2000-776-Minutes for Meeting June 29,2000 Recorded 7/12/2000VOL: CJ2000 PAGE: 776
RECORDED DOCUMENT
STATE OF OREGON
COUNTY OF DESCHUTES
*CJ2000-776 * Vol -Page Printed: 07/12/2000 14:43:04
DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE
(This certificate constitutes a part of the original instrument in accordance with
ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect
the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.)
I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received
and duly recorded in Deschutes County records:
DATE AND TIME:
DOCUMENT TYPE:
Jul. 12, 2000; 1:01 p.m.
Regular Meeting (CJ)
NUMBER OF PAGES: 17
MARY SUE PENHOLLOW
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK KE Pu GNEQ
J'--1?2000
E
(fff 0�0&) - 77/c�
Board of Commissioners
1130 N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947
(541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 388-4752
www.co.deschutes.orus
Linda L. Swearingen
Dennis R. Luke
MINUTES OF MEETING Tom Dew°'f
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL NO. A-008, OF APPLICATION NO. CU -00-3
Applicant: Sheehan (Dayton Road, Bend)
Administration Building
1130 NW Harriman Street, Bend
Thursday, June 29, 2000
Chair Linda Swearingen opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. Present were
Commissioners Swearingen, Dennis Luke and Tom DeWolf. Also present were
Bruce White, County Legal Counsel; Tracy White and Kevin Harrison,
Community Development Department; Tia Lewis, Attorney for the Applicants;
and Applicants Tom and Mimi Sheehan.
CHAIR LINDA SWEARINGEN:
In the interest of time, I would like to submit the opening statement for the public
hearing on this appeal into the record. Does the applicant have any objection to
waiving the reading of this statement?
TIA LEWIS (Attorney for the Applicant):
-
No.
C -
r
S WEARINGEN:
Have any members of the Board had any pre -hearing contacts?
M -_:-
COMMISSIONER DENNIS LUKE:
_,
No.
co
Board of Commissioners' Meeting
Appeal No. A-008, Application No. CU -00-3
Page 1 of 9 Pages
Thursday, June 29, 2000
Quality Services Performed with Pride
COMMISSIONER TOM DEWOLF:
No.
S WEARINGEN:
Are there any challenges as to bias, prejudgment or personal interest? (None were
given.) Then we will proceed with the staff report.
TRACY WHITE:
Presented an oversized map showing the subject property in relation to other
properties in the area. A general discussion ensued regarding the map. She then
read her opening statement for the public hearing on the appeal (Exhibit A). She
also read the Staff Presentation (Exhibit B).
S WEARINGEN:
Based on this map, it is not going to alter the area.
LUKE:
I have a question regarding the map. Parcels across from the subject parcel have
quite a few houses on them. Why aren't those located?
WHITE:
The rules state that the analysis does not include land zoned for rural residential
and non -resource use, in particular the MUA zoned land that you are looking at,
which should not be a factor in your decision.
LUKE:
There could be one hundred houses in there and we aren't supposed to take that
into account?
S WEARINGEN:
That just doesn't make sense.
WHITE:
These could not be taken into consideration. The agricultural land use pattern has
to be considered. There are old subdivisions that pre -date the Oregon land use
system, a rural residential exception area zoned RR -10 or MUA-10.
DEWOLF:
Do most of these have homes on them?
Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 2 of 9 Pages
Appeal No. A-008, Application No. CU -00-3 Thursday, June 29, 2000
WHITE:
I think most of them do. But we could not consider these in the decision.
S WEARINGEN:
I know you don't make the rules, but this sounds kind of silly that these can't be
considered.
WHITE:
Our analysis was applied under the administrative rules. We made the assumption
that allowing this dwelling would encourage additional non-farm dwellings in the
area, and would alter overall land use in the area.
S WEARINGEN:
We have seen that if a dwelling is place on a parcel, typically it is more likely to be
actually farmed and put to use than it would be if the owners do not live on the
property. Often in this case it just lies fallow. Would the owners of this property
actually lose their water rights if a residence is allowed?
WHITE:
They would lose their farm deferral, but could keep their water rights. The record
does indicate that the Sheehans are not farming it.
LUKE:
They can keep their water rights. The irrigation company may ask for the owner to
sell back the water rights for the land where the dwelling is place. When was this
property previously split?
WHITE:
It was split into two lots prior to 1992, and it could have possibly been built on in
1992. It would have been a conditional use permit and would have been reviewed
under the requirements at the time.
