together a farm management plan, which would go to the committee and the Hearings Officer to determine whether or not that plan was acceptable? If the management plan was acceptable, then would they get a permit for the dwelling conditioned upon implementation of the management plan? Could the applicant know in advance of putting the farm use on the property that they could have a dwelling in conjunction with that farm use? Mr. Harrison said that was an accurate scenario. He said that under the terms of this proposal, it would be possible to come in with a farm management plan that detailed a "proposed" farm use not an "existing" farm use. The proposal could be reviewed against the requirements of the administrative rule and the zoning ordinance to make sure it was a "commercial farm use," and that the dwelling would be "customarily provided in conjunction with that farm use." The approval of the conditional use permit could be made contingent upon implementation of that farm management plan, i.e. on-site improvements, irrigation, fencing, outbuildings, and putting the land to the proposed use. Therefore, the applicant would know in advance that if they followed their management plan, they could get a building permit. Commissioner Throop said they would not have to spend the money on perfecting the farm use prior to getting the approval for the dwelling assuming they met the provisions in the farm management plan. Ms. Warner said that system would be much better than the current system. Chairman Maudlin said he understood the applicant would have to meet certain standards and uses on the farm before they could have a building permit. Mr. Harrison said there was a distinction between the review of the conditional use permit and the actual issuance of the building permit for the house. The County could review an application for a conditional use permit for the house based on a proposal to establish a farm use ( farm management plan) . It could be determined whether or not that farm management plan constituted a qualifying commercial farm use and whether the dwelling would be customarily provided in conjunction with that farm use. The County could grant conditional approval of that conditional use permit for the dwelling subject to the applicant carrying out the details of his/her management plan, such as investing in the improvements in the land and animals and establishing the farm use on the property. When that had occurred, the County could issue the building permit for the house. Ms. Warner suggested that the permit for the dwelling be for 18 months or two years since it would take more time to implement the management plan. Commissioner Throop restated that an applicant did not need to spend money on perfecting the farm use prior to getting approval for a conditional use permit for a dwelling. Mr. Harrison said that under the existing procedures ordinance, the County could grant approval of a conditional use permit for more than one year upon request. These approvals could be extended a maximum of two times, each for six months, so a permit could be good for up to three years. PAGE 7 MINUTES: 9/23/92 0.19-1009 Commissioner Throop asked about Ms. Warner's comment that the number of irrigated acres requirement was hirer than originally stated. Mr. Harrison said when they modified the subzones based on the Planning Commission recommendation, the irrigated acreage in Cloverdale and Tumalo/Bend/Redmond went down from 23-1/2 to 23. The only figure that went up was LaPine (from 36 to 37). Ms. Warner felt that these figures were high enough that a lot of land would have to be removed from farm deferral. Chairman Maudlin asked Ms. Warner what she would recommend concerning the parcelization of larger EFU lands. Ms. Warner recommended that the three parcel limit be deleted from the language until there was a marginal lands study in place. She didn't feel it made economic sense not to allow someone with 500 acres of marginal lands to split their lands into more than three parcels. Mr. Harrison said that Ms. Warner's comments regarding the increase in the number of irrigated acres might have been referring to the original recommendation of the advisory committee on the Tumalo/Bend/Redmond subzone. It had originally been proposed that there be a 20 -acre minimum lot size with 5 or 10 acres of water. In order to do that, the advisory committee recommended that an exception from some of the requirements of Goal 3 be requested from the State of Oregon. That recommendation was brought to the Planning Commission. Staff informed the Planning Commission that to justify an exception for the entire subzone would require a long drawn-out legal battle, and there was no prospect that the County could win. In addition to that, the Planning Commission took a different point of view towards the subzone. They recognized that at least in terms of the age of the water rights, this subzone contained one of the best irrigation districts in the County (Swalley), and that some of the bona fide commercial farms in the County were located in this subzone. Therefore, the Planning Commission decided to treat this subzone like the other subzones were treated, i.e. applied commercial standards as indicated in the profile for the subzone. Pamela Thalacker, 70625 NW lower Bridge Way, Terrebonne, 97760, testified that she farmed 400 acres in Lower Bridge. She said she came to this hearing very angry. She was confused to hear Planning Commission members voice some of her "most serious oppositions to this proposal." One of the things which most upset her was the elimination of the first five paragraphs from the agricultural lands portion of the comprehensive plan. She felt this language was important to have in the policy since more people read it. She felt it was as valid today as it was when it was written. Her second problem was with the data base. She was concerned that out of 1,577 properties on the EFU tax roles in Deschutes County, 775 were removed before the data base was started because they weren't commercial farm lands. She felt the use of means and medians distorted the figures even further. Her property was one of the fifteen parcels that composed the lower bridge subzone and was being subjected to standards for subdivision and dwellings which PAGE 8 MINUTES: 9/23/92 0119-1010 were 60% more stringent than anywhere else in the County. It was proposed that a 130 acre parcel would have to produce $52,650 in gross sales to qualify for a family dwelling. She had 200 irrigated acres and until last year, they had not produced that amount of gross sales in the last twelve years. She didn't see how you could "protect farm land" by not allowing people to put buildings on the land to "make the farm work. " She understood that one of the reasons the advisory committee passed the tiered system was because it would be easier to get through LCDC. She didn't think that was a very good reason, and felt the County Commissioners should protect Deschutes County. She thought this policy would leave the future of development in Deschutes County in the hands of "people with lots of money and smart lawyers" who could use the loopholes. The County should act as an agent of the residents of the County not as an agent for the state. Commissioner Throop asked what she meant by loopholes. Ms. Thalacker said she felt the language was vague and with enough money someone could put in a greenhouse with a lucrative specialty crop on an acre and thereby qualify. She felt the income test was very bad. Commissioner Throop asked if she was arguing against using tier 3 for dwellings and she said yes. Charles Boyd, 20160 Tumalo Road, Bend, 97701, testified that he did support preservation of farm land. He felt that marginal farm land might be very desirable farm land in 30 years. He wanted to know how the current draft would affect his particular situation. In 1971 he purchased acreage adjacent to the Klippel acres subdivision. There was a surface mine 1/2 mile away. He asked the County whether those surface mines could expand, and he received a letter indicating that this property would probably remain rural residential or agriculture and the odds of the surface mine expanding were remote. Now, 21 years later, his property was surrounded on three sides by surface mines, and the fourth side was owned by a surface miner. In 1989, he purchased 20 acres in the Tumalo area with 17 acres of Swalley water with the idea of retiring on this property in the future. He felt the three acres of sagebrush was set aside for the house, and he would continue to farm the irrigated acres. Also the surrounding lands were 5, 7, 10 and 20 acre parcels. He didn't want to have two pieces of property which he couldn't build a retirement home. He felt like he had donated his property near the surface mine to the County because who would want a home with surface mines on three sides. He was willing to "forget and forgive" concerning his property near the surface mines, because he got his letter prior to the adoption on the comprehensive plan. However, he only purchased the EFU property a couple of years ago, and he felt when an individual purchased 20 -acres, and followed all of the County policies, the County should have some obligation to follow through and ensure that he could do something with his property. He asked how this draft would affect his property. Commissioner Throop said the bottom line was that he would have to meet the criteria in the PAGE 9 MINUTES: 9/23/92 0.19-1011 draft language. Mr. Boyd said he was not so concerned about losing the farm deferral status of his land, but was concerned about whether he would be able to build a house. Mr. Harrison said Mr. Boyd's property did not meet the median irrigated acreage requirement under tier 1, and didn't meet the floor described under tier 2 for median irrigated acres. Mr. Boyd said three years ago he did meet the requirements and he had followed County rules. He asked why these kinds of properties could not be grandfathered? Commissioner Throop said it was against state law to grandfather. Mr. Boyd asked what the County was going to do to help citizens in his situation? Chairman Maudlin asked if he would qualify for a farm division if his assessed farm use was $5,430, and he put together a farm use plan? Mr. Harrison said he would have to establish a qualifying farm use, either before the application for a conditional use permit, or as part of a farm management plan. Chairman Maudlin asked if he didn't qualify, would it become a nonfarm parcel? Mr. Harrison said his last option would be tier 3. Commissioner Throop pointed out that the parcel couldn't be nonfarm with 17 acres of water. Commissioner Throop said he would have to put together a qualifying farm use under tier 3 in order to get a farm dwelling under these standards. He said the state was going through a process of trying to designate small-scale farm and forest lands, and the County recognized that this draft language would not solve all of the problems in Deschutes County. He pointed out that the County had no choice but to proceed or the State would issue an enforcement order which would shut down all development in the farm zone. He felt the County should move forward with this proposal, see what was happening at the state level concerning small-scale farm and forest lands (secondary/marginal lands), and then determine how it could apply in Deschutes County. Commissioner Schlangen asked if Mr. Boyd could get a dwelling permit on his land under the current rules and prior to the adopting of these draft amendments? Mr. Read said the present standards required that the property be currently employed in a farm use and that the dwelling be customarily provided in conjunction with a farm use. It was a conditional use permit and required going through a rigorous process and a public hearing. In 1989 the County treated farm dwellings as a conditional use because it was a discretionary decision to make a determination whether or not the property was customarily provided in conjunction with a farm use. Therefore, Mr. Boyd would have had to go through a similar process in 1989. Chairman Maudlin asked Mr. Boyd