2009-1397-Minutes for Meeting July 15,2009 Recorded 7/27/2009NANCYUBLANKCOUNTY OFFICIAL ENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS ~J ~0~9.139~
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 07/27/2009 08;28;16 AM
1111111111 111111/111 ■II 1101 oil 00-13-97
Do not remove this page from original document.
Deschutes County Clerk
Certificate Page
If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following
statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244:
Re-recorded to correct [give reason]
previously recorded in Book
or as Fee Number
and Page
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, JULY 159 2009
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger.
Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Tom Anderson, Paul
Blikstad and Nick Lelack, Community Development Department; and
approximately thirty other citizens, including representatives of the media.
The purpose of the hearing originally was to take testimony on a Code amendment
regarding event venues in the EFUzone (File #TA-08-9; applicant: Kelly Brown);
however, the applicants have withdrawn their application. It was determined that
the hearing should take place in any case because it was publicly noticed.
Chair Baney opened the meeting at 5: 36 p.m.
Chair Baney said this is a legislative matter and an opening statement is not
required.
Nick Lelack advised that the applicants have withdrawn their application as of two
days ago. The purpose of the meeting will be instead to talk about whether to
continue with a possible text amendment.
The first alternative is to open and close the meeting with no hearing.
The second alternative would be to find out if any other event operator wants to
testify, although it appears that all members of Country Gatherings Associates
agreed to withdraw.
Another alternative is for some general testimony to be taken in the event that the
County decides to become the applicant to address this issue.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing on Event Venues Code Text Amendment
Wednesday, July 8, 2009 Page 1 of 6 Pages
Commissioner Luke stated that the Board is under no obligation to continue this
because the applicant has withdrawn the application.
Mr. Lelack said that Code enforcement may proceed without abeyance, if it is the
decision of the Board not to proceed with the text amendment.
Commissioner Baney stated that this situation does not happen often. The
appropriate process has to be followed, however.
Commissioner Luke said that one person or group has paid a fee of $4,510, and it
does not seem fair to allow someone else to piggyback off of that. Laurie
Craghead said the Commissioners can initiate this action. The Board can continue
on. It is not on a work plan, so a fee was paid to continue the process more
quickly. Staff may want clarification so a direction can be determined. It is not a
quasi-judicial decision and does not hinge on who applied.
It would be a Board decision to go forward, as the members of the Country
Gatherings group are not known.
Commissioner Luke said that e-mails were received but not from members of the
group; instead they were from those in opposition.
Chair Baney asked if anyone present is part of Country Gatherings Associates and
wished to approach the Board. There was no response.
Commissioner Luke stated that an article on a farm in Multnomah County that was
holding various events indicated that the decision was made to not allow them to
continue. This will likely end up at LUBA or in the courts.
Chair Baney said she received a letter from the Department of Land Conservation
and Development today, clarifying their uncertainty on the issue.
Commissioner Luke said he is concerned about the lack of clarity from the DLCD.
He is not certain that allowing these activities is legal under State law. The
Multnomah County case will likely be appealed and end up at DLCD or in the
courts, and that should help determine the issue for everyone. He would like
clarification on how the Board should proceed.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing on Event Venues Code Text Amendment
Wednesday, July 8, 2009 Page 2 of 6 Pages
Commissioner Unger stated that rural weddings do create impacts, especially when
they are frequent. The Planning Commission could not come to a decision on this
issue. He would like to see the situation defined, and even more broadly how rural
lands are handled in the future. Things are changing with the increasing density of
population. He would like to close the application and look for another process.
Commissioner Baney said she feels this needs to be examined further, and a lot
more discussion needs to occur. The comprehensive plan will not be specific
enough to offer a solution at this level, but the question is what a fair balance is.
Commissioner Luke stated that it is important to know what zoning means. People
buy property with an expectation of what can take place in the area. There are
noises and activities that are expected within any zone. The people who buy their
property because of the zoning need to be considered. Farmland also needs to be
protected as a natural resource. Some of the property zoned EFU in Deschutes
County is not really farmland and perhaps is not zoned property. Examining these
changes is part of the comprehensive plan update.
Commissioner Baney said the Director of Land Conservation is uncertain about
what this means, so obviously there are questions that cannot be answered.
Commissioner Unger said the letter seemed to try to steer decisions towards
accessory uses on farmlands. It is a challenge, trying to decide what is allowed in
EFU land and weighing this against some uses that are allowed already. There is
the larger issue regarding quality of life, balancing uses that are allowed and
mitigating the impacts.
Dave Kanner suggested that it might be useful to have a work session on what the
current comprehensive plan, State law and County Code say on EFU land so
everyone has a clear understanding. A second work session could follow as to
whether some of these can change. It appears that not even DLCD is entirely clear
on this issue.
Commissioner Luke observed that the State doesn't have a definitive
understanding of State law. The Attorney General can make a decision but it is
only binding on the State.
Mr. Kanner said that this has not been tested yet so they are not sure how to
interpret it. Mr. Lelack suggested that the County is not clear on how to interpret
State law in this regard, but staff can make findings in this regard.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing on Event Venues Code Text Amendment
Wednesday, July 8, 2009 Page 3 of 6 Pages
Ms. Craghead said that it may not put the Board in a different place. Either way,
this will be appealed. There is also the issue of having a work session to discuss
the comprehensive plan. She suggested that the hearing take place, and continue it
to a date certain pending further discussion.
Commissioner Luke added that they could also wait for a decision from LUBA or
the courts when there is more clarity. The Multnomah County case will likely
proceed in this way.