WHITE:
The applicant has argued that the proposed non-farm homesite is on a portion of
the parcel that is not irrigated and is generally non-productive land, encompassing
about 120 feet by 140 feet, or about 1/2 acre. We have found that it is composed
predominately of class 1 to 6 soils, so it is presumed to be suitable for farming.
The homesite location is class 3 to 4 irrigated, and class 6 dry.
Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 3 of 9 Pages
Appeal No. A-008, Application No. CU -00-3 Thursday, June 29, 2000
The record indicates that the area where the dwelling would be placed had been
irrigated in the past until the applicant transferred about 1/3 acre of water from it.
It has the same soil types as the adjoining properties, which are being farmed.
LUKE:
The adjoining properties all have homes on them, is that true?
WHITE:
Yes, I believe they do. Those houses date from a different regulatory scheme, and
are associated with farm uses.
DEWOLF:
If staff feels the entire parcel is suitable for farming, does this disqualify the whole
parcel?
KEVIN HARRISON:
The decision would be to deny the application unless a portion is found unsuitable
for farming.
LUKE:
Has there been any public testimony against a dwelling being allowed?
WHITE:
None has been received, either oral or written.
HARRISON:
In 1992, the rules on the EFU zone were being rewritten and were also under an
enforcement order. The stability standard has changed significantly since then.
We can now use a portion to determine suitability. In 1992 you had to show that
the entire parcel was unsuitable.
DEWOLF:
Can LCDC sue the County?
HARRISON:
It has happened in the past, instigated by ARLU DeCo. Deschutes County was
place on one year's probation in the early 1990's. LCDC can initiate an
enforcement order.
Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 4 of 9 Pages
Appeal No. A-008, Application No. CU -00-3 Thursday, June 29, 2000
S WEARINGEN:
Although the soil suitability can be questioned, I do not think allowing a non-farm
dwelling would alter the stability of the land. Any potential change in the land use
pattern is not significant, especially considering all the properties right across the
road that have homes on them.
TIA LEWIS:
For the record, the original parcels were created in 1974, and the Sheehans have
owned theirs since 1994. (Referred to a map showing the dates parcels were
created.)
S WEARINGEN:
We will adjourn the hearing until later today at 2:30 p.m.
CONTINUATION OF HEARING
Thursday, June 29, 2000, 2:30 p.m.
Chair Linda Swearingen reopened the hearing. Present were Commissioners Linda
Swearingen, Dennis Luke, and Tom DeWolf. Also present were Bruce White,
County Legal Counsel; Tracy White, Community Development; and Attorney Tia
Lewis, and her clients Tom and Mimi Sheehan.
TIA LEWIS:
I'm here on behalf of the applicants, Tom and Mimi Sheehan, who own
approximately 10 acres on Dayton Road, adjacent to Matt Day's property. The
area is most known for Matt Day's residence. (Distributed photos that have
already been included as Exhibit B of the applicant's burden of proof in the
existing record.) The photos are taken from the proposed residence — the rocky
area you see is on the proposed homesite; photos have been taken toward all
directions. (General discussion ensued regarding the land shown in the photos.)
This parcel is about 1/3 of the size of the average farm parcel in the area. It also
has a little over 1/4 of the irrigation for the minimum irrigated acreage in the sub -
zone. The Sheehans have owned it for about six years. Both staff and the Hearing
Officer found that all criteria were met except two.
Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 5 of 9 Pages
Appeal No. A-008, Application No. CU -00-3 Thursday, June 29, 2000
TOM SHEEHAN:
In 1994 my wife, Mimi, and I bought this property solely for building a home on it.
We had no idea it would be this difficult, although we knew it was zoned EFU; we
started this process last July. We have four sheep, chickens, dogs and cats. We
want to use the land like everyone else in the area, as a hobby farm.
We noted there are at least a couple of dozen homes already in the area, and we can
see at least half of those from our property. Down the street there is a 6.33 acre
parcel with a conditional use permit already in place for sale, with four acres of
irrigation. Nearly all parcels in the area have homes on them, with or without
irrigation. We never farmed the property. When we bought it the previous owner
had not been irrigating, and it was just a dust bowl. We have irrigated every year,
just to keep it green and keep to the dust down. We have eight acres of irrigation.