if he had submitted an application for a dwelling on his property. Mr. Boyd said he had. Rex Barber, PO Box 434, Terrebonne, asked if the staff recommendation was for a maximum of three divisions out of any parent parcel regardless of whether they would be farm parcels or a subdivision. Mr. Harrison said the only time a limit on the number of divisions was discussed, they were referring to nonfarm PAGE 10 MINUTES: 9/23/92 0.19-1012 parcels only. They had never discussed limiting the number of farm divisions which were available. Mr. Barber then asked if a new division met the minimums, the division would be allowed. For example, would someone with 500 acres be allowed to divide it into 40 -acre farm parcels in an EFU-40 zone if they could meet the criteria for forming a new farm parcel? Mr. Harrison said it was theoretically possible, however it would be a farm subdivision and would trigger the subdivision ordinance. Mr. Harrison said the proposal would still be reviewed in terms of it impacts. Mr. Barber passed out photographs of what he felt were marginal lands and crop lands on his property (exhibit 1A). He also submitted his testimony to the Planning Commission (attached). He did not agree with the tiered approach and wanted to see a minimum acreage approach with farm divisions. He then read the attached testimony dated September 23, 1992. William Boyer, 17577 Ogdan Road, Sisters, read the attached testimony into the record. Marion Millard, 3201 SW 73rd, Redmond, testified regarding the stated purpose of the EFU zone which was to preserve and maintain agricultural lands. She didn't feel there was any justification for 30 conditional uses just because the state allowed them, and especially destination resorts should not be allowed on soil classes 1-6. She suggested on Page 6, B, of 035 that in the first sentence the word "may" be replaced by the word "must." She said some of the conditions under 18.16.040 must include bonds to cover roads, utilities, taxes on any large scale subdivision or destination resort. They should also have to have three stage sewer treatment plants not septic tanks. 18.16.050, page 7, D, 2, she wanted the County to define "seriously" as it applied to Deschutes County, and define "materially" in D, 3. Page 8, b --she felt there was no justification for partitioning farm land for housing. She felt 9, C would allow carving the County up into one acre lots. 18.16.065, Subzones--she felt there was not justification for carving up any more farm land "until the County built up to a one year supply of parcels and this should include all UGB land." Since LaPine had it's own subzone of 36 acres, why wasn't it mapped and why had Mr. Read said it was 80 acres and had not been changed the previous day. Mr. Read said the question he was asked the previous day was what happened to the LaPine subzone and why wasn't it on the map. He replied that the LaPine EFU-80 subzone as it existed was to remain the same, i.e the boundaries of the zone remained the same. The new minimum lot size was reflected in the proposal for the LaPine area. Ms. Millard continued concerning 18.16.080 Stream Setbacks. She felt septic tanks should have to be as far from streams as they were from wells. She said that if the County continued to allow the subdivision of farm land and that building of homes, it would kill the County's tourism business. She felt something should be done for people who purchased lots before 1990 with the expectation that they would be able to build homes on them. She said the County would not be in PAGE 11 MINUTES: 9/23/92 0119-1013 a "time bind" on periodic review if the County had done the mandatory sections first and left Goal 8, which was optional, until after periodic review. Jen Twinning, PO Box 1017, Sister, 97759, said she would submit her testimony in writing for the Board to review. Keith Cyrus, 17204 Hwy 126, Sisters, said there had been some good testimony this evening from Rex Barber and Eric Dolson. He asked how the County got its land. Chairman Maudlin said it was through tax foreclosures. Mr. Cyrus said back in the 70s, he thought a 160 -acre parcel could be divided into five acre parcels which would result in 32 parcels. In the 19801s, the minimum lot size went up to 40 acres which would only allow four parcels, but it would still give the land owner some options. If this proposal was implemented, this 160 -acre parcel could not be divided if it had only 80 acres of irrigation. This primarily protected open space. He felt that one area where the study was flawed was that areas which had already been subdivided were no longer zoned EFU and were not part of the study. If they had been included, they would have reduced the averages. He said he would support this proposal if it would be retroactive and people who had already built on these substandard lots would have to come in and prove that they should be able to keep their building site and their home. Tygh Redfield, 68860 Goodrich, Sisters, testified in defense of the data base and its applied use. He pointed out that the standards of acreage size which were used "represented 20 -years of pressure and change within the County." The subzones were carefully chosen and each represented the unique response to those pressures and patterns over that 20 -year period. He felt it was the best information which came out of the farm study groups because it was the only information which was not emotional. The larger median parcels were in areas which had traditionally been able to create wider diversity of agricultural production. The data base was one of the only ways to look at the patterns of change which had taken place over the County in the last 20 -years, and he felt it was a very good source of information on which to gauge sizes of future farms. He urged the Commissioners to limit the parcelization to tier 1 rather than tier 2 or 3. This would give a predictable picture to the County and State of what the future of agriculture would be for the protection of and compliance with Goal 3 in the future. He felt it would also simplify the process. Chairman Maudlin asked if there was ever any discussion about removing the largest 10% of the EFU lands from the study since 10% of the smallest were removed? Mr. Redfield said the removal of the largest 10% wouldn't apply since the larger parcels represented the most commercial farms which was what was being studied. The lowest 10% were taken off to eliminate parcels which could not be justified as being commercial. Chairman Maudlin said he understood from Planning staff that these lowest 10% had a great deal to do PAGE 12 MINUTES: 9/23/92 0119-10--14 with keeping the rest of the commercial farms going. Mr. Redfield said that might be true however, it would be a hard case to argue with the State. George Read said what the Planning staff had said was that the group which was dropped out of the study produced less than 10% of the overall economy, so they did not significantly contribute which was why they were dropped out. Dennis Welbourn, 22825 McGrath Rd., Bend, said he owned a 20 -acre parcel zoned EFU-20 with 13 acres of water and asked if these new proposals would mean he would lose his farm deferral and wouldn't be able to keep his property. Chairman Maudlin said he would ask Bob Greenstreet from the County Assessor's Office to come up and answer questions when everyone had testified. Mr. Welbourn had no further testimony. Pam Cyrus, 17204 Hwy 126, Sisters, asked how a 1,000 acre dry land farm could be divided. Chairman Maudlin said it could be divided into three parcels. She felt that all farm lands had some areas which weren't productive which could be used for cluster developments which would put that land to its best use. That would allow the next generation to remain on the family farm after working the farm their entire life. It would allow people to live in the County without placing homes in the middle of fields, and it would provide income to the farmers so they could continue farming. Bob Greenstreet, Deschutes County Farm Appraiser for the past 15 years, was asked to answer Mr. Welbourn's question. Mr. Greenstreet asked if the land was vacant and was told it had a house on it. He said the only area which would not receive the full farm use value would be the one acre homesite. He said there was nothing in the proposal before the Board which would change any of the farm use tax laws. The one exception would be if the parcel was vacant and he had planned to build a farm dwelling in 1983 when it was purchased. In that case it was possible that he would have to look at a nonfarm dwelling under some of the new proposals which would entail loss of farm tax deferral. However in Mr. Welbourn's case, as long as he was farming there would be no loss of deferral. Someone from the audience asked why Deschutes County hadn't sent out a letter like Grant County indicating that the 1991 legislature required that the County identify all non-EFU zoned parcels and have those owners provide evidence that they could meet certain minimum gross income standards. Mr. Greenstreet said Deschutes County had also sent out 800 letters. In 1977, the legislature required an income test for non-EFU zoned parcels. That income test had been intact since then. In Deschutes County, they typically sent out income questionnaires each year to half of the parcel owners. In 1991 there were several new income requirements passed by the legislature. The old one was $500 for 5 acres or less, $100 an acre up to 20 or $2,000; while the new law was $650 for 6 acres or less, $100 per acre up to 30 acres or $3,000 outside of EFU zones. The same bill also required that all County PAGE 13 MINUTES: 9/23/92 0119-1015 Assessors notify the owners of these properties by March 1, so the letters from Deschutes County went out the latter part of February to over 800 property owners who had specially assessed farm land not within an EFU zone. None of the proposals being discussed at this hearing would have any impact on those non-EFU zones. Within the EFU zone there was a special acre homesite value which was limited to a maximum of $4,000 for the on-site development which was placed in the ground to support the house. Chairman Maudlin closed the hearing announced that the Board would accept p.m. on Monday, September 28, 1992. The September 30, 1992 at 8:30 a.m. DATED this /J46 day of Commissioners of Deschutes County, Ore AT T: �Z_4___'ZV Recording Secretary PAGE 14 MINUTES: 9/23/92 -A for oral testimony and written testimony until 5 decision would be made on n. , 1992, by the Board of ssioner Nancy Pope Schlangen, Commissioner ck audlin, Chairman R PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LISTING v f-, U� 0119-1016 4#s '�9? PUBLIC HEARING TOPIC: C �� 917-3 c4&1 v NAMEADDRESS rr CITY ((w�� ZIP �l S o 0 >�o c� ci►L j 7 757, 3.2-.- l S, w. 73 A �i ffl�.ML . 16. 17. 18. 19. 