Loading...
2002-148-Minutes for Meeting February 21,2002 Recorded 3/8/2002DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 219 2002 Administration Building, 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend The subject of this Public Hearing: Changes to the Comprehensive Plan as they related to the Passage of House Bill 3326. Present were Commissioners Tom De Wolf, Dennis R. Luke and Michael M. Daly. Also present were Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; George Read, Kevin Harrison and Paul Blikstad, Community Development; and approximately 35 citizens. Chair Tom De Wolf opened the meeting at 3:01 p.m. DEWOLF: This is a hearing concerning amendments to Title 18 to address House Bill 3326; File No. TA -01-10. Kevin, you want to start us off? KEVIN HARRISON: Thank you very much. I'm a member of the Deschutes County Planning Department. The primary purpose of the hearing today is to review recommendations from the Planning Commission regarding the implementation of House Bill 3326. The bill deals with land divisions in the EFU (exclusive farm use) zone, and was adopted to correct unintended effects of legislation passed in 1993. These effects became apparent through a series of court cases that originated in Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson counties over the last several years. The Deschutes County Planning Commission met several times in work sessions to discuss these issues. They held a public hearing on December 13, 2001, and adopted a recommendation at a meeting on January 10, 2002. I should point out that the Bill went into effect on January 1, 2002. Minutes of Public Hearing House Bill 3326 Changes Quality Services Performed with Pride Page 1 of 31 Pages Thursday, February 21, 2002 HARRISON: Just to back up a little bit and give a little bit of history in context here. Deschutes County's EFU zone underwent a complete analysis and rewrite in 1992. This is part of the periodic review of our comprehensive plan. It is a requirement of that periodic review. To do this analysis we hired a consultant, a professor from Oregon State University, who took us through a yearlong program to look at farm use in the county. It's probably the most extensive and comprehensive analysis of agricultural use that has been done anywhere in this country. The key findings that came out of that study were that irrigation was essential for commercial agriculture. So we adopted minimum lot sizes and land division standards that are tied primarily to irrigated land. State law has changed over the years, and most recently with House Bill 3326, and under state law there are minimum lot sizes that really take no notice of irrigated land. They are generic lot size. One of the challenges that we've had in reviewing the legislation is trying to merge language in state law with Deschutes County's existing program. What I'd like to do is to try to boil this down into two different kinds of scenarios: land divisions on irrigated land, and land divisions on non -irrigated land. I have a chart up here - - - DENNIS LUKE: Before you get too deep into this, there were some of us who were there in 1993 who believed the courts misinterpreted the will of the legislature, instead of the legislation having unintended consequences. HARRISON: Let's take a look at land divisions on irrigated land. Again, we have a minimum lot size that's already contained in our existing code. It's based on irrigated land, and it varies by sub -zones. These are geographic areas of the county that historically have a different set of agricultural characteristics, so the minimum lot sizes tend to vary by these geographical areas. Notwithstanding the minimum lot size in those sub -zones, land divisions creating parcels smaller than minimum lot size may be allowed under two different scenarios. If the parent parcel is greater than the minimum lot size, and it is also less than 80 acres, then you have the potential to break off one piece for a new non-farm parcel. Caveats associated with that are that the remainder piece still has to meet the minimum lot size, and there is no minimum lot size for the new non-farm parcel. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 2 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 DEWOLF: That's the proposal from the Planning Commission. HARRISON: Yes. Everything I am describing is based on recommendations from the Planning Commission. LUKE: So, an example is that if you have 85 acres, you can break off a maximum of 5 acres to create a different parcel as long as you still have the 80. HARRISON: I'm going to show drawings of how this plays out. If the parent parcel is greater than the minimum lot size and is also greater or equal to 80 acres, then the person would be eligible to break off two pieces for new non- farm dwellings. Again, the caveat is that the remainder piece meets the minimum lot size, and there is no minimum lot size for the new non-farm parcels. So, what does this look like? (He referred to sketches on flip charts at this time.) Here are the two scenarios. Let's assume we're in Tumalo-Redmond-Bend sub - zone, and the irrigated minimum lot size is 23 irrigated acres. Here's a parcel with more than 23 irrigated acres that is less than 80 acres in size. It would be eligible for a division to break off one piece for a non-farm dwelling. The irrigated land would have to stay together. Here's a scenario where the farm parcel meets the minimum irrigated lot size, but the parcel in total is greater than 80 acres. This piece would be eligible to break off two pieces for non-farm dwellings. The irrigated land stays together. IRIJ.1.4 I think it's important that, as mentioned in the work session, those have to stay on a road. IiW110:if.Y�T► Aside from the requirements of the EFU zone, we have partition standards, and the partition standards say that all parcels created in a partition have to have frontage on a public road. This is not an aspect of the EFU zone; it's an aspect of any land division in Deschutes County. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 3 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 MIKE DALY: Would the large parcels remaining still be eligible for farm deferral? HARRISON: If you have a parcel in the EFU zone, the short answer is "yes". As long as you have a qualifying farm use, you are eligible for farm use assessment. These pieces that are approved for non-farm dwellings would have to lose their special assessment for farm use, pay whatever tax is appropriate, and then be taxed at market value. That is also a function of state law, and that's been in effect for a number of years. That's not a function of this bill. Let's flip to the next example, non -irrigated land. The minimum lot size for non- irrigated parcels is 80 acres. However, land divisions creating parcels smaller than minimum lot size may be allowed under these two scenarios. If the parent piece is greater than 80 acres, then two non-farm parcels can be broken off. The caveat is that the remainder must be at least 80 acres, and there is no minimum lot size for the new non-farm parcels. The last scenario is if we have a parent parcel that is greater than or equal to 40 acres, and less than or equal to 80 acres, you are eligible for one new non-farm parcel. The minimum lot size in this scenario is five acres. LUKE: I have a question. If the minimum lot size is 80 acres, then how can you divide a forty -acre piece? HARRISON: Because there is an exception built into state law. This is part of House Bill 3326. This is an exception for a substandard parcel; a substandard, non -irrigated parcel. want to be clear about this distinction. When we talk about land divisions on non -irrigated land, we're starting with a parcel that has no irrigation, and hasn't had it historically. Land division standards on irrigated land apply to all properties with irrigation; those properties that have had irrigation historically. LUKE: Does it matter if the irrigation is by pump or from the canal? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 4 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 HARRISON: It's if they have an established water right; it could be from groundwater or from a district. LUKE: And how far back do you go for non -irrigated? HARRISON: If there's a question, and the question would arise either out of conflicting information as part of an application or a question that arises from a site visit, we would contact the irrigation district. They are the ultimate keepers of those records. (Referring to the next sketch.) Here's the parcel that is greater than 80 acres. You'd be eligible to break off up to two for non-farm dwellings. Again, the remainder piece has to keep a minimum of 80 acres. Here's the sub -standard parcel between 40 and 80 acres; it would be eligible to divide to create one non-farm dwelling parcel, with a minimum lot size of five acres. LUKE: You show them as equal, but they don't have to be. HARRISON: No, they don't. DALY: When you say minimum lot size of five acres, is that a recommendation? HARRISON: That's the recommendation of the Planning Commission. There is no minimum lot size contained in state law for this. I think that the policy issues to be decided are really narrow. It's not that they aren't important, but they are fairly narrow. What I'll do is pose the question to the Board and offer it for the public. I think it would be most helpful if public testimony were directed towards these issues, because there really aren't a whole lot of other issues up for discussion. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 5 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 HARRISON: The first question has to do with land divisions on irrigated land. "Shall the creation of new non-farm parcels be limited as recommended by the Planning Commission, or expanded to the full extent of state law?" State law would allow two non-farm parcels for every irrigated parcel that meets or exceeds the minimum lot size. The recommendation of the Planning Commission would hold that potential to one for those farms that are less than 80 acres and allow two for those farms that are greater than 80 acres. DEWOLF: That was not a unanimous vote? HARRISON: This was a split vote, three to two. All the recommendations that are coming to you from the Planning Commission were based on split votes. The second question has to do with minimum lot size. "Shall land divisions on substandard, non -irrigated parcels be five acres as recommended by the Planning Commission?" Again, state law sets no minimum lot size; it's really discretionary to the County. LUKE: What were the discussions of the Planning Commission on that? HARRISON: Again, this was a split vote. There were some commissioners who felt that there would be no need for a minimum lot size. They were comfortable letting the market determine what would be an appropriate unit of land. There were those who felt that smaller parcels might have a negative effect on the neighborhood, both in terms of land values and aesthetics. I think those were the basic points in the decision. The third question has to do with the prohibition against series partitions. The County has had on its books a prohibition against series partitions, effective since 1992, as part of the comprehensive review of the EFU zone. It's a policy decision that was discretionary at that time, and was made by the Commissioners at that time. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 6 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 HARRISON: Under state law, under the law that now exists under House Bill 3326, parcels that are created after July 1, 2001 are no longer eligible for any kind of a land division. It would be possible, then, to roll back the date on this prohibition of these partitions to align with state law, which would be July 1, 2001. LUKE: For the audience, would you explain what a series partition is? HARRISON: A partition is the creation of three or fewer parcels in a calendar year. It is possible in other circumstances to do a partition in different years, so that over time a property is divided to create four, five or six more parcels. The County has prohibited that in the EFU zone. They've said, once you hit three parcels, then no matter what size parcel you have left remaining, that parcel is not eligible for another division. The County has the ability at this time to drop that prohibition and could go just with state law, and set a July 1, 2001 cutoff date for land divisions. The package that was sent to you contained draft language on the EFU zone. We consider that to be a work in progress. We've been wrestling with this notion of how to classify land divisions, and are thinking in order to make this more clear than it has been, especially in our discussions with the public, we want to change the format. But the points remain the same; the substance is the same. I also sent you a copy of the agricultural land section of the comprehensive plan. The EFU zone has to be consistent with the comp plan. So if we make changes to the EFU zone, we also have to go back and look at our comp plan section to make sure we don't create a conflict. So, there are some suggested changes to our policies to reflect the changes that we're making here. There are a couple of other policies that I see needing changes because we're dealing with obsolete language or errors. If you'd like, we can delay this so I can give you some legislative history on those policy changes, or we can do that right now. LUKE: I would not believe we are going to make a decision today. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 7 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 DEWOLF: You can provide us with a report or something on those. LUKE: We got a form letter here signed by quite a few people. Can you explain why there are sub -zones in the County? HARRISON: That really had to do with our rewrite or overhaul of the EFU zone in 1992. Again, in 1992 the County was involved in the timed update of the comprehensive plan. We were required by law to look at our EFU zone to make sure it was consistent with state law and applicable case law. Our EFU zone was out of sync with those things, so we had to make the necessary changes to the EFU zone. We hired a consultant, a professor from OSU, to come in and work with the County, form a local committee, and guide us through that process. What we found with respect to sub -zones is that minimum lot sizes were supposed to reflect typical agricultural practices in the County. What we found is that agricultural land use varied by geographic area. The kind of farming you'll find in the Tumalo- Redmond-Bend area is much different that found in Lower Bridge. It's different than in La Pine. It's different than Horse Ridge. So, we developed standards, in particular with minimum lot sizes, which reflected the differences that we found. That's why we have the sub -zones, and that's why minimum lot sizes are different in these geographical areas. We believe that those minimum lot sizes reflected local data. Everything that we used in that study came from input from local farmers, agricultural agencies and statistics on agricultural land use. So it was all locally derived, and we thought it was very sensitive to what actually happens in Deschutes County. I'd be reluctant to say, "get rid of those", because they have some meaning. DEWOLF: I'm going to open the public hearing. I'd like to remind everyone that there are a lot of people here and there are a lot of people who signed up to speak, so please be brief and to the point that you want to make. If it seems like you've made a good point, I may interrupt and ask you to wrap it up just so that we can all get home for dinner sometime tonight. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 8 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 DEWOLF: The other thing I would ask, since perhaps not everyone in here agrees with everyone else, is that you conduct yourself with respect and dignity. There's no interrupting each other; if you have questions, those will need to be addressed to me; and let people finish what they have to say. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Will you accept written testimony? DEWOLF: We will definitely accept written testimony. If there are people who are much better writers and more comfortable writing than speaking in public, we will be more than happy to read your testimony. We won't be making a decision today; in fact, I suspect that we would do like normal and leave the record open for a period of time so that people would have the opportunity to present additional testimony and respond to things that are said today. Thank you. LUKE: If we leave the record open for written testimony, since there is not an applicant on this as such, we don't have to worry about response to the testimony? LAURIE CRAGHEAD: There still does need to be a response, which is one of the recommendations. If you are going to leave the record open, I would recommend a continuation of the hearing, given the fact that staff has indicated they might bring in some changed language. DEWOLF: We don't have a time restriction, right? CRAGHEAD: No, you don't. LUKE: When you have an applicant and a respondent, normally you would take testimony and then you would give another few days for the applicant to respond. CRAGHEAD: We don't have that here. You can just leave it open for written testimony. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 9 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 DEWOLF: Then we'll have another public hearing. And at that point anyone would have access to the record and be able to respond to anything in it. At this time, Chair De Wolf entered a set of written testimony into the record (attached as Exhibit A). DEWOLF: First on the list is Kay Kimball. KAY KIMBALL: I'm here on behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon. I first want to commend Kevin (Harrison) for doing a series of drawings, which helped me finally begin to understand this, because this is not the simplest issue I've ever dealt with. Earlier I was asking him a question that showed my ignorance. But, having spent some time on this, the answer to the questions he posed is "yes". Yes, I think you should keep the Planning Commission's recommendation. Yes, I think you should retain the twenty -acre minimum lot size for non-farm dwelling divisions; and yes, you should keep the 1992 date on prohibition against non-farm subdivisions and series partitions. The reasons for this are that there has been no demonstrated need to change or to loosen this up more on the record. I think it is important for us to protect these agricultural lands, and more non-farm dwellings and non-farm parcels will diminish the value of those agricultural lands. The last thing I would say is that if you are considering any policy or comp plan changes, I'd like an opportunity to review and comment on those. They are sort of referenced but aren't yet part of the record. I'd like a chance as a part of the public to make comments on those. I'm happy to answer any questions, so long as they aren't too complicated. LUKE: I do have one. I dealt with your organization quite a bit when I was in the legislature, and they always provided very good testimony. The question I always asked was this. They build on better farmland in the Willamette Valley than we have for farming. It's always amazing that people come over here and talk about saving the farmland that's here while building major buildings, factories and asphalt on some of the best farming ground in the country. Not much is said about that. KIMBALL: I guess all I can say is that life isn't fair. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 10 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I have a question for her. Do you reside here in Deschutes County? KIMBALL: Yes, sir, I do. I'm the Central Oregon regional representative for 1000 Friends of Oregon. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Are you a landowner? KIMBALL: Yes, I am. And we raise hay and cows. (Ms. Kimball's letter is attached as Exhibit B) DEWOLF: What is your name, sir? AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mack Kimberling. MARTIN WINCH: We have 145 acres that we've had since 1965, and raise cows and hay on the part of it that we irrigate. I fully support the Planning Commission's recommendations. My first point would be to urge you to give it significant deference, because I feel like those people worked hard, and staff worked hard. It's a tough balancing issue to try to come up with something that makes sense in Deschutes County with our particular kind of land, the resource lands and farmlands that we have here, and also with the ordinances that are already in place. I feel like a lot has gone before, and I hope it gets due credit. The second thing I want to say is that I feel really reluctant to be endorsing it here today because I have really mixed feelings about non-farm parcels in agricultural zones. The reason is not so much the issue of protecting farmland as much as protecting the character of the area. I feel like what we have here in Deschutes County, that is so special and makes land here so valuable, and makes us want to live here, has a lot to do with the rural character that we've been able to preserve. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 11 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 WINCH: That, of course, is part of the statewide planning program that we all live by. We have urban areas and we have rural areas. So it concerns me that when we start putting non-farm parcels in farm areas that what we are also doing is putting non - rural uses in farm areas. I think there are problems with that. One is it sets up conflicts because once people get out there with a kind of state of mind of not really being connected with farming or farming kinds of activities. It's going to mean higher demands on services. They're not thinking of themselves as rural folks that have some other level of service, but maybe they want even a paved driveway. They put that in themselves. But they want urban levels of other kinds of services. There's going to be more demand on the schools, and more demand on the roads, but without the contributions to the rural economy, which is also important to the county. Even though we're not a great agricultural land, we are a great rural land. People love to come here to raise horses or whatever, and live a rural lifestyle. That contributes to a rural economy. The minimum lot size issue is tough for me because of that. You really can, on five acres, live rural. I would rather have some way to require rural small lot sizes than this issue of basically putting people who don't want to live a rural life by really stepping into the water and living it, getting mixed in out in rural areas. I feel like it tends to degrade the character of the rural area, tends to be more expensive for public services and probably taxes, and there's really no gain except for the few landowners who are able to take advantage of these provisions. I guess in closing I just want to see us keep this golden goose that we have here and not take it away from ourselves. Thanks. (Written testimony from Mr. Winch was submitted into the record, and a copy is attached as Exhibit C.) LUKE: I appreciate what you said. My father-in-law was an area farmer and I worked with the Farm Bureau over the years, and I liked your comment about a rural area. It is about farmland, but it's not. The quality of farm ground we have here is really minimal, and without irrigation it's zero. I appreciate your comments about the rural character. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 12 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 KEN SANDINE: I wasn't going to say much, but I have to respond to the previous speaker. I grew up in North Bend, Oregon on a gravel road. First two grades were in a two -room schoolhouse that my Dad went to, eight grades and two rooms. So I understand rural. However, I've lived coast to coast, and I've found that people are attracted to where it's nice to live, of which Bend is one; I am here. I have a problem with the mentality, though, of "I'm on the lifeboat now; let's not let anybody else aboard". That provides the conflict as it applies to rural life and rural character. I am a little uncomfortable with us suggesting that you have to have this mental state in order to live on rural land. How do you acquire that? Now, I'm wanting to live on rural land again, but having problems because of local law. If, as the County has prescribed, this would be wonderful to me, because I could carve out a little parcel and live the rural lifestyle that I grew up in. I'm also not willing to say that once I get aboard, nobody else can get aboard. I have a problem with that. That's about the only thing I'd like to address here. STEVE PAYER: I'll pass on testifying. PARKER WOODS: I'll submit something in writing later. WOODY BENNETT: I'll pass for now. WILLIAM KUHN: I live within the Tumalo winter deer range. As this Commission knows, I have spoken out in favor of trying to protect the winter deer range as much as possible. I want to point out that eventually, if more land is divided and subdivided and more people live out in the rural areas, that it reduces the habitat for wildlife. I understand there is a big difference between the east side of 20 and the west side of 20. But I would like to call to the attention of everyone in the audience something about the future. We have been living in an unprecedented growth time in Deschutes County. And with more and more people moving in, there is less space that is going to be available for wildlife. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 13 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 KUHN: If there were some way to communicate to ourselves, through ordinances or whatever, some kind of a concept to try to remember that we need to set aside habitat and maintain that habitat for wildlife. I am not opposed to what it is that you're trying to accomplish here as far as allowing people to do with their land as they want. What I'm trying to get at is the long-term planning concept, to remember that population doubles and doubles, and where are we going to be living. Where is the habitat for the wildlife going to be? Thank you. LUKE: I know where it's at in the summertime. I'm in the summer deer range, and I'm only off Reed Market Road. They eat my whole garden. MIKE HULSEY: I will submit something in writing. DAN KIESOW: I live on a four -acre piece of rural property in the city, with rural character. First I'll give you a little background, and then I'll talk about what I think about the plan itself. This is not to go against Martin Winch or anybody else, but my belief has been and always will be that small, rural character parcels are part of life in Central Oregon. They do not demean the character of what is rural. On four acres, I won the Sears Foundation Award for growing corn as a kid. I was in FFA and 4-H and raised and milked cows, raised beef, raised hogs; and my brother raised forty head of hogs and became a consultant for OSU, with a degree in agriculture. So, it can happen on small pieces of rural ground. It would be better, and I agree with Martin on this point, if it was watered so people could really use it. But that not being the case, I'm still in favor of it. And here's why that I think it helps production on farmland. If you have a small parcel mixed in amongst the large thirty and forty -acre pieces, those people generally will still keep a horse, maybe llamas, maybe will have chickens or rabbits, whatever. If they buy feed, where do they get it? Probably from the neighbor. That means he doesn't have to raise hay here and ship it someplace else. You can't raise hay very effectively, or anything else, in Central Oregon, but you can in other areas. So, this is a ready market for farm products. The non-farm parcel owners might buy milk products or eggs, that sort of thing. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 14 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 KIESOW: Those people could by another method be prevented from causing any conflict. I know that's been a consideration of the Board. I didn't hear any discussion here, but down in Jefferson County dealing with range land zoning, I found that they intend to deed restrict the non-farm parcel against filing lawsuits against common farming practices. That could be a consideration here, too, to add something into this ordinance if you take that non-farm parcel off, you agree to deed restrict it so that those people cannot now or in perpetuity sue for the farm practices of their neighbors. Just eliminate the conflict problem, and let them know ahead of time what they are putting their foot into. DEWOLF: It may not eliminate the conflict; it may just eliminate the solution to the conflict. t8i '14 You cannot keep people from suing other people. We already have right to farm laws statewide in Deschutes County, and Deschutes County has adopted those, too; and I'm surprised Jefferson County hasn't done that already. KIESOW: The other thing is that most conflict results from dogs running loose and from watering someone else's property. That's going to happen whether or not you create a minimum lot size. So, when talking about minimum lot sizes, I don't think there should be a minimum lot size on the non-farm parcel. It should be just large enough to accommodate the dwelling and a 100 -foot extra buffer. The reason I say that is because it says also, as part of the de facto requirements under the partitioning and the conditional use permit, that you have to have a piece that is in its entirety generally unsuitable for farming. So if you put a minimum lot size on the thing, then what. Say it's five acres, and the guy has 4-1/2 acres of rocky class 6 or worse soil on non -irrigated land. Can he not split that off then? DEWOLF: So you're not opposed to a minimum lot size; just not five acres minimum lot size. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 15 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 KIESOW: Right. It has to be big enough to meet these other conditions anyway, which means it's about 2-1/2 acres minimum in any case. So, I think that may refer to non -irrigated parcels anyway. I'm not sure if it refers to the irrigated being split off. It didn't sound like it. Another point was brought up that there would be less tax revenue and more demand on services. I think the other would be true, because I have a forty -acre piece on Gerking Market Road that is in farm deferral, and my taxes there are about one-third of what they are on my four -acre piece. So therefore, if you have a four -acre piece that couldn't be in farm deferral will bring in tax revenue that's three times what a forty -acre piece in farm deferral will bring in. So there will actually be more money generated by mixing in some of these for roads, schools and et cetera. As far as preserving wildlife, that's why there is a wildlife combining zone. EFU zones are not necessarily in place to protect wildlife. And I've got plenty of deer at my place, too. JEFF BOYER: I'm concerned about this proposal. It seems like it is a prescription for residential sprawl. I'd like to see you protect the rural character of the land, and would encourage you to keep the current policy of the division to one parcel, to keep the minimum lot size to twenty -acres, and also to keep the 1992 date for the subdivision partition. BRUCE WHITE: I'll make my comments in writing. FRANK DEGGENDORFER: I'm from Sisters, Oregon. I'm also on the Planning Commission. In January when the meeting took place my understanding, because I wasn't at that meeting, was that there was a lively discussion before the 3 to 2 vote. Prior to that meeting, at the meeting before, I did make my intentions known to the other Commissioners. Unfortunately, I was not able to vote because of extenuating circumstances. Coming back to the following meeting in February, we tried to bring this up again for discussion and vote, and felt it wasn't appropriate because some of the other Commissioners weren't there. But I did want to make it known to you that if I had the opportunity to vote, I would have voted and tied the score at 3 to 3. So, I would like to have you throw out the Planning Commission's recommendation with my comment. I don't know how the seventh one would have voted. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 16 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 DEGGENDORFER: I do think that one of the things you need to look at is the GIS survey to see how many lots are affected by whether you do the 80 acres as your cutoff, or, in my case, I would have loved to see it go down to 40 acres. I think they have that information and can give you the number of affected lots. DEWOLF: That actually would be helpful. I know on these maps we have a breakdown of the number of lots and what have you. If there were a way to combine all this information into one little packet that would give the impact one way or the other, it would be good. HARRISON: It's not impossible. I just want to be clear. We did the GIS study at the request of the Planning Commission and we used the eighty -acre cutoff as a test there. DEWOLF: Maybe I just don't have that with me right here. Is it an addition to what's on these maps? HARRISON: I think the end result was that there was a difference, at least theoretically, of 200 parcels that we used the eighty -acre break point. We did new non-farm dwellings for those farms that are less than 80 acres, and two above. As we said, everybody gets two. Commissioner Deggendorfer was talking about a forty -acre piece. We never tested that, but we could. DEWOLF: Because that was never really discussed at the meetings as a possibility? It was discussed, but that wasn't the question posed to staff at the meeting. MATT KIMBERLING: I'll just take a minute. I've got a written deal here that pretty much covers what I have to say. I'm a retired contractor, here 27 years in Oregon. Also I'm a resident and have owned property in Deschutes County for 17 years. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 17 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 KIMBERLING: I have taken quite an interest in land use here over the years. I partitioned 80 acres in 1996 successfully, and right now I'm assisting my son in partitioning his 40 acres. I did a lot of research of this House Bill 3326, and also 1860. I find that if the County adopts these new rulings, it would benefit most of the property owners and also, like the last witness said, would increase the tax revenue considerably. He read his written statement into the record; it is attached as Exhibit D. One of my comments to the 1000 Friends group is that I think the Planning Department has done an outstanding job to try to satisfy both sides. Without irrigation, we all know it's not really a farm, and it shouldn't be regulated as if it was a farm. The gentleman talked about wildlife habitat; I have 88,000 acres of BLM land outside my back door. That cannot be bought or sold. That's going to be BLM. think if you did a study of how much BLM land is in this County, we're going to find out that there is a whole lot more protected land in this County than there is unprotected. DEWOLF: It's only 75% of the land in the County. LUKE: Why were you not able to partition your 40 acres into 20 acres? KIMBERLING: Part of it was because of the code from 1992. LUKE: Because of a serial partition? KIMBERLING: Part of it, yes. That's why I urge you to vote for the amendments. I think they've done a very good job putting it together. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 18 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 TAMMY SAYLORS: I live on a ten -acre EFU parcel. I'm also on the Planning Commission. I was there in part of the lively debate that we had over this issue. Part of the reason I'm coming is, like Frank alluded to, I wanted to bring you my thoughts about the different situations. So I'll take the discussion points kind of one at a time, and I will be brief. The first discussion point about the State House Bill 3326 allows up to two new parcels to be created from a farm parcel. I support that, and not what the Planning staff has submitted, limiting it to one. Part of the reason I say that is, as we all are aware, the farmland in Deschutes County is not high value farmland and is really marginal farmland. And if we're talking about the actual dry portions of that farmland to be separated off and allowing someone to build a house on that land, right now it's not productive. Right now nothing is being done to it as far as maintaining it. So, if someone were able to partition that small parcel off and allow someone to build a house, the owner of that house would likely plant trees and vegetation, probably bring water to that site, and would maintain the land. They probably also going to remove any noxious weeds. So, I think those are benefits. The other benefit that I see is this. If you have a forty -acre parcel and you allow two homes to be placed on that by creating that second non-farm parcel, or actually three if we do the House Bill the way it is stated; if you have two or three houses on a 40 acre parcel, you still have quite a bit of open space. You still have the farm character. They are only going to build on a portion that is not farmable and is non-productive. In the area I live, for instance, we are surrounded by five and ten -acre parcels and one twenty -acre parcel. I feel that the character of the area is very rural, and there is a lot of open space. When you add to that the fact that this County is compromised of actually 82% of public -owned lands, and a good portion of that is BLM land, we have a lot of open space. I think that it would continue to preserve the rural character of the area, and would continue to promote farming. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 19 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 SAYLORS: On the second portion about retaining a twenty -acre minimum lot size for non- farm dwelling divisions, I think there is a little confusion about where the Planning Commission was going with this. This is talking about what the Planning Commission recommended, which was a five -acre minimum lot size. That's only on the non -irrigated parcels. So, if you've got an irrigated parcel and you're going to split off a non-farm parcel, you could have that any size. But we're just talking about the non-farm, non -irrigated 40 or eighty -acre parcel sizes. We're saying that we think it should be a minimum of five acres. So that you don't end up with what appears to be rural subdivisions, when you've got little one -acre parcels and then you've got an eighty -acre parcel, we felt that a five -acre parcel wouldn't lead to sprawl. You still have some size to that parcel and more than likely with that size parcel, someone is going to have some type of farm use. They're going to have critters, or they are going to do some portion of planting or landscaping to maintain that character. So we felt that this was kind of a compromise to allowing some more open space. DEWOLF: What about the question that was raised earlier about four acres that is really rocky. Do you allow for any exceptions? SAYLORS: This is just for the already non -irrigated, non-farmable parcels. DEWOLF: So it's irrelevant there, because it's not irrigated. SAYLORS: Because you're starting off with a 40 or 80 acre parcel. So you're going to separate off five. But that whole parcel is non -irrigated and not farmable. So, you've got an 80 and you split off a five. Then you have a 75 -acre parcel and a five -acre parcel. Or you've got a forty -acre parcel that you could then split a five -acre parcel off. Then you've got a 35 -acre parcel and a five; or you split it into two 20's, or whatever. We just didn't want it to go below five acres, again for the rural character. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 20 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 SAYLORS: Then, to the final question about the cutoff date for the series partitions. I felt that we should defer to the state cutoff date. Part of the reason I feel that way is that it is hard for people when they go to buy a parcel to try and jump through all the hoops. Is this dividable, not dividable, were there series partitions before that; I think this makes it a little clearer and you don't have quite as much time between then and now. My personal opinion about setting up these small non-farm parcels on the irrigated acreage is this. You've got a forty -acre parcel and you want to separate off a one - acre dry parcel. My husband would love that. We're on ten acres and both of us work full-time, and we have a hard time getting everything done. He'd like to live on one acre and watch everyone else move pipe and cut hay and do all that, and be happy. I think there is a place to still maintain the rural character. We've got horses. If someone wanted to have small acreage or have some physical reasons they can't go out there and farm, but like to be surrounded by that and still have that open space, I think this would be a really nice thing to have available. LIZ FANCHER: I have a number of questions, and I came here for one purpose, which was to ask that when you do adopt the law that you attach an emergency clause to make it effective immediately, so we'll have less of a backlog of cases. The Planning Department has the task of reviewing all these applications. There currently is probably a pent-up demand of people who have been waiting for this law to be implemented or ready, and if we wait another 90 days without an emergency clause, the line will get even longer. DEWOLF: Why will it get longer? It's the same number of people either way. FANCHER: There will be more people who will learn they can divide their property under the new law. DEWOLF: If you wouldn't mind putting in writing all your reasons why you think that, I'd appreciate it. I hate emergency clauses. I really want it to be an emergency to have an emergency clause. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 21 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 FANCHER: The other comments I have came about as a result of listening to Kevin Harrison's very complete description of what is being proposed here. One of the things I heard him say that is of some concern to me is that I believe he indicated that this non-farm dwelling division, and the standards that the state has set up for people who want to create lots that don't meet the minimum lot size, are now essentially going to apply to all land divisions. I'm wondering if that is correct, or if people who are going to be doing non-farm divisions that are 80 acres or larger, would still be able to do that without having to qualify under the provisions of this particular law. Your farm division section is set up in such a way that it says that when someone wants to do the smaller parcels, then certain rules apply. But it doesn't do that in a non-farm dwelling division. It is written so that you are changing all of this. KEVIN HARRISON: One of the difficulties that we've had in discussing the implementation of this House Bill has been putting it into the same context and format as our existing ordinance. Our existing ordinance is structured in such a way that we distinguish between farm and non-farm divisions. That has not been a helpful distinction in talking about this bill. So, what I'd like to do, and where I've been moved by the confusion, is to try to describe it in terms of irrigated and non -irrigated lands. For irrigated land, the minimum lot size that we currently have in our sub -zones would be the minimum lot size. Under the terms of the House Bill, and the recommendation of the Planning Commission, it would be possible to break off one or two non-farm parcels from one of these irrigated parcels that meets the minimum lot size. On non -irrigated land, under the terms of the House Bill, and under the recommendations of the Planning Commission, those dry parcels that are greater than 80 acres could break off up to two new parcels for non-farm dwellings. Under the terms of the House Bill, and the recommendation of the Planning Commission, sub -standard, non -irrigated parcels that are between 40 and 80 acres in size could be divided to create one new parcel for a non-farm dwelling. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 22 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 FANCHER: I guess the question or the suggestion I would have is that the law says on non- farm dwelling divisions that the following standards shall also apply to divisions that create parcels that do not comply with the minimum lot size. HARRISON: We think we're going to have to change the structure of the code, and organize it as land divisions, irrigated land, and non -irrigated land. FANCHER: What about land that is partially irrigated and partially non -irrigated? HARRISON: If it is irrigated, it has to meet the irrigated land standards. FANCHER: So if someone has one acre of irrigation, it has to meet the irrigated land standard? HARRISON: Yes. FANCHER: So, if someone had a large parcel that was 240 acres, and they wanted to divide it into three eighty -acre parcels, and they had one acre of water on the property, they wouldn't be able to divide to meet the state minimum for non-farm parcels? HARRISON: The state law does not use the term non-farm parcels. There is nothing in 215.780 that talks about non-farm parcels or farm parcels. It only makes reference to the adopted minimum lot size. So the question is, what is the minimum lot size. What we are discussing here is for those parcels that are irrigated, or have any irrigation, the irrigated minimum lot size applies. For those parcels that are non -irrigated, non -irrigated minimum lot size applies. FANCHER: So you would prohibit people from dividing a large property that is 240 acres in size into three eighty -acre parcels because they have one acre of irrigation water? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 23 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 HARRISON: Yes. That's the way I read it. FANCHER: Then I guess I'd recommend that you think about whether that is a good public policy. I think that the state law is intended to allow you to let people create land divisions that don't meet the state minimum lot size. But when you meet the state minimum lot size of 80 acres, I believe it is reasonable to allow people to divide parcels down to 80 acres in size without meeting tests about irrigation or any other particular test. That is allowed by state law, and I think that it's a reasonable standard that the state has adopted. DEWOLF: That's my confusion here. Are we being restricted by our own County policies, or by state law? I'm sort of hearing two things now. I think both. Because the way I understand the statute, the way it is constructed, is that the state would set a generic minimum lot size of 80 acres across the County. We could abandon the irrigated minimum lot sizes altogether and go with state law. That's an option. That will not protect farmland in the County. That's not the recommendation of the Planning Commission or staff. State law also recognizes a minimum lot size of other than 80 acres as long as it was acknowledged by LCDC during periodic review. And that's what we have. Those irrigated minimum lot sizes were recognized by LCDC during periodic review. So we have a legal right to them. The only way that we have been able to merge the language of state law with these acknowledged minimum lot sizes is as described to you in the proposal from the Planning Commission. This is the point of contention between the County staff and DLCD's staff before the Planning Commission. What we have forwarded to you is a proposal that passes muster with DLCD, but also, I believe, merges to the greatest extent possible with our existing minimum lot sizes. There's a legal question here, or maybe a policy question, and that is the way staff is interpreting the recommendation from the Planning Commission. That's the combination of state law and local law, in that we apply one minimum lot size standard to irrigated land, and another minimum lot size standard to dry land. If we mix and match, I believe we are going to run into problems with DLCD, and I don't know if it would undermine our acknowledged irrigated minimum lot sizes. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 24 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 DEWOLF: Does that make sense to everybody? MIKE DALY: No. DEWOLF: It is confusing. And it's a fascinating argument. FANCHER: There's nothing in your code that says if you have one acre of water on your property you can't do a non-farm land division. HARRISON: We're going to put it in the code. I hope there is no question about what is being proposed. That is, if the parent parcel is irrigated in any way, then it is only eligible for a land division under the irrigated land section. If your parent parcel is non -irrigated, then it is only eligible for land division under the non -irrigated land section. DEWOLF: So once you've got your irrigated parcel and you've broken it off, then you created a parcel that's non -irrigated. Correct? HARRISON: It's not going to matter because under state law, any division that takes place after July 1, 2001 ends your potential for land divisions until state law changes. GEORGE READ: I was just pointing out to Kevin that I think Liz has a point. Statute says that parcels between 40 and 80 acres, the ones that are less than 80, have a set of standards that include a non -irrigated standard. DEWOLF: Even if they are irrigated? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 25 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 Parcels between 40 and 80 acres that have irrigation are subject to just what Kevin said. I don't think we can do anything about that. That's a done deal. It's the parcel over 80 acres with some irrigation where there might be some flexibility. I do think we need to make sure that it is clear what that potential is. The threshold has been that the parcel is generally unsuitable for farming. The problem you have, and you have to look at the whole thing, you have to find the entire parcel generally unsuitable, basically. The whole thing that is bigger than 80; in other words, is all dry and can't be farmed. And is one acre of water going to make it suitable. I think there's an issue there that we probably need to talk about. We may have an opening there to talk about how we deal with those. DEWOLF: Are we arguing over something that is non-existent? How many Itwenty-acre parcels do we have with one acre of water? I did a run on this, and actually did a check of this at one time. There were one or two in the whole county that had less than three acres of water that were over 80 acres. We can do this research and look at it, and I'll go back and reverify that since it was so long ago when I looked at it, but it's almost a null set. LUKE: George, if you have 240 acres and three acres of water, that isn't a whole lot better than having one acre of water. Still you're not going to irrigate a lot. FANCHER: You also get into a situation where you have someone with a big parcel of land and they have an area that's good for non-farm and a part that's good for farm. They might have 63 acres of water and another 80 acres that would be suitable for non- farm use. DEWOLF: George thinks you have a point. Why not talk with George and work up some kind of proposal for us to consider in that regard. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 26 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 READ: One other thing I'd like to point out is that you need to be careful, because DLCD did bring up this issue. You can't have it both ways. You can't have an eighty -acre minimum lot size and an irrigated minimum lot size. We have to choose. And the irrigated minimum lot size, as Kevin said, reflects commercial agriculture in Deschutes County and was chosen. But it is also smaller. If we go to eighty -acre minimum lot size, a lot of people won't get to split their property. So this is a sensitive issue, and when it comes to you you'll have to make a decision. While we may have a few parcels with few irrigated acres over 80 acres, and they might get hurt by this; there are a lot of other people who would be affected if we made the minimum lot size 80 acres. I just wanted to make that point. It's one of those balancing things. DALY: Irrigation districts have traditionally allowed people who have irrigation rights to sell those rights. We see a lot in the paper now that Cogentrix may want to buy up half the farms in Central Oregon to buy their water rights for mitigation. What happens if some of these water rights, say for example the 2forty-acre parcel that has three acres of water, are sold off before they apply for a land split? Then you have a non -irrigated parcel. READ: My understanding is that once it is irrigated, always irrigated, the way the state statute is written. DALY: The water right itself I know can be removed. READ: Down the road if we do see fewer irrigated areas in the County because the irrigation is going elsewhere, we may want to look at the statute and talk about that. But the theory is that if it's irrigated, it should be kept as farmland. And if it is or has been used as farmland, just because it doesn't have water doesn't mean it isn't farmland. What we've talked about and what we've always argued to the state about when we talk about non-farm parcels is we're talking about things that have never been and can't be farmed. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 27 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 FANCHER: The last question I had was the twenty -acre minimum being removed. So I'm wondering what will be the minimum lot size that the County will apply when they're doing lot line adjustments for non-farm parcels in EFU zoned properties that are dry properties. If it's all dry, what is the minimum? DEWOLF: If it's all dry, I thought we were talking about five. Are we talking two separate things? FANCHER: I'm wondering if the five applies, so that if someone who didn't want to divide their land but wanted to make smaller parcels and bigger parcels -- DEWOLF: If they don't want to divide their land, how are they making smaller parcels? FANCHER: Here's an example. In a situation where someone has two forty -acre parcels right now, and they want to make one 20 acres and the other 60, you can do that now. Or if they have a 60 and a 40, they can make an 80 and a 20. DEWOLF: That's just adjusting the lot line. FANCHER: Right. So you move the lot line, and you can't go smaller than the minimum lot line. Under the new law we've stricken the minimum lot size out of the county code, so I don't know what the county minimum is now. Especially if parcels were ones that were created after July 1, 2001. HARRISON: The Board has yet to determine what the minimum lot size will be. The Planning Commissioner's recommendation is that it be five acres for those parcels less than 80. Why would you do a lot line adjustment if you weren't going to try to sell the other piece off for a house? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 28 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 HARRISON: We see a fair number of lot line adjustments every year. Often times they are used to correct encroachment problems, discrepancies over the location of lot lines, and so on. LUKE: I appreciate that. But you're not creating a twenty -acre piece by adjusting the lot line a little bit. FANCHER: The reason why it might be done is that they want to have a big piece of property that they are going to live on, and they want to sell off the 20 acre piece. Regarding your question about the emergency clause, it's staff s position that we would like this clause when you do decide on the changes. We would prefer that it be adopted by emergency so we can apply our code and not have to juggle back and forth between what state law says and what our code says. DEWOLF: That's a logical reason to have an emergency clause. MIKE HOOVER: I'm a resident of Deschutes County, and a Realtor. My business address is 61510 S. Highway 97; my residence is at 60653 River Bend Drive. As past president of the Oregon Association of Realtors, I've been very active these last several years with land use statewide as well as somewhat locally. This was a very necessary bill that we helped pass at the state level to rectify some fairly significant problems that have come out of a couple of court cases in the state of Oregon. These had limited beyond the scope of what we believe was appropriate land use planning and abilities to have a dwelling on specific parcels. So this bill was written for statewide application, but had particularly strong merit in this county and adjoining counties. So, without having heard all the testimony today, I would direct you to my testimony before the Planning Commission. Generally speaking, it is highly supportive of this bill. I think there was really in our mind only one question, and that is whether we would choose to have one or two parcels available to break off when there is a parent parcel over 80 acres. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 29 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 Candidly, I believe that we should take the jump and go for two. At least the last time I saw staff recommendations, I think they were at one. I'm very supportive of what staff has done otherwise, however. It may well be that this is an opportune time, as we look at those occurrences over the past several years and certainly into the next few years, to be able to create a few additional parcels for dwellings in this county. There is a real need for that. A very much market-driven need as well as just a logical extension of the use of property. When property is non-farm and cannot be used for any other practical purpose, particularly when it is as this bill requires to be dry land, it would seem that it is a good benefit to the community, and to those individuals who own that property to be able to build a personal residence on it. Without going into any other detail, I can at least speak for myself, and I believe most of the people in the real estate community, that we are supportive of you passing and conforming with the state law that just has passed. DEWOLF: Anyone else want to testify? There was no further testimony offered. DEWOLF: We'll leave the record open for additional written comments until next Wednesday, February 28, at 5:00 p.m. These should go to the Community Development Department. And we need to continue this hearing to a date certain. A general discussion among the Commissioners and staff occurred as to what date and time to set for the continuation of the hearing. A date of March 11, 2002 at 9: 00 a.m. was set. LAURIE CRAGHEAD: Comments can come in until the time of the meeting since it's a legislative matter. DEWOLF: That's true, but it is helpful if the information comes in early, so we'll have an opportunity to read it and to respond. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 30 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 Chair De Wolf then closed the meeting at 4:30 p.m., and continued the hearing to March 11, 2002, at 9:00 a.m. DATED this 111h Day of February 2002 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Tom DeVyglf, Chair Dennis R. Luke'ToIfGilssi a9AUr-A ATTEST: MIr IMel M. Daly, ommissioner Recording Secretary Exhibits Exhibit A: Written testimony from six citizens (identical letters). Exhibit B: Written testimony from Kate Kimball, 1000 Friends of Oregon (3 pages). Exhibit C: Written testimony from Martin Winch (2 pages). Exhibit D: Written testimony from Martin Kimberling (one page). Exhibit E: Sign -in sheet for testimony on the public hearing (one page). Minutes of Public Hearing Page 31 of 31 Pages House Bill 3326 Changes Thursday, February 21, 2002 T Regarding house bill #3326 We are requesting a review of language on 18.16.055 Land Divisions and 18.16.065 Subzones. Why are there Subzones? Why is water the factor as to what is a farm? A farm is a parcel that makes an income regardless of the amount of water it has. There should be an allowable variance for parcels that cannot purchase the required SUBZONE of water because of soils. We feel these parcels are being discriminated against and request that the SUBZONE of irrigated land be removed. 18.16.065 A,B,C,D,E,F,G. There is no clause in the State House Bill #3326 as to specified acres of water. These parcels should be allowed to partition off some of the unusable land. Address odnw_s.., ole 9-77oo RE IVED BY: .j FEB 2 12002 DELIVERED BY: 61o( — Regarding house bill #3326 We are requesting a review of language on 18.16.055 Land Divisions and 18.16.065 Subzones. Why are there Subzones? Why is water the factor as to what is a farm? A farm is a parcel that makes an income regardless of the amount of water it has. There should be an allowable variance for parcels that cannot purchase the required SUBZONE of water because of soils. We feel these parcels are being discriminated against and request that the SUBZONE of irrigated land be removed. 18.16.065 A,B,C,D,E,F,G. There is no clause in the State House Bill #3326 as to specified acres of water. These parcels should be allowed to partition off some of the unusable land. U -4/ RECEIVED BY: FEB 2 2002 DELIVERED BY: Regarding house bill #3326 We are requesting a review of language on 18.16.055 Land Divisions and 18.16.065 Subzones. Why are there Subzones? Why is water the factor as to what is a farm? A farm is a parcel that makes an income regardless of the amount of water it has. There should be an allowable variance for parcels that cannot purchase the required SUBZONE of water because of soils. We feel these parcels are being discriminated against and request that the SUBZONE of irrigated land be removed. 18.16.065 A,B,C,D,E,F,G. There is no clause in the State House Bill #3326 as to specified acres of water. These parcels should be allowed to partition off some of the unusable land. Signed�0�`�M �alP9e� Address 09�"Ok L -VL \K;�g t,-Lk)� 5k C(I/) 0 N 11-i R IVED BY: FE 2 12002 DELIVERED BY: Regarding house bill #3326 We are requesting a review of language on 18.16.055 Land Divisions and 18.16.065 Subzones. Why are there Subzones? Why is water the factor as to what is a farm? A farm is a parcel that makes an income regardless of the amount of water it has. There should be an allowable variance for parcels that cannot purchase the required SUBZONE of water because of soils. We feel these parcels are being discriminated against and request that the SUBZONE of irrigated land be removed. 18.16.065 A,B,C,D,E,F,G. There is no clause in the State House Bill #3326 as to specified acres of water. These parcels should be allowed to partition off some of the unusable land. Signed rlu Address rf L REC -ED BY: FEB 2 12002 DELIVERED BY: Regarding house bill #3326 We are requesting a review of language on 18.16.055 Land Divisions and 18.16.065 Subzones. Why are there Subzones? Why is water the factor as to what is a farm? A farm is a parcel that makes an income regardless of the amount of water it has. There should be an allowable variance for parcels that cannot purchase the required SUBZONE of water because of soils. We feel these parcels are being discriminated against and request that the SUBZONE of irrigated land be removed. 18.16.065 A,B,C,D,E,F,G. There is no clause in the State House Bill #3326 as to specified acres of water. These parcels should be allowed to partition off some of the unusable land. Signed 2 Address RECEIVED BY: FEB 12002 DELIVERED BY: Regarding house bill #3326 We are requesting a review of language on 18.16.055 Land Divisions and 18.16.065 Subzones. Why are there Subzones? Why is water the factor as to what is a farm? A farm is a parcel that makes an income regardless of the amount of water it has. There should be an allowable variance for parcels that cannot purchase the required SUBZONE of water because of soils. We feel these parcels are being discriminated against and request that the SUBZONE of irrigated land be removed. 18.16.065 A,B,C,D,E,F,G. There is no clause in the State House Bill #3326 as to specified acres of water. These parcels should be allowed to partition off some of the unusable land. Signed nr"".e�`"YVI eJ V7n,-.r.Cr, Addres � r� � � 97 gECE-EU ,! BY: FE 12002 DELIVERED BY. FEB 21 2002 11:53RM 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON 541-382-7552 • 534 SW Third Avenue, -Suite 300 • P-2 Portland, OR 97204 - (503) 497-1060 fax (503) 223-0073 - wwwfnends.org Southern Oregon Office • 33 North Central Avenue, Rm. 429 • Med6d, OR 97.501 - (541) 245-4535 • fax (541) 776-0443 Willamette Valley Office • 388 State Street, Suite 604 • Salem, OR 97301 • (503) 371-7261 - fax (503) 371-7596 Lane County Office • 120 West Broadway • Eugene, OR 97401 - (541) 431-7059 • fax (541) 431-7078 Central Oregon Office a P.O. Box 8813 • Bend, OR 97708 • (541) 382.75579 fax (541) 382-7552 February 21, 2002 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1130 NW Harriman Bend, OR 97701 Re: TA -01-10 Dear Commissioners: On behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon, I am writing to express concerns about the proposed ordinance (TA -01-10) implementing HB 3326. The effects of the ordinance, as drafted, could be to diminish protections for our farmlands and significantly reduce the remaining rural character of Deschutes County. I recommend that, if you decide an ordinance change is necessary, that you adopt the changes put in place by HB 3326 while retaining current county policies as they related to land divisions. There is no basis for concluding that BB3326 requires the county to abandon the policies it has in place and no foundation has been laid for such changes. While those with a economic interest in these changes may be the ones to show up at a hearing, there are many more residents who may not realize that this provision means their next door neighbor can sell off a 5 -acre parcel on which a new house can be built. You may not hear from these residents until they realize their property values are being compromised. These residents — the ones who may not be at today's hearing - will in effect be subsidizing their neighbor's gain. The county is not required to implement HB 3326, but "may" do so. Jefferson County, for example, has decided not to amend its ordinances in response to HB 3326. If you determine that a change is needed, then several provisions are necessary to continue the farmland protections Deschutes County has already adopted. Crook County is adopting an ordinance change, but has spent considerable time defining the term "adequate herbaceous forage," which was in HB 3326. The draft ordinance, as recommended by the Planning Commission, provides significantly greater opportunities for land divisions and for nonfarm dwellings to be built than currently exist. Landowners may ask to be able to build even more than the Planning Commission recommends. However the County is under an obligation to protect farmlands from residential sprawl. In addition, flooding the market, especially in a concentrated area, with too many land divisions and nonfarm parcels can depress real estate prices. There is, in short, no demonstrated need for a wave of new nonfarm parcels in Deschutes County and a need must first be demonstrated. Y,L'k 4 FEB 21 2002 11:53AM 100FRIENDS OF OREGON 541-382-7552 • 1. Current Deschutes County policy should be followed and allow no more than one new nonfarm parcel to be created. Currently, Deschutes County allows only one new nonfarm parcel to be created while HB 3326 allows for two new nonfarm parcels to be created on farms over 80 acres. Deschutes County policy was a good idea when it was adopted and is needed now more than ever. There is tremendous pressure to turn Deschutes County into a suburb of the three urban areas in its borders. Even without these changes, there are ongoing land divisions creating smaller and smaller parcels. Smaller parcels and nonfarm dwellings means more sprawl and fewer farms. People choose to live in Deschutes County and not inside an urban growth boundary because they seek a rural lifestyle. Relaxing existing policy encourages residential sprawl at a time when the county is at risk of losing the very features that draw people to this area. Looking at the GIS data developed by the county for this ordinance, almost all of the growth in nonfarm parcels would occur in the Tumalo-Redmond Bend Subzone (EFUTRB). This area is already under great pressure to shift out of farming and into residential tracts on farmland. Encouraging this trend only hastens the day when Deschutes County is completely suburban with 3 urban centers. The difference between retaining current policy and allowing only one new parcel to be created and allowing two new parcels to be created on parcels over 80 acres is about 400 new parcels, most of which will be located in this one subzone. This is a significant change in land use that deserves careful consideration. The impacts on farmlands in the county, and especially the EFUTRB, will be significant. If you decide to pursue a more residential -friendly policy, more analysis is needed to determine how this change would affect county projections for services and population. Without