A neighbor uses the land for grazing three to five cows, and we turn our sheep out
onto it. The proposed building site is primarily rock, and is not irrigated. There
are boulders spread out on much of the parcel, making it impossible to farm. The
parcel is separated by a mainline and a fence, and we have an irrigation pond.
About 2,000 feet away there are three homes, and about 100 feet away in another
direction are two other homes. (She discussed proposed location of the dwelling
on the map, in relation to other residences in the area.)
We met with neighbors Matt and Leslie Day to go over our plans, and they weren't
opposed to them at all. The other immediate neighbor has sent in a letter of
support. If we're denied the ability to build a home there, the land is basically
worthless to us. There are a lot of gophers and sage rats in that area, and the
gopher control man got halfway through the land and left after breaking two augers
on the big rocks under the surface.
TIA LEWIS:
There are two criteria at issue. One is the stability standard — which addresses the
dwelling's effect on the overall land use pattern of the area — and I believe this
application meets this criterion. You need to consider "similarly situated". This
process is designed to determine if this will affect the pattern in the area. As I see
it, approval of this application would not affect the pattern and set precedence. It
would have no bearing on the possible future development of a 400 -acre parcel.
Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 6 of 9 Pages
Appeal No. A-008, Application No. CU -00-3 Thursday, June 29, 2000
That's how the analysis is done. Within the circle, staff and the Hearings Officer
take every vacant farm parcel and use that as the starting point. You should look
at the ones where it's likely to set some sort of precedent. Common sense needs to
be used. When you look at similarly situated parcels, you will find that term is not
defined in Deschutes County ordinances, administrative rules or state statutes.
Yamhill County, in a case that LUBA quoted with approval, defined it as "parcels
within the same category of developability". When you consider this parcel
against those of the same size and use — soils, location, and terrain — and I used
twenty acres or less - I came up with seven similarly situated parcels in the area
that may possibly be affected by the decision on this issue. When you consider the
size of the area and how many parcels there are, the likelihood that seven more
dwellings could be approved is not a material alteration.
WHITE:
The map shows the potential area, excluding the big parcel. (General discussion
about the parcels on the map.)
LEWIS:
The other issue relating to this criterion is to look at farm parcels and whether the
creation of this would lead to other non-farm dwellings. We aren't creating
another parcel, but the Hearings Officer indicated this might cause the addition of
another two or three. Also, the "portion of a lot" was not included in the Hearings
Officer's document.
The evidence we have about the parcel's unsuitability consists of a number of
things: the rockiness, the inability to run farm equipment on it, and so on. Mark
Higham, an expert in farm operations, testified that the area where the homesite
would be placed is generally unsuitable for the production of livestock or for
farming. (She distributed the testimony of the expert that was given at a previous
hearing on this matter)
Also, consider the size of the parcel, the non -irrigation of the location where the
dwelling would be. Tumalo Irrigation District allowed the water rights to be
moved to a different, more productive area on the parcel, and they are very careful
about moving water rights. The applicants want to live on the parcel so they can
keep irrigating it, make it more productive and keeping livestock on it.
Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 7 of 9 Pages
Appeal No. A-008, Application No. CU -00-3 Thursday, June 29, 2000
WHITE:
I want to reiterate the number of parcels that have developability similar to the
subject property. The map does not include any potential parcels, either. And the
soils scientist's data, previously submitted, conflicts with the testimony that the
whole back of the property is too rocky to farm.
S WEARINGEN:
I think the statement, "generally unsuitable", is very subjective.
WHITE:
When I visited the property, I did see rocky areas, but I saw other areas that look
very farmable. The pictures show what they are intended to show.
LUKE:
Rocks have a tendency to grow in this area, especially when the land is tilled.
WHITE:
We do have some guidelines to follow. We can assume that it will reduce options
for increasing farmland or acreage in farm use, and will increase the number of
dwellings.
LUKE:
I am not worried about other applications, as I'm sure they will end up coming
before us. I don't believe this dwelling would affect the overall stability of the
area, especially with rural residential properties right across the street. I can't see
how this house would disrupt the stability of the area.
S WEARINGEN:
Nor can I. I believe the applicants have made their case.
DEWOLF:
I would like some time to do a site visit, and put the decision on next Wednesday's
agenda.
S WEARINGEN:
The written record will close on Monday, July 3rd, 2000, at 5:00 p.m., with any
written rebuttal to be received by Wednesday, July 5th, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. The
decision will be on the regular Board agenda for Wednesday, July 5th, at 10:00 a.m.
Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 8 of 9 Pages
Appeal No. A-008, Application No. CU -00-3 Thursday, June 29, 2000
Chair Swearingen adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p. m.
Dated this 29th Day of June 2000 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
mda L. Sw6grinaen, hair
ATTEST:
Board of Commissioners' Meeting
Appeal No. A-008, Application No. CU -00-3
Gam:
s R. Luke, Commissioner
Tom DeWolf, Co oner
Page 9 of 9 Pages
Thursday, June 29, 2000
OPENING STATEMENT FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPEAL
Introduction:
This is a de novo public hearing on Appeal A008, an appeal of the Deschutes County Hearings
Officer's decision to deny CU -00-3, a conditional use permit for a nonfarm dwelling. This appeal
application has not previously been heard.
Burden of Proof and Applicable Criteria:
The applicants have the burden of proving that they are entitled to the approval sought. The
approval criteria shall be projected on the wall using the overhead projector during the hearing.
Hearings Procedure:
The Procedures Ordinance establishes the following procedures for this hearing: The Board of
County Commissioners will hear testimony, receive evidence and consider the testimony, evidence
and information submitted into the record, as well as that evidence constituting the record before
the Hearings Officer. The record as developed to this point is available for public review at this
hearing.
Testimony and evidence at this hearing must be directed toward the criteria set forth in the notice
of this hearing, which are projected on the wall using the overhead projector. Testimony may also
be directed to any other criteria in the County Comprehensive Plan or land use regulations that
any person believes apply to this decision.
Failure on the part of any person to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Board and
parties to this proceeding an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use
Board of Appeals on that issue.
Order of Presentation:
The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The Staff will give a report on the prior
proceedings and the decision of the Hearings Officer. The applicant, also the appellant in this
case will then have an opportunity to make a presentation and offer testimony and evidence. The
opponents will then be given a chance to make a presentation. After both the applicant/appellant
and opponents have made a presentation, the Board may allow rebuttal statements at the Board's
discretion. At the conclusion of this hearing, the staff will be afforded an opportunity to make any
closing arguments. The Board may limit the time period for presentations.
Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time at the Boad's discretion.
Cross-examination of witnesses will not be allowed. However, if any person wishes a question be
asked of any person during that person's presentation, please direct such question to the chair
after being recognized. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the
witness.
Open Hearing on Appeal A008 (C0003)
Page 1
Pre -hearing Contacts:
I will now direct a question to the other m6mbers of the Board of County Commissioners. If any
member of the Board, including myself, has had any pre -hearing contacts, now is the time to state
the substances of the contacts so that all persons present at this hearing can be fully advised of
the nature and context of those contacts and with whom contact was made. Are there any
contacts that need to be disclosed?
At this time, do any members of the Board need to set forth the substance of any ex parte
observations or facts of which this body should take notice concerning this appeal?
Any person in the audience has the right during the hearings process to rebut the substanm of any
communication or observation that has been placed in the record.
Challenges for Bias, Prejudgment, or Personal Interest
Any party prior to the commencement of the hearing may challenge the qualifications of the Board
of County Commissioners or any member thereof of bias, prejudgment or personal interest. This
challenge must be documented with specific reasons supported by facts.
I will accept challenges now.
Should any Board member be challenged, the member may disqualify himself or herself, withdraw
from the hearing or make a statement on the record of their capacity to hear the appeal.
Hearing no challenges, I shall proceed.
Staff report
Open Hearing on Appeal A008 (CU003)
Page 2
Staff presentation - C003 (A008), Sheehan
Staff contact: Tracy White, Associate Planner, Deschutes County Planning
This is a de novo hearing for File A008, appeal of the Hearings Officer's decision
to deny File C0003 a CUP for a nonfarm dwelling.
Procedural History
Hearings Officer Green's decision, dated April 26th, outlines the procedural history
up to the appeal process.
The Sheehans, submitted a Notice of Appeal on May 9th. The appeal period ended
May lot"
The Board agreed to hear the appeal de novo on May 24th. Notice of today's
hearing was mailed to the parities according to the procedures ordinance.
The 150 -day period for the county to issue a final land use decision expires July
7th, seven days from today.
Applicable Criteria
The applicable criteria are listed in the Hearings Officer Decision, the staff
report and projected on the wall.