0119-101'7 :43 9-x-92 HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS ON FARM REVIEW. FROM WILLIAM BOYER, CHAIRMAN ARLUDeCO. Based,on goal 3, "to preserve and maintain agricultural lands" we dont see the need for any additional partitioning of commercial farm land, particularly since so much has been partitioned in the 7Os and in the 8Os (often in violation of the county's own comprehensive plan.) Partitioning of commercial farm land creates higher priced farm land through new smaller lots and increases rural density. It does not contribute to "future needs for agricultural products." (Goal 3). The present proposal does strengthen CURRENT EFU zoning. Yet, it should be understood that it provides opportunity for large farms to break up into smaller farms, though no smaller than the medians of the sub -zone. This will mean that the medians of the future will be lower than they are today, and it is of considerable importance that this same methodology is NOT employed in future periodic review, for it would predetermine that medians would be progressively smaller and farm land would be progressively fragmented, more expensive and less accessible for actual farm use. (Goal 3's support of "open space" is being reduced rather than sustained.) The Tumalo-Sisters sub -zone is a particular instance where the partitioning of the last 10 years has produced reduced lot sizes that are often not viable comme6ally. Yet the low median used in this proposal is based on the norms resulting from such misplanning, as though they were a legitimate standard. This questionable meth ogy applies throughout. We urge the commissioners to not only take account of minimum standards under state law but to do better than that, not only for Deschutes Co, but an an example for the state. Recently completed forest zoning provides precedent for.what the commission can do, for it exceeded minimum state standards. Standards for the proposed ordinance are clouded by one provision --what has been called tier 2 and is now incorporated under one of the 3 considerations for partitioning. Tier two provides the most uncertainty and unpredictability for what the county will look like in the future --it requires complicated and time consuming analysis of each piece of farm land,costly to the county, and in some cases can be an attractive loop hole for tier 1. It makes the entire proposal much more complicated for,the public to understand and for the planning dept to implement. It hos some creep possibilities and adds nothing to the proposal 0119-1018 while detracting from its predictability. In discussing this provision with others, the most generous comment I have gotten is that it is "silly". THEREFORE WE PROPOSE THE DELETION OF THE TIER 2 PROVISION FOR EACH OF THE SUB -ZONES. Even with tier 2 removed, the public (and possibly even the commissioners) are not likely to know what kind of future these proposals will produce for the county. Some of the recently acquired build -out information needs to be more widely disseminated and discussed. The effects of greater rural density on water use, tax costs to the general public, and increased energy use has not at this point been examined. We would rather see the review extended than fly blind with so many uncertainties and so much of the public unable to have a clear indication of what this will mean to the County. THEREFORE WE PROPOSE THAT THE PUBLIC HAVE THE BUILD OUT INFORMATION AND A SENSE OF WHAT THIS PROPOSAL WILL MEAN TO THE COUNTY'S FUTURE BEFORE CONSIDERATION FOR ADOPTION. (IF TIER 2 IS EXCLUDED THE BUILD OUT INFORMATION WILL BE MORE CERTAIN). WE URGE THAT THE RECENT ADJUSTMENT OF THE TUMALO-SISTERS SUBZONE TO EXCLUDE LARGE PARCELS THAT WOULD BE BROKEN DOWN BY THE LOWER MEDIA�ALSO BE APPLIED TO THE OTHER SUBZONES. WE PROPOSE THAT ON P. 9 OF "AGRICULTURAL LANDS", NO 16 SHOULD EITHER BE ELIMINATED OR THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE POLLED BEFORE UNDERTAKING ANY CONSIDERATION OF MARGINAL OR SECONDARY LANDS ZONING. P. 9, no 15, of AGRICULTURAL LANDS should be strengthened to indicate that the "uses in rural areas shall be consistent" WITH THE AVAILABILITY OF COUNTY WIDE WATER, BASED ON ACCURATE AND UP-TO-DATE GROUND WATER INFORMATION. P.3, K, under 18.16.030 includes golf courses as a conditional use. A golf course is hardly an example of "preserving and protecting farm land". It is an11example of de -facto upzoning into a different commercial use and is not appropriate as an EFU use. WE PROPOSE THAT GOLF COURSES BE REMOVED AS A CONDITIONAL USE ON EFU LAND. AT THE MINIMUM THIS PROVISION SHOULD INDICATE THAT BECAUSE OF THE HIGH WATER USE (OFTEN OF PRISTINE UNDERGROUND WATER) THAT NO MORE GOLF COURSES WILL BE AUTHORIZED IN EFU ZONES UNTIL ACCURATE COUNTY WIDE WATER STUDIES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED TO PROVIDE ASSURANCE THAT THERE IS AN EXCESS OF WATER FOR SUCH A NON-FARM USE, THAT GOLF COURSES BE CONSIDERED ONLY ON THE LOWEST VALUE FARM LAND, AND THAT RIGHTS TO WATER BE SECONDARY TO HOME AND FARM USE UNDER 0.19-1019 UNEXPECTED SHORTAGE. SIMILARLY WE CONTINUE TO OPPOSE DESTINATION RESORTS ON FARM LAND, AND BELIEVE 18.16.035 SHOULD BE EXCLUDED, AND IF NOT THEN BASED ON THE ABOVE STANDARDS OF SURPLUS WATER. The county is expanding through bits and pieces in which cumulative impacts on water demands in cities, farms, and exception areas make the water issue a pre -requisite to any responsible expansion. We are now flying blind, based on faith rather than science, and water is the most fundamental element that must be considered before additional development is considered. The unexpected drought means that previous sources of the underground and above groundwater sources have changed substantially, as snowfall drops. Previous data is not reliable. We need to face the water issue before rather than after decisions are made which are go-ahead decisions on growth. This gives meaning to the term "controlled growth". P. 3, M, UNDER 18.16.030 SHOULD BE DELETED. Private air ports with increasingly small farms are a source of noise and danger to nearby dwellings, and there are small plane commercial air ports nearby that satisfy the need. Farming does not require personal air ports. There would be no conflict if farms were as large as in Texas, but if there is any good reason why this provision cannot be deleted the INCLUSION OF A MINIMUM OF ONE MILE BETWEEN THE AIR -PORT AND THE NEAREST DWELLING SHOULD BE A REQUIREMENT. Leave out P. on page 3, or include a broader category than horses such as "livestock". I know you want to focus only on the zoning proposal but these conditional uses are part of the farm, use package and there are few times to improve conditional use considerations, which have often been the source of serious land use problems in the EFU areas. Rex Barber, Jr. PO Box 434 Terrebonne, OR 97760 RECEIVED SEP z 3 1992, September 23, 1992 01 �! 9--10ti0 Commissioners: I was a member of the farm zoning committee and unfortunately feel that, from the beginning, the committee's report was fatally flawed. Goal 3 is the main problem we are facing, not what is currently happening in Deschutes County. Goal 3's intent is to preserve true farmland, used for the production of food and fiber, not to preserve every square inch of Deschutes County as open space. Given that, I would like to submit my testimony and photos presented to the planning commission on August 26, 1992. Three photos show what farmland is, where crops are grown and intensive agriculture takes place. The other three show areas that are zoned EFU which can't even grow a good crop of cheat grass, that never should have been designed EFU in the first place. Again, let me say Goal 3 was not intended to preserve vast amounts of open space in the state. Goal 3 was originally intended to protect the food producing lands in the state of Oregon, not to lock up vast acreages in perpetuity for the benefit of society, at the expense of private land owners. As you can see from the statistics presented in Doctor Pease's report small subsidized farms are a growth industry in Deschutes County. Unfortunately, the statistics used were flawed. One-half of the parcels located in the EFU zones were eliminated from the statistical base because they were not agriculturally oriented. This is a fact in Deschutes County that must be addressed. Citizens desire a simple, concise criteria for partitioning and building within an EFU zone. To accomplish this, I would suggest using the subzones from the report with 20, 40, 80, and 320 -acre minimums regardless of whether any of the parcel is irrigated. I would also suggest adding a 10 -acre zone to accommodate the large number of existing small parcels. The other issue which must be addressed is the marginal/secondary lands issue which would encompass most of the lands zoned EFU in Deschutes County. There are large tracts, such as the ones that I displayed earlier, which are unsuitable for virtually and type of production agriculture. These could be used to accommodate the inevitable growth in Deschutes County without disturbing the small, irrigated land base which can produce some food and fiber. I would ask the commissioners to reflect for a moment as to what kind of society we live in... whether we are truly a capitalist society where the individual has certain inalienable rights, one being ownership of private property and its associated freedoms, or whether we are becoming a socialist society where the rights of the individual property owner are non-existent. Today's interpretation of Goal 3 is to lock up as much open space as possible without any regard for the rights of the private land owner. Let's get back to the true intent of Goal 3... to preserve productive farmland. Staffs proposal to limit the number of times a parcel can be divided is another example of the unrealistic view being presented. As an example, a farmer owns 500 irrigated acres in an EFU 40 zone. He has five children whom he would like to each deed 80 acres to, and keep 100 acres for himself. Under the proposed division restrictions this would not be allowed even though each of the parcels created would be double the minimum standard, and would be viable economic units based on the criteria presented. Don't unreasonably restrict a person's ability to use their land as they see fit. Farming is a business. If it is reasonable to limit the number of times a farm can be partitioned to three, then it is also reasonable to limit the number of stores in the Mountain View Mall to three. We must be able to adapt to the economic changes and growth pressures that are inevitable. We must be reasonable in Deschutes County and look at some other statistics which were not addressed in the zoning report. The most blatant being that there is certainly adequate open space in Deschutes County as only 17 percent of the property is privately owned and 83 percent is publicly owned. Therefore, we will have a vast land base of undeveloped open space guaranteed to the citizens of Deschutes County forever. Page One r 011 9-10rCA Don't be afraid of LCDC and 1,000 Friends of Oregon. Deschutes County is not an agricultural Garden of Eden... the growing seasons are short, there are no prime soils and what we have are shallow and rocky. Making a living on a farm in Deschutes County, at best, is very, very difficult. Please remember these facts when considering the types of additional restrictions that are being contemplated. Allow growth to occur in Deschutes County. Simplify the zoning so the private land owner can easily determine whether they have enough acreage to divide and/or build a house on the property they have worked and paid for with their hard-earned dollars. Don't protect the land from the people who own the land, protect the rights of the people who own the land from the socialists who covet the land that private citizens own. Respectfully submitted, Rex Barber, Jr. Page Two Rex Barber, Jr. PO Box 434 Terrebonne, OR 97760 August 26, 1992 Deschutes County Planning Commission Hearing I was a member of the farmland advisory committee and am farming 1,000 acres in Deschutes County. I do not agree with the proposed tiered zoning concept for the following reasons: First it creates a system more cumbersome and complicated than the one we are presently operating under. Second, it gives a tremendous amount of discretion to bureaucrats with no practical working knowledge of agriculture practices or the realities of farming in Deschutes County. Third, to qualify for a building site under the tiered system, larger irrigated tracts would be broken up rather than channeling the growth into less productive, non -irrigated areas. Fourth, at the beginning of the farmland advisory committee report, there is a fairly accurate dissertation on the subsidized nature of agriculture in Deschutes County. But the tiered approach looks at the EFU zones and the subsequent requirements as if all the County is large-scale production agriculture. I do not believe Goal 3 was ever intended to equate prime farmland such as the Lake Labish soils on the outskirts of Salem to Deschutes County rocks. Lake Labish has some of the best soils and climate in the world for the production of food. The best growing area in Deschutes County, which arguably is Lower Bridge, has in the last 20 years seen killing frosts as late as the 28th of June and on August 24, 1992, we had a reading of 23 degrees. That means the best farmland in Deschutes County has a growing