such analysis, you are committing the county to a future it may not be able to afford. Deschutes County is over 80% in Federal ownership. Some believe that this is the safety net against sprawl. This is not so. First, significant sprawl can occur on the private lands, undermining the state's commitment to agricultural land. This will occur if this ordinance is adopted because of the concentration of new eligible parcels in the EFUTRB subzone, almost all of which is in private ownership. Second, land ownership has and will change. BLM is under an obligation to make reasonable accommodations for growth and can exchange or sell lands in Deschutes County for lands elsewhere. The more sprawl that occurs in Deschutes County, the more pressure will be brought to bear on federal lands. This is already occurring. Redmond is seeking to expand its urban growth boundary and for some time has been considering lands south of the city which are owned by BLM. While the total number of acres BLM owns in the state may not change noticeably, where that acreage is located could change significantly over time. Proposed DCC § 18.16.055(B) needs to be amended so that the last two sentences in the first paragraph in (B) are deleted and a new sentence is inserted in lieu thereof to read as 2 p.3 . FEB 21 2002 11:53RM 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON 541-392-7552 p.4 follows: "Only one new parcel for a nonfarm dwelling may be allowed." A similar change needs to be made in 18.16.055(C)(b). 2. Retain the 20 -acre minimum lot size for nonfarm dwelling divisions The staff recommended to the Planning Commission that they delete the 20 -acre minimum lot size (MLS) without stating any objective need for this change. The Planning Commission wisely agreed that a MLS was needed and recommends 5 acres. While better than no MLS, this is too small and, if implemented, would further blur the distinction between rural and urban areas. 3. Retain the prohibition against nonfarm subdivlsions/series partition effective as of November 25, 1992 The draft ordinance before you is the appropriate policy on this issue. There is no rational basis for changing this date. If you change it now, it is more likely that a future board will change it again and the prohibition will become meaningless. There are also no data in the record to indicate what the impact of such a change would be. Such data are necessary before you make a decision so that you can assess the need for and impact of this change. Every line drawn in land use planning creates controversy and sometimes creates unforeseen results. Changing this date confuses an already complex land use system further and will produce more inequities that demand relief. Deschutes County citizens know what the rules are -- true hardship occurs when the rules shift, creating new anomalies. In sum, I urge that you to (1) keep current policy and allow no more than one new parcel to be create on a farm division, (2) keep current MLS at 20 acres, and (3) keep the current date by which the subdh ision/series partitions must have been made. Thank you for your attention to these views. Sincerely, Katharine W. Kimball Land Use Advocate Central Oregon Regional Office (OSB #00135) February 21, 2002 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FR: Martin Winch, 19300 Innes Market Road, Bend, OR 97701 RE: File No. TA -01-10: Amending Title 18 to address House Bill 3326. I support the draft recommended by the Planning Commission. I particularly support the recommendation to continue to allow one rather than two parcels to be broken off from a farm parcel smaller than 80 acres. The Planning Commission and staff have worked hard and creatively to try to make House Bill 3326 work best for us in Deschutes County. Many compromises have been made. A balance has been reached. Any of us could wish one aspect or another was different. Certainly, I do. But their work is good, and their recommendation should be followed. We live on 145 acres (22 irrigated) all in one tax lot zoned EFU in the Tumalo subzone. We bought this land in 1965, and have leased it for cows and haying most years. We built our house in 1973. For the lack of one acre of irrigation right, our land is now a substandard lot and we could not break off a parcel under HB3326. I support Oregon's statewide planning system, and I continue to struggle with how we should implement it — especially Goals 5 and 14 - here in Deschutes County. I was Chair of the Citizens Committee for the County's Comprehensive Plan in 1974. My concerns about TA -01-10 might be summarized as "rural / urban" or "town / country." The County has changed greatly in a short time and will continue to change. I want us not to kill the goose that lays our golden egg. How do we preserve the character of the place we all live here to enjoy? Land division is a key factor. We experience the effects of land division as the loss of rural character and loss of open space more than as loss of "farm" lands. This rural character, and the views and climate, are why people want to live in Deschutes County, whether in a city or on any size of non -urban parcel. They give our rural lands their extraordinary market value. We can learn the lesson that "they're not making more land." How we allow land to be divided up does make a difference for all of us. We need to ask: What will our rural area be like in 20 years, in 50 years, and beyond? Even this is short-term, one generation. What do we want it to be like? We need to ask: What effects will this land division decision have on the provision, adequacy and efficiency of our infrastructure and public services? On the cost of infrastructure and public services, especially County roads, schools, and fire? f L l� }� ,� We need to ask: What effect will the decision have on the local agricultural economy? In our agricultural economy many landowners financially support the agricultural activity on their land because they choose a rural lifestyle in this County. Nonetheless, they buy and sell farm and ranch products, as well as participating in the larger local economy. Rural land division in EFU zones should be connected with land use that is rural, and not "rural residential" alone. Rural land use contributes to rural character and to the agricultural economy. Most of our "exclusive farm use land" could better be called "exclusive ranch use" or "exclusive rural use." We'd remember better what it is that we are protecting. Rural residential use adds conflicts with rural and ranch land use, detracts from rural character, adds more houses along the road, more cars on the road, the demand for town -level services in rural areas, and more expensive / less adequate public services. Farm tax deferral is a significant benefit to an EFU landowner, who should expect rural services to be at a level lower than in the urban area. In Deschutes County, the word "farm" usually describes irrigated ground used for pasture or local hay production and seldom means plowing, planting and harvesting an annual crop. For us, "prime soils" describes land with an underlying water right because these are our best soils and because our land cannot produce without water. Rural land use goes far beyond production. The word "ranch" describes a lifestyle that can take place on small and large rural parcels alike, whether a portion is irrigated or not. Whether you live in town or in the country, rural lifestyle means around two things: being out of the urbanized area, and having animals. Horses have become the focus. They can be kept off pasture and their owners expect to feed them, so the nexus between "farm" and "non-farm" and between large and small parcel size can break down. The very small parcels are likely to be rural residential rather than for truly rural or ranch use. The smallness of the parcel cannot be allowed to be an argument that the parcel is unsuitable for farm use. Very small parcels near urban areas inhibit orderly expansion of the urbanized area. I support a minimum lot size for these new parcels, and five acres is surely a minimum. It seems inconsistent to allow this smaller parcel in EFU than is allowed in MUA, which are usually contiguous zones. From: Martin A. Kimberling 62052 Dodds Rd. Bend Or. 97701 Ph. 541-317-9161 To: Community Development Department Deschutes County Planning Division RE: File Number TA -01-10 Subject An Ordinance Text Amendment to Chapter 18.16 Exclusive Farm Use Zone, of Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code. To amend the regulations for land Division to incorporate changes allowed under House bill 3326 Also, amendments to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Agricultural Lands Section, to incorporate the House bill 3326 changes. Members of the Commission I have been a resident of Oregon all my life and a property owner and resident in Deschutes County since 1996, when I purchased 40 acres zoned EFU 20. Over the years since, I have tried to split my 40 acres into two 20 acre parcels, but have been verbally denied by the Planning Department. I am not trying to subdivided nor make any changes out of the realm of adjacent properties. I feel that I should be allowed to take my property to the minimum lot size of the existing zoning. I understand the need to preserve productive farm ground. But I also feel that each parcel has to be looked at individually, as no two people are the same nor are two parcels the same. I have been studying House bill 3326 and the amendments to Chapter 18.16 EFU Zone, of Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code. And I urge you to pass these amendments as I fell they would not only benefit the property owners but also the County and the Community in which they exist, making better use of nonproductive farm ground that otherwise has no use to anyone. Thank You Martin A. Kimberling I vol VA x t�1 r4 O a NJ I vol VA tl L -� 2 � J 8 J 13j3 xx 0 AO h t�1 r4 O a NJ 10 �I a `'°' m QI ce O tl L -� 2 � J 8 J 13j3 xx 0 AO h