Summary
The subject parcel is 10 acres with 8.1 acres irrigated, receiving special farm
assessment. The Sheehans applied for a nonfarm dwelling on a portion of the parcel.
Hearings Officer Green denied the nonfarm CUP for two reasons.
1. The applicants failed to meet the 'stability standard in DCZO
18.16.050(G)(1)(a)(i i ).
2. The applicant's failed to meet the 'generally unsuitable standard in (DCZO
18.16050(G)(1)(a)(i i -iii).
CU003 (A008), Sheehan
Page 1
Staff presentation - C003 (A008), Sheehan
Stability standard
The 'stability' standard requires the county to determine the cumulative impact on
agriculture land of approving nonfarm dwellings on vacant similarly situated parcels
in the EFU zone.
The term similarly situated is not defined in the OARS. LUBA interpreted the
term in Blosser v. Yamhill County (1989) to mean vacant parcels with the "same
category of developabilitiy."
In 1998 LCDC amended OAR 660-033 for agricultural lands to include case law and
clarify the'stability' standard. In particular, the rule now requires counties to apply a
three-step 'stability analysis first outlined in Sweeten v. Clackamas County.
Step 1. Select a study area. We examine the EFU-zoned land within a mile of
the subject parcel.
Step 2. Examine of the pattern of agricultural land uses and the history of
residential development in the area.
• The rule states the analysis does not include land zoned for rural
residential or non -resource uses. In particular, the MUA zoned land
should not be a factor in your decision.
• The agricultural land use pattern is the pattern of farm tracts and
individual lots in farm use.
• We determined the residential land use pattern by inventorying the
existing houses, noting the year each house was built, what if any land
use permit was approved and by classifying the house as a farm or
nonfarm dwelling. In particular, we count the houses built since 1993,
after HB 3661, when the standards for dwellings became more
restrictive.
Step 3. Describe the land use pattern that would result from approving all the
potential nonfarm dwellings.
CU003 (A008), Sheehan
Page 2
Staff presentation - C003 (A008), Sheehan
• We determine the potential residential land use pattern by calculating
how many nonfarm dwellings could potentially be approved on vacant
parcels in the area; and how many nonfarm parcels could be created.
• Finally, the existing agricultural land use pattern is compared with the
existing and projected residential land use pattern.
The goal is to maintain the stability of the agricultural land use pattern in the area.
The assumption is if the Sheehan's nonfarm dwelling is approved, then a series of
nonfarm dwellings on similar properties would be encouraged.
The question is, what land use pattern would be created if all the potential nonfarm
dwellings were approved on similar properties? Will the change be insignificant /
immaterial or will it materially alter the agricultural land use pattern to the
detriment of agriculture?
Evidence
This study area contains 1,713 acres of privately -owned EFU-zoned land.
• 83% of this land receives special assessment as farmland.
• 1,567 acres comprise 8 farm tracts (listed in Hearings Officer decision).
• 1,136 acres are irrigated.
Only 329 acres or. 16% of the EFU-zoned land reviewed is dry land taxed at real
market value.
The evidence is 59 of the EFU tax lots have a house. 36 are farm houses, 21 are
nonfarm houses.
• 30 or I of the houses date from 1910 to 1976, before the Oregon land use
program was in effect.
• 21 date from 1979 to 1992, before H8 3661 imposed restrictive standards.
• 6 houses date from 1993 to present.
The county has approved only 4 CUPS for nonfarm dwellings in this area since
1993. All 4 are on tax lots that currently have no irrigation and are assessed at
real market value.
19 vacant EFU tax lots with potential for a nonfarm dwelling exist in this area.
• 10 are nonfarm tax lots with no irrigation, assessed at real market value.
• 9 are farm tax lots, 0 to 90% irrigated, assessed at farm value.
CU003 (A008), Sheehan
Page 3
Staff presentation - C003 (A008), Sheehan
• 5 of the 9 farm tax lots, including the Sheehan's have been or remain part of a
larger farm tract. (161125-200, 161113-901, 161124-100, 161113-700 and
161124-1101)
• 8 of the 9 farm tax lots total 139 acres with a total of 104 irrigated acres.
• The 9th is 407 acres, part of Matt Day's Hooker Creek Ranch. It is dry
rangeland assessed at farm value.
The GIS group prepared maps showing the existing and projected agricultural land
use patterns.
• The map Exhibit A shows in green the tax lots that are receiving special farm
assessment.