season of less than 60 days. I would like you to compare several fields on my farm to some other land on my farm which is also zoned EFU and which under Goal 3 and the present interpretation is supposed to be of the same value as my producing ground and even more absurdly, as valuable as Lake Labish farmland. If the tire is flat, let's fix it, not just put a little air in it from time to time: Make Goal 3 county specific. We must realize growth is going to occur in Deschutes County and the only decision that needs to be made is where we are going to have 10 acre zones, 20 acre zones, 40 acre zones, 80 acre zones and 320 acre zones, which the subzones do quite well, except no provision has been made for 10 acre tracts, which are prevalent in several areas of the county. If there must be an income test, reasonable figures must be used to reflect the true nature of agriculture in Deschutes County. My suggestion being a flat scale with $1,000 gross income for 10 acre zones, $2,000 for 20's, $4,000 for 40's, $8,000 for 80's, and zero for 320's because of the lot size. In reality, the zoning argument is not for the preservation of farmland and agriculture, but for the preservation of open space for the Earth Muffins and those who already have their piece of Deschutes County. Eighty-three percent of Deschutes County is publicly owned which should be enough open space for any reasonable person. Commissioner Troop, since you seem to be in the spotlight, I'm going to keep you there. I don't ever expect to change your mind on hugging trees, or saving spotted owls, but I would challenge you on this point. Since your home is in an EFU zone and could not be built under present zoning codes or even under the tiered -zoning concept, tear down your house, re-hab the property, move to within an urban -growth boundary and preserve some Deschutes County farmland at your expense, rather than mine. Respectfully submitted, 4Jr.11,7 '�'�Rex B ber RECEIVED SEP231992, ' .. � To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners ?ma 0 From: Marc & Pamela Thalacker 01.19-10�� 70625 NW Lower Bridge Way ti Terrebonne, OR 97760 We wish to enter our objection to the proposed revisions to Chapter 18.16 and the Agricultural Lands definition for the following reasons: The concept 'protection of farmland' is being used as a smokescreen for the true goals of the people supporting this plan. What this proposal is really about is preventing people from building residences, so why don't we just say that is what we want to do and figure out a reasonable way to exercise control over our residential growth. The same people who insist that the large pieces of land not be allowed to subdivide are those who want to return irrigation water to the river; abolish the use of fertilizer and chemicals necessary for the preservation of commercial agriculture and allow public access to private property. The elimination of the first five paragraphs in the previous definition of 'Agricultural Lands' is evidence of a flagrant disregard for true agricultural picture in Deschutes County. Arguably, there is no land in Deschutes County that qualifies as high value cropland It is proposed that a 130 acre parcel must produce $52,650 in gross sales in order to qualify for a family dwelling. We have 200 acres of irrigated land and 1991 was the first year in at least fifteen that figure has been reached. Of our 400 acres, only 200 has water and is in cultivation. Of that, only 160 should be in cultivation, the rest is a constant battle against shallow soil and rocks. There is nothing in Deschutes County that comes anywhere near the commercial value of lands in the Columbia basin or the Willamette Valley. Everyone who purchased a parcel of land with the dream of building a home on it should be allowed to do so, period. Someone with a 10 acre parcel with a home in an EFU 130 zone becomes a wealthy person overnight, while his neighbor with 500 acres goes broke trying to farm unfarmable land. Singling out one small segment of the county with about 15 farms (specifically Lower Bridge) and making the rules 60% more stringent than for the rest of the county is grossly unfair and unjustifed 0119-1+24 The purpose of the EFU rules as they are proposed is to maintain the status quo. That might be appropriate if we were completely satisfied with the way growth has taken place in Descutes County so far. When the database on which this plan is based wassemble !°�5 properties were thrown out which 'did not qualify' as lar. But those properties are in Deschutes County and by throwing them out the true picture is distorted. Then the distortion is compounded by the use of means and medians to create a completely artificial justification for the numbers used in the proposed subzones. I see two factions in favor of this ridiculous proposal. One faction sees tourism as the future of the economic growth of Deschutes and is in favor of destination resorts, but wants to force farmers to maintain their land as a scenic attraction. Another group is small landowners who have their little piece of the rural lifestyle and don't want the county suburbanized. It is the tyranny of the few by the few claiming to represent the many, but who in fact don't. The planning commission is responsible to comply with state law, but county planning goals should be made for the residents of Deschutes County, not the residents of the State of Oregon. The Deschutes County Commission should not operate as an agent for imposing the goals of a state commission on the county. Perhaps Mr. Throop should withdraw from voting on this issue due to a conflict of interest resulting from his serving on the LCDC. If the people who are against destination resorts think that this proposed code will do anything to stop them, they are sorely mistaken. We won't be able to stop growth. This proposed zoning code will leave the future of the development of Deschutes County to people with lots of money and smart lawyers. Is that who we want to determine our future? I mA dha Cu e(c. ERIC DOLSON 385 Main Street P.O. Box 1175 Sisters, Oregon 97759 RE CF IVSD SEP 2 S 1992 503-549-7032 Fax -549-7032 01.9-105 My name is Eric Dotson. I live and work In Sisters, Oregon, and serve on the Deschutes County Planning Commission. First, I would like to say that the document before you represents the consensus of the planning commission, despite much being made of the fact that the commission deadlocked on one point that In retrospect is probably not that crucial. The planing commission accepted the findings of the citizens advisory panel, and the validity of the three -tiered system. The commission made some changes to the recommendations of the committee, but only after hearing extensive public testimony from the full spectrum of general and special Interests. One of the major points of contention before the commission, and one on which you will undoubtedly receive testimony tonight, is whether Deschutes County has any commercial farms, by State of Oregon Land Use standards. Yes, Deschutes County has commercial farms, but probably very few. The land is dry, the growing season is short, and not much grows here that would not grow better someplace else. Does that mean Deschutes County has no commercial agriculture Industry? Not at all. Agriculture plays an Important part in the economy of Deschutes County and will continue to do so. It is In the balancing of these two facts that the Issues of protecting farm land becomes so murky on this side of the Cascades. To achieve this balance, and make sense of Oregon's land use laws here on the high desert, Dr. Jim Pease helped us to develop a definition of what commercial farming means in the various zones of Deschutes County. I call these 'derived' farms. they come from finding out what kind of lands make the greatest contribution to agriculture in each zone and figuring out a way to protect them. Most would not support a family. Some do not support themselves. That doesn't mean they don't contribute to the agricultural base, however, nor that they should not be protected. There are those here tonight who will tell you that since this land can't support a family, or be self sustaining, it is not farm land and would realize a higher value if it grew homes instead. The planing commission, depending on the farm committee's derivation of what parcels contribute to agricultural base, disagreed with this. Although we will be breaking new ground, so to speak, when we take this to the LCDC, the planning commission felt this land deserved protection. At the same time, there are those who will tell you that every rock pile, every parking lot, can be used to raise some exotic animal and thus qualifies as farm land. The farm study committee found, and the planning commission concurred, that this kind of land made little contribution to the 01 ? 9-1C 26 agricultural base, and does not deserve the same protection as our better lands. We can not set aside all lands because some day out of some laboratory will come a seed that needs only lava rock, air and sunshine to flourish, and is in short supply world wide. The commission liberalized the standards for approval of a non-farm dwelling to the minimum allowable by state law, on already existing parcels. I personally feel very strongly about this. It Is one thing to regulate speculation on and parcelization of good farm land, and to protect our agricultural base. It is another thing entirely to change the rules on an individual who has invested hard-earned dollars on 2 or 5 or 10 acres of land and dreamt of the day when he or she would retire to enjoy their piece Central Oregon's beauty. We should work hard on their behalf that their dream is not destroyed. That wouldn't be fair. One final note: The planning staff deserves high accolades for the work they did on this project. I simply don't know how they did It in the time allowed. My thinks also go to Bob Greenstreet of the assessor's office, who is a resource the county should not undervalue. NOTE: Deleted wording is in brackets [ ); added wording is underlined bold. CHAPTER 18.16 - EXCLUSIVE FARM USE ZONES 0119-10,27 Sections: 18.16.010 Purposes 18.16.020 Uses Permitted Outright 18.16.030 Conditional Uses Permitted 18.16.035 Destination Resorts 18.16.040 Limitations on Conditional 18.16.050 Standards for Dwellings in 18.16.060 Dimensional Standards 18.16.065 Subzones 18.16.070 Yards 18.16.080 Stream Setbacks 18.16.090 Rimrock Setback 18.16.100 Prohibitions 18.16.010 Purpose DRAFT Uses the EFU Zones The purposes] of the Exclusive Farm Use zones [are] is to preserve and maintain agricultural lands. [for farm use, particularly range and grazing uses, consistent with existing and future needs for agricultural products, forests and open spaces; to conserve and protect scenic resources; to maintain and improve the quality of air, water and land resources of the county and to establish criteria and standards for farm uses and related and supportive uses which are deemed appropriate.] (Ord. 92-038 1 and 2, 1991) 18.16.020 Uses Permitted Outright The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright: (Ord. 91-038 1 and 2, 1992; Ord. 91-020 1, 1991; Ord. 91-005 4, 1991; Ord. 86-007 1, 1986; Ord. 81-025 1, 1981; Ord. 81-001 1, 1981) A. Farm use as defined in this title. B. Propagation or harvesting of a forest product. C. Exploration for minerals. (Ord. 91-002 3, 1991) D. Accessory buildings customarily provided in conjunction with farm use. E. Climbing and passing lanes within a right-of-way existing as of July 1, 1987. (Ord. 91-038 2, 1991) F. Reconstruction or modification of public roads and highways, not including the addition of travel lanes, where no removal or displacement of buildings would occur or no new land parcels result. (Ord. 91-038 2, 1991) G. Temporary public road or highway detour that will be abandoned and restored to original condition or use when no longer needed. (Ord. 91-038 2, 1991) Chapter 18.16 - Exclusive Farm Use Zones September 14, 1992 Page 1 0? 