1993-10747-Ordinance No. 93-004 Recorded 4/1/199393-10'74'7
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES C UNTYL,ECR;�Q�F
An Ordinance Amending Title 18 of the
Deschutes County Code, Amending Chapter *
18.16 Exclusive Farm Use Zones Relating *
to Dimensional Standards and Yards and
Declaring an Emergency.
ORDINANCE No. 93-004
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 92-055 established a maximum building
height of 30 feet, which was inadvertently deleted via adoption of
Ordinance No. 92-065; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.16.067(C) contains a requirement that
applications for farm dwellings submitted under Tier 3 receive a
favorable report from a technical review committee, and the Board has
determined that the requirement as written is impractical to
administer; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the generic 100 -foot
setback described in Section 18.16.070 may conflict with the county's
goal of preserving the maximum amount of viable farm land; and
WHEREAS, review or public hearings have been held in conformance
with state law before the Deschutes County Planning Commission and the
Board of County Commissioners for Deschutes County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has considered the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and the public; now
therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 18.16.060 of Title 18 is amended to add a new
subsection E, as follows:
"Section 18.16.060 Dimensional Standards.
* * *
E. Building Height. No building or structure shall be erected
or enlarged to exceed thirty (30) feet in height, except as
allowed under Section 18.129.040.
Section 2. Section 18.16.067(c) of Title 18 is amended to read as
follows:
"Section 18.16.067 Farm Management Plans.
* * *
C. Tier 3 Review. For purposes of Tier 3 approvals, the
management plan shall be reviewed by [a County technical review
committee] an independent expert. [The report of the review
committee must be favorable.]
kE PUNCHED
Page 1 - ORDINANCE No. 93-004 (03/31/93)
'9,5'.`
Section 3. Section 18.16.070 of Title 18 is amended to read as
follows:
"Section 18.16.070 Yards.
A. [The front yard setback from the property line shall be a
minimum of 100 feet if adjacent to an EFU zone _L otherwise,] The
front yard shall be [80] 40 feet from a property line fronting on
a local street, 60 feet from a property line fronting on a
collector and 100 feet from a property line fronting on an
arterial.
B. Each side yard shall be a minimum of [20] 25 feet, except
that [on corner lots or parcels, a side yard fronting a street
shall be a minimum of 80 feet.] for nonfarm dwellings proposed on
parcels or lots with side yards adjacent to [an EFU zone] a _
property currently employed in farm use, the side yard shall be a
minimum of 100 feet.
C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for
nonfarm dwellings proposed on parcels or lots with rear yards
adjacent to [an EFU zone] a property currently employed in farm
use, the rear yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet."
Section 4. FINDINGS. The board of County Commissioners adopts
as its findings and conclusions in support of these amendments the text
of the amended language and the findings set forth as Exhibit "A" to
this ordinance and by this reference incorporated herein.
Section 5. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this ordinance are
severable. If any section, sentence, clause, phrase, area, overlay or
other separable part of this ordinance or any exhibit thereto is
adjudged to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, that
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
this ordinance or any exhibit thereto.
Section 6. REPEAL OF ORDINANCE AS AFFECTING EXISTING LIABILITIES.
The repeal, express or implied, of any ordinance, ordinance provision,
or code section by this ordinance shall not release or extinguish any
duty, condition, penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under such
ordinance, unless a provision of this ordinance shall so expressly
provide, and such ordinance repealed shall be treated as still
remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any property section
or prosecution for the enforcement of such duty, condition, penalty,
forfeiture, or liability, and for the purpose of authorizing the
prosecution, conviction and punishment of the person or persons who
violated the repealed ordinance.
Section 7. EMERGENCY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance being
necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health
and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes
effect on its passage.
Page 2 - ORDINANCE No. 93-004 (03/31/93)
DATED this 311dA day ofMAAr-�1993.
BOARD OF CfJUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHU ES COUNTY, OREGON
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
THROOP,/Chair
NANO POP CH'LANGEN', Commissipner
B. H. SLAUGHTER, Commissioner
Page 3 - ORDINANCE No. 93-004 (03/31/93)
v,�JTEs C
MIBIT "A"
C.10
Community Development Department
Administration Bldg. / 1130 N.W. Harriman / Bend, Oregon 97701
MEMORANDUM
(503) 388-6575
Planning Division
Date • March 31, 1993 Building Safety Division
Environmental Health Division
To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
From: Kevin Harrison, Senior Planner
Subject: Proposed Amendments to Chapter 18.16, EFU Zones
Attached, please find proposed amendments to Chapter 18.16
relating to maximum building height, review of farm
management plans and yards. These amendments are designed to
correct problems in the text of the zoning ordinance
identified following adoption of the farm portion of periodic
review. The reasons for the amendments are as follows:
1. Section 1 adds a maximum building height of 30 feet.
This standard was incorporated into Chapter 18.16 on
August 17, 1992, via Ordinance No. 92-055. The
provision was inadvertently deleted through adoption of
the farm ordinances in December. Thus, this amendment
serves to replace the previously adopted language.
2. Section 2 replaces a technical review committee with an
independent expert in the review of farm management
plans submitted to justify farm dwellings under Tier 3.
The reasons for this modification, as detailed in a memo
dated December 2, 1992, from Bruce White, Assistant
County Counsel are to simplify the independent review
process and to make it fit into the structure of the
County's existing land use hearing process.
OSU Extension has agreed to review, and provide technical
comments on, farm management plans submitted under Tier 3.
We believe this satisfies the intent and purpose of this
section of the ordinance.
3. Section 3 describes changes to setback requirements in
response to feedback from staff and property owners.
The staff believes the blanket 100 -foot setback to be
too onerous, necessitating variances on smaller parcels,
and in conflict with our goal of trying to preserve the
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners - Chapter 18.16
March 31, 1993
Page 1
API
AF-
C_ .
maximum amount of viable farm land. The setbacks
contained in this proposal are designed to mitigate
conflict between residential use and farm practices.
Incorporated in state and county law is the assumption
that there are inherent conflicts between nonfarm
residential use and farm use. Conversely, state and
county law assumes there is no conflict between farm
buildings (including agricultural buildings, farm
dwellings and other non-residential structures) and farm
use. Thus, it is staff's opinion the setback standards
should differentiate between nonfarm dwellings and other
structures.
The 100 -foot setback is triggered when a property adjacent to
a proposed nonfarm dwelling is currently employed in farm
use. Current employment can be documented by a site visit
during the review of a conditional use permit and confirmed
by checking Assessor records.
The attached ordinance amends Section 18.16.070, Yards, to
differentiate between nonfarm dwellings and other structures
to require front yard setbacks of 40, 60 or 100 feet, and
side and rear yards of 25 feet, for structures other than
nonfarm dwellings, and to require the same setbacks for
nonfarm dwellings unless adjacent to a property currently
employed in farm use. If the adjacent property is currently
employed in farm use the side and/or rear setback is 100
feet.
The Deschutes County Planning Commission held a public
hearing to discuss these changes on February 24, 1993. At
that hearing they unanimously moved to recommend that the
Board adopt the amendments as proposed. These amendments
have been reviewed against the requirements of Goal 3,
Agricultural Land, and OAR Chapter 660, Division 5,
Interpretation of Goal 3 Agricultural Lands. State law is
silent on these matters. Thus, the amendments are not goal
related. Please feel free to contact me if you have any
questions or concerns about the proposal.
KMH/mjz
Attachment
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners - Chapter 18.16
March 31, 1993
Page 2