• The farm tracts are outlined in dark green.
• Tax lots on the 1992 ag. land inventory in the Comp Plan Resource Element are
marked by green crosshatch. This inventory data is interesting because it
shows which land has remained in farm use since 1992.
• Nnonfarm tax lots - taxed at real market value - are shown in brown.
If a nonfarm dwelling were approved on the 10 vacant nonfarm tax lots shown in
brown (w/o a house symbol), the acreage in farm use and the water rights available
to farms would not decrease.
In contrast, if a nonfarm dwelling is approved on the Sheehan's property, the
acreage in farm use would decrease by 10 acres and water rights available to other
farms would decrease by 8.1 acres.
Staff believes 8 vacant farm tax lots have the "same category of developabilitiy"
as the Sheehan's property. If a nonfarm dwelling were approved on all 8, the
acreage in farm use would decrease by an additional 549 acres or by 132 acres not
including the Hooker Creek Ranch parcel. If a nonfarm dwelling were approved on
the other 5 irrigated farm tax lots the water rights available to other farms would
decrease by an additional 101 acres.
This would decrease options for existing farms in the area to use these resources.
The map Exhibit B shows the 8 farm tax lots that would convert to nonfarm status
if a nonfarm dwelling were approved and the resulting change in the agricultural
land use pattern. The converted tax lots are green on Exhibit A and pale orange on
Exhibit B. 6 irrigated tax lots, including the Sheehan parcel, identified on the
1992 ag. land inventory would convert to nonfarm status. They are shown in pale
C0003 (A008), Sheehan
Page 4
Staff presentation - C003 (A008), Sheehan
orange with green crosshatch. The Sheehan parcel is yellow with green
crosshatch.
The proposed nonfarm dwelling would meet the stability standard if the Board
finds the pattern of potential nonfarm residential development is insignificant or
immaterial and would not materially alter the agricultural land use pattern to the
detriment of agriculture in this area.
Suitability standard
The applicant has argued the proposed a nonfarm homesite is on a portion of the
parcel that is not irrigated, generally unproductive land, encompassing an area 120
feet by 140 feet or 28,000 SF - a little more than If acre.
The suitability standard states "A lot or parcel is presumed to be suitable if it is
composed predominantly of Class 1-6 solls" The subject parcel is composed
entirely of Soil 34C, Deschutes Stukel Complex. This soil is class 3-4 irrigated /
class 6 dry.
Based on National Resource Conservation Service soil capability rating the
Hearings Officer found the entire parcel, including the proposed homesite, is
presumed to be suitable for producing farm crops and livestock with/without
irrigation.
The evidence is the home site has been irrigated until recently when the Sheehan's
transferred about one-third acre of water from the homesite.
The Sheehan's hired a soil scientist to examine the soils at the homesite. He dug
11 soil test pits and recorded the depth and nature of the soil at the pits. His
report documents the soil depth to bedrock is 14 to 32 inches on about 7,000 SF
or w of the proposed homesite. However, soil depths on the majority of the
homesite range from 50 to 60 inches - deeper than expected according to the
NRSC description of Soil 34C.
The record shows Soil 34C is being used for hay crops and livestock pasture on two
adjoining tax lots and on other farms in the area.
CU003 (A008), Sheehan
Page 5
Staff presentation - C003 (A008), Sheehan
The applicant argues the parcel has no agricultural value and does not have a
history of farm use. However, as noted, this parcel is listed in the ag. land
inventory in the Comp Plan Resource Element. The inventory was completed in 1992
for the Agricultural Lands Project. It was used to determine the farm unit size(s)
appropriate to maintain commercial agricultural enterprise in each EFU subzone.
The inventory is important because it shows the subject parcel was part of a
+27.62 acre irrigated farm tract that ranked among the top 90% of land assessed
for farm use in Deschutes County. In 1992, the farm tract was composed of tax
lot 1101 now owned by Sheehans and tax lot 1000 now owned by Haldors.
The only evidence that the proposed I acre nonfarm homesite is unsuitable is that
it includes 7,000 SF of somewhat shallower soils. Otherwise the evidence is the
proposed homesite is undifferentiated from the rest of the 10 -acre parcel that
has been irrigated, is receiving special assessment as farmland and has historically
been farmed as part of a larger tract.
Conclusion
The Planning Division staff supports the Hearings Office's decision.
CU003 (A008), Sheehan
Page 6