19 -1 W�8 H. Minor betterment of existing public roads and highway -related facilities such as maintenance yards with stations and rest areas, within a right-of-way existing as of July 1, 1987, and contiguous publicly owned property utilized to support the operation and maintenance of public roads and highways. (Ord. 91-038 2, 1991) I. A[n] [additional] replacement dwelling to be used in conjunction with farm use if the existing dwelling has been listed in the county inventory as an historic property as defined in ORS 358.480. (Ord. 91-038 2, 1991) J. Creation, restoration or enhancement of wetlands. (Ord. 91-038 2, 1991) 18.16.030 Conditional Uses Permitted The following uses may be allowed in the Exclusive Farm Use Zones subject to applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Sections 18.16.040 and 18.16.050 and other applicable sections of this title. (Ord. 91-038 1 and 2, 1991; Ord. 91-005 5, 1991; Ord. 87-013 1, 1987) A. Farm -related dwellings. [B. Farm -related dwellings on a parcel less than the minimum lot size.] B. Manufactured home as a secondary accessory farm dwelling. C. Pre-existing dwellings as a ranch hand residence. (Ord. 91-020 1, 1991; Ord 83-020 1, 1983) D. Non-farm dwelling and accessory uses thereto. E. Residential homes as defined in ORS 197.660 in existing dwellings. F. Commercial activities that are in conjunction with farm use. The commercial activity shall be associated with a farm use occurring on the parcel where the commercial use is proposed. The commercial activity may use, process, store or market farm products produced in Deschutes County or an adjoining county. G. Operations conducted for exploration, mining and processing of geothermal resources as defined by ORS 522.005; exploration and extraction of natural gas or oil; and surface mining mineral and aggregate resources exclusively for on-site personal, farm or forest use or in conjunction with maintenance for irrigation canals. (Ord. 90-014 23, 1991) H. Homestead retention when the entire parcel has been under single ownership for at least the preceding ten consecutive years and the parcel occupies not less than 320 acres. This use will permit the owner to convey the parcel but retain a leasehold interest in the residence and the land underlying the residence up to a maximum of five acres. In no case shall another residence be constructed elsewhere on the parcel except in Chapter 18.16 - Exclusive Farm Use Zones September 14, 1992 Page 2 I4p N. XM 911 9-1G�9 conformance with the terms of this chapter. The leasehold interest shall extend throughout the lifetimes of the seller and his or her spouse. Private parks, playgrounds, hunting and fishing preserves and campgrounds. Parks, playgrounds or community centers owned and operated by a governmental agency or a non-profit community organization. Golf courses. Utility facilities necessary for public service and commercial utility facilities for the purpose of generating power for public use by sale. Personal -use landing strip for airplanes and helicopter pad, including associated hangar, maintenance and service facilities. A personal use airport as used in this section means an airstrip restricted, except for aircraft emergencies, to use by the owner and, on an infrequent and occasional basis, by invited guests and by commercial aviation activities in connection with agricultural operations. No aircraft may be based on a personal -use airport other than those owned or controlled by the owner of the airstrip. Exceptions to the activities permitted under this definition may be granted through -waiver action by the Aeronautics Division in specific instances. A personal use airport lawfully existing as of September 1, 1975, shall continue to be permitted subject to any applicable regulations of the Oregon Aeronautics Division. (Ord. 91-020 1, 1991) Home occupations carried on by residents as an accessory use within their dwelling or other residential accessory building.[customarily provided in conjunction with farm use.] A facility for the primary processing of forest products. Such a facility may be approved for a one-year period which is renewable. These facilities are intended to be [only] portable or temporary in nature. The primary processing of a forest product, as used in this section, means the use of a portable chipper or stud mill or other similar method of initial treatment of a forest product in order to enable its shipment to market. Forest products, as used in this section, means timber grown upon a parcel of land or contiguous land where the primary processing facility is located. P. The boarding, breeding and training of horses for profit. Q. Hydroelectric facility, in accordance with Sections 18.116.130 and 18.128.040(V). (Ord. 86-018 3, 1986) R. Dog kennels. (Ord. 90-018 1, 1991) S. Storage, crushing and processing of minerals, including the processing of aggregate into asphaltic concrete or portland cement concrete when such uses are in conjunction with the maintenance or construction of Chapter 18.16 - Exclusive Farm Use Zones September 14, 1992 Page 3 0-x.19-1c�0 public roads or highways. Ord. 90-014 31, 1990) T. A site for the disposal of solid waste approved by the governing body of a city or county and for which a permit has been granted under ORS 459.245 by the Department of Environmental Quality. (Ord. 91-014 1, 1991) U. One manufactured home in conjunction with an existing dwelling as a temporary use for the term of a hardship suffered by the existing resident or a relative of the resident. (Ord. 91-038 2, 1991) V. Church. (Ord. 91-038 2, 1991) W. Public or private school, including all buildings essential to the operation of such a school. (Ord. 91-038 2, 1991) X. Construction of additional passing and travel lanes requiring the acquisition of right-of-way, but not resulting in the creation of new land parcels. (Ord. 91-038 2, 1991) Y. Reconstruction or modification of public roads and highways involving the removal or displacement of buildings, but not resulting in the creation of new land parcels. (Ord. 91-038 2, 1991) Z. Improvement of public roads and highway -related facilities such as maintenance yards, weigh stations and rest areas where additional property or right-of-way is required, but not resulting in the creation of new land parcels. (Ord. 91-038 2, 1991) AA. The propagation, cultivation, maintenance and harvesting of aquatic species. (Ord. 91-038 2, 1991) BB. Bed and breakfast inns. (Ord. 91-038 2, 1991) CC. Excavation, grading and fill and removal within the bed and banks of a stream or river or in a wetland. (Ord. 91-038 2, 1991) DD. Cemeteries in conjunction with churches. (Ord. 91-038 2, 1991) (:[EE. Living history museums.] (Ord. 91-038 2, 1991) 18.16.035 Destination Resorts In the [EFU-40 and EFU-20 zones] SistersfCloverdale, Terrebonne, Tumalo/Redmond/Bend and Alfalfa subzones destination resorts may be allowed as a conditional use, subject to all applicable standards of the DR zone. (Ord 92-004 3, 1992) 18.16.040 Limitations on Conditional Uses A. Conditional uses permitted by 18.16.030[(F)]„LE1 through (DD) may be established [on non-productive agricultural lands] subject to applicable provisions in Chapter 18.128 and upon a finding by the Planning Director or Hearings Body that the proposed use: (Ord. 91-020 1, 1991) Chapter 18.16 - Exclusive Farm Use Zones September 14, 1992 Page 4 0119-10U1 [a. Is compatible with farm uses described in this title, the intent and purpose set forth in ORS 215.143 and the Comprehensive Plan;] a. Will not force a significant change in [or otherwise seriously interfere with] accepted farm or forest practices (as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(c)) on adjacent lands devoted to farm or forest uses; [and] or [will not significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on such lands]; b. Will not significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use: and [c. Does not materially alter the stability of the overall land use pattern of the area;] c. That the actual site on which the use is to be located is not suitable for the production of farm crops or livestock[;].[and] [e. Is not located within one-quarter mile of a dairy farm, feed lot, sales yard, slaughterhouse or poultry, hog or mink farm, unless adequate buffers are provided and approved. The establishment of a buffer shall consider such factors as prevailing winds, drainage, expansion potential of affected agricultural uses, open space and any other factor that may affect the liveability of such proposed use or the agriculture of the ea.] (Ord. 91-020 1, 1991) l kel[B. In determining whether tabove standards can be met, the Planning Director or Hearings Body shall consider: (Ord. 91-011 1, 1991) a. Immediate and future impacts on public services, existing road systems and traffic demands and irrigation distribution systems; b. Soil types and their limitations, including slides, erosion, flooding and drainage, and provisions to minimize possible adverse effects resulting therefrom; c. Agricultural productivity, including food productivity and the production of any useable agricultural product that requires open space and a non -urban environment; d. Whether the proposed development minimizes potential adverse effects on terrain, slope and ground cover; e. Whether the proposed development is compatible with the existing land use pattern and the character of the overall area; f. The existence of adequate quantity and quality of water, either subsurface of other sanitary disposal system and adequate provisions for solid waste disposal; and g. Conversion of agricultural lands to non-farm uses shall be based upon consideration of the following factors: 1. Environmental, energy, social and economic Chapter 18.16 - Exclusive Farm Use Zones September 14, 1992 Page 5 011 9-1C^2 consequences. 2. Compatibility of the proposed use with related agricultural land. 3. The retention of Class I and VI soils in farm use.) B. An applicant for a non-farm conditional use may demonstrate that the standards for approval will be satisfied through the imposition of conditions. Any conditions so imposed shall be clear and objective. (Ord. 91-038 1 and 2, 1991) 18.16.050 Standards for Dwellings in the EFU Zones A. Farm -Related Dwellings. One farm -related dwelling, including a manufactured home in accordance with Section 18.116.070, may be permitted on a legally established farm parcel, subject to the following criteria: a. The proposed dwelling is the only dwelling on the subject parcel. b. The subject parcel meets the minimum (lot] parcel size established in the subzone. c. The subject parcel is currently employed in farm use as defined in ORS 215.203. d. The dwelling is one that is customarily provided in conjunction with (the current] farm use on the property. e. The dwelling will be located on the least productive part of the parcel. [B. Farm -Related Dwellings on a Lot Less than the Minimum Lot Size. One single-family dwelling, including a manufactured home in accordance with Section 18.116.070, may be permitted on a pre-existing nonconforming lot as defined in Section 18.04.030 and 18.120.020, subject to the provisions of 18.16.040 and the following criteria: a. The lot is currently employed for farm use where the day to day activities are principally directed to the farm use of the land. b. The lot is of sufficient size to demonstrate commercial production of food, fiber or livestock using innovative and/or intensive farming practices during at least two of the previous three years. c. The growing season, soil, water and energy are adequate and available for the planned farm use. d. The markets for the farm products are demonstrable. e. The proposed dwelling on the lot will not adversly affect adjacent and surrounding commercial agricultural operations. f. The proposed dwelling on the lot will not force a significant change in or significantly increase the cost of accepted farming practices on nearby agricultural land. g. The lot and the farm use on it are appropriate for the continuation of the existing commercial Chapter 18.16 - Exclusive Farm Use Zones September 14, 1992 Page 6 agricultural operati ns in the area. -6 1 v h. The dwelling will be o'cated o� least productive part of the parcel.] B. Secondary Accessory Farm Dwel ng. A manufactured home as a secondary accessory farm dwelling in accordance with Section 18.116.070 may be permitted subject to the following criteria: a. An owner -occupied farm dwelling must exist on the farm unit. b. A secondary accessory farm dwelling is not permitted on a parcel less than 40 acres unless it is demonstrated to the Planning Director or Hearings Body that a smaller land unit is a commercial agricultural enterprise. c. No more than one secondary accessory farm dwelling is permitted for each 40 acres of the farm unit. d. The occupant of the manufactured home shall be an employee of the farm owner or an immediate family member engaged in the farm operation. e. The manufactured home shall be considered a temporary installation and permits for such shall be renewable on an annual basis. f. The manufactured home shall be removed from the property if it is no longer needed for the operation of the farm. C. A Pre -Existing Dwelling as a Ranch Hand Residence may be permitted subject to the following criteria: a. The occupant of the dwelling shall be an employee of the farm owner or an immediate family member engaged in the farm operation. b. The farm unit shall be a minimum of 40 acres unless it is demonstrated to the Planning Director or Hearings Body that a smaller land unit is a commercial agricultural enterprise. c. No more than one pre-existing dwelling may be permitted as a ranch hand residence for each 40 acres of the farm unit. D. Non-farm Dwelling. One single-family dwelling, including a manufactured home in accordance with Section 8.116.070, not provided in conjunction with farm use may be permitted subject to the. [provisions sof Section 18.16.040 and the] following criteria: a. The Planning Director or Hearings Body shall make findings that the proposed non-farm dwelling: 1. Is compatible with farm uses described in ORS 215.203(2) and is consistent with the intent and purpose set forth in ORS 215.243. 2. Does not interfere seriously with accepted farming practices, as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(c), on adjacent lands devoted to farm uses. 3. Does not materially alter the stability of the overall land use pattern of the area. 4. Is situated on land generally unsuitable for the Chapter 18.16 - Exclusive Farm Use Zones September 14, 1992 Page 7 production of farm crops and livestock, considering the terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, location and size of the tract. 5. Is not within one-quarter mile of a dairy farm, feed lot, sales yard, slaughterhouse or poultry, hog or mink farm, unless adequate provisions are made and approved by the Planning Director or Hearings Body for a buffer between such uses. The establishment of a buffer shall be designed based upon consideration of such factors as prevailing winds, drainage, expansion potential of affected agricultural uses, open space and any other factor that may affect the livability of the non-farm dwelling or the agriculture of the area. (Ord. 91-020 1, 1991) [b. In addition to the above findings,the following factors shall be considered when reviewing an application for a non-farm dwelling: 1. Immediate and future impact on public services, existing road systems, traffic demands and irrigation distribution systems. 2. Soil type and its development limitations, including susceptibility to slides, erosion, .flooding and drainage. 3. An adequate quantity and quality of water and either su surface or other sanitary disposal system.] �� b. Pursuant to O S 21 .96; a non-farm dwelling on a lot or parcel in an Exclusive Farm Use zone that is or has been receiving special assessment may be approved only on the condition that before a building permit is issued, the applicant must produce evidence from the County Assessor's Office that the parcel upon which the dwelling is proposed has been disqualified for special assessment at value for farm use under ORS 308.370 or other special assessment under ORS 308.765, 321.352, 321.730 or 321.815, and that any additional tax or penalty imposed by the County Assessor as a result of disqualification has been paid. c. A parcel that has been disqualified for special assessment at value for farm use pursuant to ORS 215.236(4) shall not requalify for special assessment unless, when combined with another contiguous parcel, it constitutes a qualifying parcel. (Ord. 91-038 2 and 3 1991) 18.16.060 Dimensional Standards A. The minimum [lot] parcel size for farm parcels created [by partition] subject to Title 17 of the Deschutes County Code shall be as specified under Section 18.16.065, Subzones.[: Chapter 18.16 - Exclusive Farm Use Zones September 14, 1992 Page 8 EFU-20 zone 20 acres EFU-40 zone 40 acres 0119-1C,�5 EFU-80 zone 80 acres EFU-320 zone 320 acres] [B. New farm parcels created by partition shall be appropriate for the continuation of existing agricultural enterprise in the area.] B. The Planning Director or Hearings Body may approve a division of land for a dwelling not provided in conjunction with farm use only if the dwelling has been approved under Section 18.16.050(D). The minimum lot size for such divisions is 20 acres. C. The minimum lot area for all non-farm uses permitted by Section 18.16.030(E) through (DD) shall be that determined by the Planning Director or Hearings Body to carry out the intent and purposes of ORS Chapter 215, this title and the Comprehensive Plan. In no case shall lot area be less than one acre. (Ord. 91-020 1, 1991) D. Each lot shall have a minimum street frontage of 50 feet. [E. The minimum average lot depth and width for new parcels shall be: EFU-20 zone 300 feet EFU-40 zone 600 feet EFU-80 zone 1000 feet EFU-320 zone 2000 feet] (Ord. 91-038 1 and 2, 1991) 18.16.065 Subzones A. Lower Bridae. a. Proposed farm divisions must produce parcels which meet one of the following: 1. 130 acres of irrigated 1 nd r asse sed farm use value of $32.083; or ♦ Q 2. Median irrigated acres or median assessed farm use value for "commercial" contiguous ownership tracts within a 2 -mile radius as measured from tract perimeter. Parcels which qualify under this criterion must contain at least 48 irrigated acres. b. Applications for farm dwellings on existing lots must meet one of the following: 1. The subject property contains at least 130 irrigated acres or has an assessed farm use value of $32,083: or 2. The subject property contains the median irrigated acres or has the median assessed farm use value of "commercial" contiguous ownership tracts within a 2 -mile radius as measured from tract perimeter: or 3. The applicant shows in a farm management plan Chapter 18.16 - Exclusive Farm Use Zones September 14, 1992 Page 9 $52,650 or provides evidence that the parcel is part of a farm operation made up of non-contiguous tracts that all together can meet_ the criteria in (A)(b)(1), above. The management plan must demonstrate that soils and irrigation are suitable for the prgposal. markets exist for the products and the plan is appropriate to the area (i.e., conflict with the existing agricultural types will not result). The management plan will be reviewed by a county technical review committee. The report of the review committee must be favorable. Improvements to the property and establishment of the farm use to implement the farm management plan must be carried out before a building permit for the dwelling is issued. B. Sisters/Cloverdale. a. Proposed farm divisions must produce parcels which irrigated acres. b. Applications for farm dwellings on existing lots meet one of the following: 1. The subiect property contains at least ()4�3 irrigated acres or has the median assessed farm use value of "commercial" contiguous ownership tracts within a one -mile radius as measured from tract perimeter: or 3. The applicant shows in a farm management plan the ability to produce annual gross salesof ($ q6,11 -.J or provides evidence that the parcel is part �( of a farm operation made up of non-contiguous tracts that all together can meet the criteria in (B) (b) (1) , above. The management plan must demonstrate that soils and irrigation are suitable for the proposal, markets exist for the products and the plan is appropriate to the area (i.e., conflict with the existing agricultural types will not result). The management plan will be reviewed by a county technical review committee. The report of the review committee must be favorable. Chapter 18.16 - Exclusive Farm Use Zones September 14, 1992 Page 10 Improvements to the property and establishment of the farm use to implement the farm management plan must be carried out before a building permit for the dwelling is issued. C. Terrebonne. a. Proposed farm divisions must produce parcels which meet one of the following: 1. 35 acres of irrigated land or median assessed farm use value of $8,182: or 2. Median irrigated acres or median assessed farm use value for "commercial" contiguous ownership tracts within a half -mile radius as measured from tract perimeter. Parcels which qualify under this criterion must contain at least 23 irrigated acres. b. Applications for farm dwellings on existing lots must meet one of the following: 1. The subject property contains at least 35 irrigated acres or has an assessed farm use value of $8,182; or 2. The subject property contains the median irrigated acres or has the median assessed farm use value of "commercial" contiguous ownership tracts within a half -mile radius as measured from tract perimeter; or 2. The applicant shows in a farm management plan the ability to produce annual cross sales of $12,600 or provides evidence that the parcel is part of a farm operation made up of non-contiguous tracts that all together can meet the criteria in (C)(b) (1) , above. D. The manacement plan must demonstrate that soils and irrigation are suitable for the proposal, markets exist for the products and the plan is appropriate to the area (i.e., conflict with the existing agricultural types will not result). The management plan will be reviewed by a county technical review committee. The report of the review committee must be favorable. Improvements to the property and establishment of the farm use to implement the farm management plan must be carried out before a building permit for the dwelling is issued. TumalojRedmond/Bend. a. Proposed farm divisions must produce parcels which meet one of the following: 1. () acres of irrigatpa land or assessed farm use 2. use value for "commercial" contiguous ownership tracts within a half -mile radius as measured from tract perimeter. Parcels which qualify Chapter 18.16 - Exclusive Farm Use Zones September 14, 1992 Page 11 irrigated acres. b. Applications for farm dwellings on existing lots must meet one of the following: gg I. The subject property contains at least value of (S ) ; or 3 (/ 2. The subject property contains the median irrigated acres or has the median assessed farm use value of "commercial" contiguous ownership tracts within a half mile radius as measured from tract perimeter: or 3. The applicant shows in a farm management plan the ability to produce annual gross sales of (S ) or provides evidence that the parcel is part �� of a farm operation made up of non-contiguous tracts that all together can meet the criteria in (D) (b) (1) , above. The management plan must demonstrate that soils and irrigation are suitable for the proposal, markets exist for the products and the plan is The management plan will be reviewed by a county technical review committee. The report of the review committee must be favorable. Improvements to the property and establishment of the farm use to implement the farm management plan must be carried out before a building permit for the dwelling is issued. E. Alfalfa. a. Proposed farm divisions must produce parcels which use value for "commercial" contiguous ownership tracts within a half mile radius as measured irrigated acres. b. Applications for farm dwellings on existing lots must meet one of the following: 1. The subject property contains at least 36 irrigated acres or has an assessed farm use value of $8,500; or 2. The subject pr Rgrty contains the median irrigated acres or the median assessed farm use value of "commercial" contiguous ownership tracts within a half mile radius as measured from tract perimeter; or 3. The applicant shows in a farm management plan Chapter 18.16 - Exclusive Farm Use Zones September 14, 1992 Page 12 F. LaPine. a. K 10Cel G. 0 9- IN "9 non-contiguous tracts which all together can meet the criteria in (E) (b) (1) , above. The management plan must demonstrate that soils and irrigation are suitable for the proposal, in markets exist for the products and the plan is appropriate to the area (i.e.. conflict with the existing agricultural types will not result). The management plan will be reviewed by a county technical review committee. The report of the review committee must be favorable. Improvements to the property and establishment of the farm use to implement the farm management plan must be carried out before a building permit for the dwelling is issued. Proposed farm divisions must produce parcels which meet the following: must meet one of the following: 1. The subject property contains at least ADO irri ated acres or has an assessed farm use value of: or: or A 7 2. The applicant shows in a farm management plan the ability to produce annual gross sales of �--� $6,300 or provides evidence that the parcel is part of farm operation made up of non-contiguous tracts that all together can meet the criteria in (F) (b) (1), above. The management plan must demonstrate that soils and irrigation are suitable for the proposal, markets exist for the products and the plan is appropriate to the area (i.e., conflict with the existing agricultural types will not result). The management plan will be reviewed by a county technical review committee. The report of the review committee must be favorable. Improvements to the property and establishment of the farm use to implement the farm management plan must be carried out before a building permit for the dwelling is issued. Horse Ridge East. Minimum parcel sizes for farm divisions or for farm -related_ dwellings on existing tracts is 320 acres. 18.16.070 Yards Chapter 18.16 - Exclusive Farm Use Zones September 14, 1992 Page 13 9-1040 A. The front yard setback from the property line shall be a minimum of 100 feet if adjacent to an (intensive agricultural use] EFU zone; otherwise, the front yard shall be 80 feet (20 feet for property fronting on a collector right-of-way and 80 feet from an arterial right-of-way unless provisions for combining accesses are approved by Deschutes County Public Works). B. Each side yard shall be a minimum of 20 feet, except that on corner lots or parcels, a side yard fronting a street (and adjacent to an intensive agricultural use] shall be a minimum of [30] 80 feet. For parcels or lots with side yards adjacent to an (intensive agricultural use] EFU zone, the (adjacent] side yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except a rear yard adjacent to an (intensive agricultural use] EFU zone shall be a minimum of 100 feet. D. The setback from the north lot line shall meet the solar setback requirements in Section 18.116.180. (Ord. 91-038 1 and 2, 1991; Ord. 83-037 8, 1983) 18.16.080 Stream Setbacks. To permit better light, air, vision, stream pollution control, protection of fish and wildlife areas and preservation of natural scenic amenities and vistas along streams and lakes, the following setbacks shall apply: A. All sewage disposal installations, such as septic tanks and septic drainfields, shall be set back from the ordinary high water mark along all streams or lakes a minimum of 100 feet, measured at right angles to the ordinary high water mark. In those cases where practical difficulties preclude the location of the facilities at a distance of 100 feet and the County Sanitarian finds that a closer location will not endanger health, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may permit the location of these facilities closer to the stream or lake, but in no case closer than 25 feet. B. All structures, buildings or similar permanent fixtures shall be set back from the ordinary high water mark along all streams or lakes a minimum of 100 feet measured at right angles to the ordinary high water mark. (Ord. 91-038 1 and 2, 1991; Ord. 91-020 1, 1991) 18.16.090 Rimrock Setbacks Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 18.16.070, setbacks from rimrock shall be as provided in Section 18.116.160. (Ord. 91-038 1 and 2, 1991; Ord. 86-053 5, 1986) Chapter 18.16 - Exclusive Farm Use Zones September 14, 1992 Page 14 18.16.100 Prohibitions 01-1 9-1C41 No more than three non-farm parcels. as described under Section 18.16.060(B). may be created from any one parent parcel. Non-farm subdivisions are prohibited. X00 � /66 �o� des Chapter 18.16 - Exclusive Farm Use Zones September 14, 1992 Page 15 NOTE: Deleted wording is in brackets [ ); added wording is underlined bold. Q—t C+ AGRICULTURAL LANDS ®RAFT (Agriculture played an important role in the growth and development of Deschutes County. While agriculture continues to be important, its early dominance of the economy is gone. Production has remained relatively stable (see Oregon Extension Service crop and livestock reports) but the total income from agricultural products has been declining in recent years.) The protection of farmland is a public ipolicy goal of the federal government (USDA, Secretary's Memo 11828. Revised. Oct. 30, 1978). most states in the United States and many other countries. In Oregon. the 1975 Planning Goals set statewide standards which must be net by local governments. For farmlands ORS 215 and 197 and OAR 660 Division 5 set forth the criteria for compliance. The principal concept is that standards in the EFU zones must provide protection for the continuation of commercial -scale agriculture in the county. including farm operations. marketing outlets and the agricultural support system. (The State of Oregon, like many other states, has identified the protection of agricultural land as an important objective. For that reason State Land Use Planning Goal 3 is of major importance. In Deschutes County, where some lands has severe limitations for the commercial production of agricultural products, this has resulted in considerable debate and occasional hostility. The County has found itself between angry landowners who do not wish to protect what they see as marginal agricultural land, other County residents who are adamant that agricultural land is a non-renewable resource that must be preserved and a State law mandating specific actions that must be taken to protect the land defined as agricultural land. The issue is further complicated by a lack of detailed soils data for most of the County.) [The proximity to the Cascades, higher altitudes and semi -arid climate have resulted in a short growing season and a need for irrigation water locally. Without irrigation, little soil may be classified better than SCS Agricultural Capability Class IV. Combined with a shallow rooting zone in some areas and a long distance to many of the markets for local produce, the result is an often discouraging and frustrating experience for many farmers, although some farmers do seem to manage to be successful.] [Another problem is the growing demand for farmland by many people seeking a rural home. The result has been an increase in land prices which often makes it difficult for people to enter into or stay in full-time farming. On the other hand, Comprehensive Plan September 14, 1992 Page 1 smaller part-time operations appear in maintaining some agricultural committment of nonfarm income. resulted in smaller losses in some acre loss is more easily born by 100 -acre owner.] to be somewhat successful production due to a heavy Smaller farms have also areas, since a $100 per a 10 -acre owner than a [The possibility of additional farm land in the County appears to be small, except for the development of wells (as in Lower Bridge and Cloverdale) or if the lining of irrigation canals should become more economically feasible, because no additional adjudicated water may be expected from the Deschutes River.] Commercial agriculture in Deschutes County consists primarily of field crops (alfalfa, other hay. some peppermint, potatoes and seed crops) and livestock operations. The high elevation (2700-3500 feet) and low rainfall make difficult conditions for crop farming. A short growing season and the risk of crop damage from frost or mid -summer hail storms must be factored into agriculture investment planning. Irrigation is essential for crops and is used extensively for irrigated pastures. [However, the grazing of livestock is, and will likely continue to be, an important farm product in all portions of the County. And, much of the crop land production locally is tied to the production of hay for local and Willamette Valley livestock. Particularly in the area of land east of Horse Ridge livestock production is a highly viable agricultural endeavor. Most of Deschutes County's future agricultural production may be associated with the great diversity of livestock presently grown in the County.] However,[Certainly] agriculture still is an important economic element [in] of the County, [directly] contributing significantly [an estimated $10,316,000.00 in 1978, which resulted in a $25,800,000.00 direct and indirect contribution] to the local economy. Agriculture also provides [Also important are such] secondary benefits such as [the] open space and scenic appearance, [agriculture lends to the County,] benefits which may also pay economic returns in the form of tourist dollars. A study of commercial agriculture in Deschutes County identified seven agricultural subzones: Lower Bridge, Sisters/Cloverdale, TumalofRedmond/Bend, Terrebonne, Alfalfa, LaPine and Horse Ridge East. For each subzone, standards were determined for minimum tract size for both land divisions and farm -related dwellings. The standards are designed to protect the commercial agriculture land base, while providing flexibility for various situations. A tiered administrative process administers the standards. [Because of the controversial nature of agriculture land protection and the marginal character of some farm land a Comprehensive Plan September 14, 1992 Page 2 certain amount of flexibility in zoning regulations and programs designed to foster local family farms may be required. The use of incentives, rather than negative regulations, may in the long run be more effective in preserving agricultural lands.] C 4x 4 [Since detailed soils mapping exists for only a portion of the County, it was necessary to develop a more elaborate definition than that found in the State Goal. The definition finally agreed to by the County uses the available information on agricultural lands and lays a foundation for future additions or deletions as better soils information becomes available.] [Agricultural Lands Definition] [Agricultural lands are those lands which are identified as possessing Soil Conservation Service Agricultural Capability class I -VI soils (S.C.S.Land Capabilities Classification Map) or where detailed soils information is not available, agricultural land shall be identified by showing that it has been listed as on Farm Tax Deferral within the five years preceding the adoption of this plan (as indicated on the Existing Land Use Map complied from County Assessor's records) and/or by the fact that the land is indicated on the County Planning Department's Irrigated Lands Map.] [Having a definition was only the first step, as then it was necessary to differentiate between the various types of agriculture to be found locally and to identify the various acres they characterized. The following types of agriculture and their characteristic areas were identified by members of the Planning Staff, the Agricultural CAC and the Overall CAC.] [Types of Agricultural Land:] [A. High Desert Sagebrush and Juniper Land: This is dry land with generally inferior soils (somewhat alkaline in places) with rather severe climatic conditions. It is suitable only for grazing of livestock and an occasional planting of dryland rye. Predominant farm ownership size, outside rural service centers, is several hundred to several thousand acres. There are few non-agricultural dwellings. Lands in the vicinity of and east of Horse Ridge are characteristic of this agricultural type.] [B. Riparian Meadows: These meadows (mostly natural) border waterways and are sub -surface irrigated. In spite of a rather severe climate they are suited for the grazing of livestock and the harvesting of a limited tonnage of Comprehensive Plan September 14, 1992 Page 3 meadow hay. Lot sizes vary, but the most frequently occurring are 40 and 80 acre lots with 80 acres the median and the average of the parcels equaling 109 acres. Ownerships often combine lots to create areas several hundred to several thousand acres in size. Due to the groundwater and frequent flooding, there are few residences. Typical lands are along the Upper Deschutes river, the Little Deschutes river and in the Sisters area.] —- [C. Irrigated Commercial Crop Land: This land, because of more favorable soil characteristics, climate and topography,is suitable for raising diversified row crops, grain, etc., with a yield sufficiently high to make farm operation generally self-sustaining and profitable. The predominant lot size is 80 acres with some large ownerships, causing the average to be 170 acres. The pattern is a mixture of larger and smaller. Few non-farm dwellings exist in this area. Lower Bridge is characteristic of this description.] [D. Irrigated Marginally Commercial Land: This type of land, because of less favorable soil and climatic conditions, is not able to raise as wide a variety of crops as Type C above, nor is the potential yield as high. However, it can produce occasional row crops, grain, hay and pasture, as well as livestock, on a generally self-sustaining basis, although somewhat marginal at times. A mixture of lot sizes can be found throughout these areas and while there are some large farm ownerships the predominant ownership and tax lot size is 40 acres. Lands around Alfalfa, Cloverdale and Terrebonne are characteristic of this agricultural type.] [E. Dry Rangeland: This land has little water and is without irrigation. Suited only for livestock production presently, it often lies in areas where the introduction of irrigation water would make marginal crop production possible, and therefore is a resource for the future. Predominant ownership characteristic of the type are found near Odin Falls.] [F. Marginal Farm Land - Undeveloped: This land will support agricultural production only if subsidized to some extent. The lands are suitable for hay and pasture and, more particularly, the raising of livestock, particularly if access to public grazing is available. Ownership sizes cover a broad range but the most frequently occurring tax lot size is 40 acres; however, the mixture of sizes results in mean and median lot sizes of 20 acres or only slightly larger. These areas are particularly susceptible to increasing non-farm development. Areas characteristic of this type of land Comprehensive Plan September 14, 1992 Page 4 are some parts of Arnold (east of Bend6f Redmond, Sisters and Tumalo. ] (G. Marginal Farm Land - Developed: This land is much the same as Type F, but existing residential development and hobby farming activities have reduced the predominant ownership and tax lot size to less than 20 acres. The land is suitable for raising and grazing livestock on a small scale. Because people are able to subsidize the farm operation, productivity is believed to be higher than might otherwise be the case. Lands typical of these characteristics generally lie close in to urban areas, such as Bend, Plainview, Swalley and to some extent Tumalo.] Recognizing the importance of protecting agricultural land the following was chosen to meet State requirements and local needs: GOAL• To preserve and maintain agricultural land_ [in Deschutes County for the production of farm and forestry products, as well as the public need for open space.] POLICIES• [It has been the policies which have generated the greatest debate. Controversial even before the process began, the identification of appropriate mechanisms to protect local agricultural lands has been characterized by heated discussion, polarization of attitudes and occasionally open hostility.] [Much of the early debate focused on the Interim Agriculture Ordinance meant to protect agricultural lands until the final plan was prepared. The Agricultural CAC split into two factions with the predominant group (8 of the 15) agreeing upon an ordinance calling for 40 -acre minimums in Lower Bridge and east of Horse Ridge, while the rest of the county was 10 acres. This plan was accepted by the County but rejected by the State Land Conservation and Development Commission. LCDC then placed an enforcement order on the County mandating all lands with Farm Tax Deferral status should be protected as agricultural land until a final plan was prepared.] [In preparation of this plan the Agricultural CAC again proposed a 40 -acre minimum for the northern and eastern portions of the County with the rest 10 acres. The Overall CAC, recognizing LCDC's reasoning and the testimony of other farmers and County residents, accepted most of the Comprehensive Plan September 14, 1992 Page 5 Agricultural CAC's recommendations but rejected the proposed agricultural definitions and zoning because of: Q� 4 9®1 CIA47 1. Conflicts with other committees' recommendations for rural areas (particularly energy, transportation and public facilities); 2. Failure to adequately address rangelands and large farm ownerships; and, 3. Conflicts between the proposal and the intent of LCDC Goal 3.] [The Overall CAC, with the assistance of a member of the Agricultural CAC, then prepared a new set of policies for definitions and zoning. These policies are basically those contained in this plan, although they have been modified to bring them even more into line with the requirements of the State Land Conservation and Development Commission because of review by the County's Planning Commission, Planning Staff, Board of County Commissioners and a team of consultants hired to check for such issues.] ZONING 1. All lands meeting the definition of agricultural lands contained in Goal 3 of the Statewide Planning Program shall be zoned Exclusive Farm use, unless an exception to State goal 3 is obtained so that the zoning may be Multiple Use Agriculture. 2. No more than 25 percent of a given agricultural [district] subzone shall be composed of lands not of the same agricultural type. Any agricultural lands not zoned EFU agriculture shall be identified in the County Exception Statement. Zoning districts shall be at least 40 acres in size. [3. A change from an EFU zone to a non-EFU zone (except SM or SMR) shall require a plan amendment (see Exception Maps).] 3. Zones and [lot] minimums] parcel sizes shall be established to assure the preservation of the existing commercial agricultural [character] enterprise of the area: Subzone Lower Bridge Comprehensive Plan September 14, 1992 Page 6 Profile Irrigated field crops, hay and pasture Sisters/Cloverdale Terrebonne Tumalo/RedmondjBend Alfalfa LaPine Horse Ridge East (Agricultural Land Type A - High Desert B - Riparian Meadows C - Irrigated Commercial D - Irrigated Marginally Crop Land E - Dry Rangeland Crop Land Commercial F - Marginal Farmland, Undeveloped G - Marginal Farmland, Developed Irrigated alfalfa, hav and pasture, wooded grazing and some field crops Irrigated hav and pasture Irrigated pasture and some hay Irrigated hay and pasture Riparian meadows. grazing and some meadow hay Rangeland grazing Zone EFU-320 acres EFU-80 acres EFU-80 acres EFU-40 acres EFU-40 acres EFU-20 acres MUA-10 acres) 5. (In order to provide some flexibility in the zoning and to assist farmers who may need to sell an isolated unproductive piece of land in order to assure con -roue operation of the farm,' individual isolated partitions (creation of one or two new lots) establishing lots less than the EFU minimum lot size in EFU areas shall be permitted consistent with ORS 215.213. The remaining farm parcel must be at least the minimum established by the EFU zone. This shall not be interpreted to permit the creation of non-agricultural subdivisions in EFU areas.] In order to provide some flexibilitv in the zonin while still maintaining the rural character of the area and limiting the costs of providing services to rural residents, the county shall adopt a minimum lot size of 20 acres for non-farm residential divisions and limit to three the number of new non-farm parcels that can be Comprehensive Plan September 14, 1992 Page 7 er 19-J VJ,' j created from any one parent parcel. 6. So that a farmer who has lived on his land for 10 years or more may retire and sell his property while retaining the use of his existing home, a homestead exception may be permitted which allows the homesteader to retain a life estate lease on the home and some of the surrounding land. The lease will end with the death(s) of the homesteader and spouse. This exception shall not permit the creation of another residence on the property in question. 7. Public lands meeting the criteria for EFU zoning shall be so zoned unless some other resource (i.e., forest) or public use exists on the land. 8. Lands not meeting the agricultural lands definition but having potential for irrigation according to the Bureau of Reclamation Special Report - Deschutes Project, Central Division, Oregon, although presently without water, shall receive exclusive farm use zoning_ (consistent with Agricultural Type E.] [9. The Multiple Use Agricultural Zone shall allow planned / developments, destination resorts, planned communities ` v and cluster development as conditional uses where it can be shown these uses would be consistent with or beneficial to the maintenance of agricultural uses in that area. Except for Destination Resorts no overall densities in excess of the underlying minimum lot size will be permitted.] 10. Conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses shall be based on the following: ,(a) dfl Acceptable environmental, energy, social and economic consequences; (b) Demonstrated need consistent with Land Conservation and Development Commission goals and ORS 215.213.] 9. Parcel size exceptions may be granted because of survey errors when original section lines were established, so that standard section divisions may be achieved (i.e., 160, 80, 40, 10, etc., acres). Man-made barriers such as roads or canals, over which the applicant has no control, may serve as adequate justification for granting a parcel (lot) size variance. 10. Normal agricultural practices (i.e., aerial pesticide applications, machinery dust and noise, etc.) should not be restricted by non-agricultural interests in agricultural districts. The County shall consider requiring noise, dust, fly, etc., easements to be granted Comprehensive Plan September 14, 1992 Page 8 to adjoining farmers where permitted. 11. Coordination between public encourage farm use shall be increase productivity and agricultural production shall 12. Control of noxious weeds should be continued. non-agricultural uses are and private landowners to encouraged. And projects to to bring new land into be fostered. through educational programs 13. Farm and non-farm uses in rural areas shall be consistent with the conservation of soil and water. 14. Prior to the next periodic review of its comprehensive plan" the County Planning Department shall initiate a[n on-going] study of EFU-zoned [marginal farm] lands to develop a recommendation as to whether marginal lands or secondary lands would be appropriate. [information on how and when these lands should be converted to other uses, and to consider alternative methods of compensating landowners for loss of development potential.] [17. The County Planning Department shall seek detailed soils information for all areas of the County through cooperation with the Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Mid -State Soil and Water Conservation District.] [18. Because of the possible adverse effects of EFU zoning to local taxing districts, the Board of County Commissioners shall take such action as is necessary to mitigate undue impacts after one year of experience with EFU zoning or upon sufficient and specific information on the effects of the zoning.] /mjz Comprehensive Plan September 14, 1992 Page 9