Commissioner Unger said that a discussion needs to take place on a bigger level, to
figure out how this would fit into the comprehensive plan. Mr. Lelack noted that
this would be a general discussion on EFU lands and whether more flexible uses
can be explored for rural lands. The comprehensive plan would not change the use
or the standard, but set the direction for the future. This is at least a couple of
years out at this point.
Commissioner Unger suggested that the County become the applicant, with the
appropriate workshops. In his mind, the current suggestion did not answer the
questions brought up by anyone. He does not want to wait two years or more to
settle this issue. He would like to have this discussion in a larger context.
Commissioner Luke said that the Board can initiate an action at any time. Ms.
Craghead stated this would require new notice. The same thing could take place
now if the Board held the hearing and continued it.
Commissioner Baney stated that she does not want to waste people's time,
testifying on something that will likely change. Ms. Craghead said that the Board
could take testimony on what or how to change, however.
Commissioner Luke said that what people dislike the most is for their government
representatives not making a decision. He does not want to see this continued and
perhaps continued once again, indefinitely. He asked what the driving force is
behind continuing it. He can see talking with staff and bringing it back later.
He feels that the cost of notice is insignificant when compared to what the
residents living next to the venue locations experience. The Board can have all the
work sessions it wants or work with staff on this, and it can be brought up again
when the time is right to proceed. This application can end now, but the issue can
be brought up by the Board at any time.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing on Event Venues Code Text Amendment
Wednesday, July 8, 2009 Page 4 of 6 Pages
Commissioner Luke said that if the hearing is closed, research could be done and
the Board could work through it in another, more logical way.
Commissioner Unger said he would like to start off with a clean slate as well. He
feels that perhaps something concrete could result and it could be brought back at
that point.
Commissioner Luke stated that enforcement was put in abeyance because of the
application being in process. Commissioner Baney said that if this is kept open,
those who are interested will not be notified. Ms. Craghead stated that there is no
legal requirement to send out specific notice, but discussions will be noticed as a
part of a normal agenda when the Board decides to talk about it further.
Commissioner Luke asked about enforcement of Code in this regard. Mr. Lelack
said there is no middle ground, and there is no easy way to massage it to make it
work for everyone. Commissioner Luke said the major question is whether it is
legal. The applicants need to pursue State statute if they want it to change. Right
now it is clear it is not legal. Also, there could be lawsuits or a LUBA decision
that might help to answer the larger questions.
Commissioner Baney stated, however, that the County has sometimes taken a
proactive approach in interpreting the law.
LUKE: Move that the Board go to alternative 1 (close the hearing).
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes no.
Commissioner Luke observed that there are some events that were allowed to be
booked as of September 2008 due to the active status of the application. He asked
for an update on this situation.
Tom Anderson said that he feels there are approximately ten events scheduled that
would be allowed to proceed. Most have signed contracts in place, but some were
for weddings of friends or relatives.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing on Event Venues Code Text Amendment
Wednesday, July 8, 2009 Page 5 of 6 Pages
Commissioner Luke said that he feels those should be allowed to proceed to
minimize impacts on the participants who have booked their hotels and made other
arrangements. It would not be fair to those individuals to intervene on their events
at this time.
Mr. Anderson stated that the direction is not to approve the events, but to withhold
Code enforcement. Commissioner Baney added that this is not to sidestep any
other activities that are a problem, such as noise or traffic issues, with which laws
the operators still need to comply.
Ms. Craghead said this is a slight change from the previous decision when the
amendment was in play.
LUKE: Move to withhold Code enforcement action on those events that were
previously booked, notwithstanding other laws and requirements that
need to be followed.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes yes.
Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
DATED this 15h Day of July 2009 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners. 0 ~2
Tammy Baney, Chair
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Dennis R. Luke, Vice Chair
01&1t
Alan Unger, Commissioner
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing on Event Venues Code Text Amendment
Wednesday, July 8, 2009 Page 6 of 6 Pages
c
L
-a
C
(3)
C)
2
E
N
C
0
O
a)
E
_T
O
(B
~
E
x
O
a
3
C
o
0
0
a) ate)
co
00
E
L
ca
~-r:-
O
-a
C
_
U
w
<
O
CD
mo
U
3
E
a) ca
7
a
a
a)
>
N
(n
Q
t
X
E
a)
0
C
W C
>
O
0
a)
C
U
J
N
=
a
L-
Q
o
0
0
LL
W
z
O v
~
N
hH
L LL
L
O
U N
r
u')
>
LL
O
Q W
Q
O
M
W
N
a1
V
d
O
cu
cu
O u7
C
CL
O U
7
O L
ca
w
h
C C
O m
3
.N
(D
a)
m
O
co
U
a E
O y
~
a) N
O
a
L
C
cu
0
CD
o
~w
Z3
o
c
N c
N
Co =
a1
L
U O
70
.
L)
O
C
o 3
c
o
m N
o
N
N
a)
O O
I
U
S
U
o a)
(n
.Q
d
N
-O
CD >
C
C
R
C
°o
4)
ai
a)
>
~
~
=
U
N
N O U
R
NO
d
-O
T a O
N
Q
U
E
W
Q
a
O
v
n
m ~
U
O. C C
m Op
m n
°
C
N N
O)
~
~ 'O i0
(
j
U C C
E o
o
o
E
E
N °
}
p
T
a o a
m w
'
p o
-
Q
m
U
d
C 0
mU 0O
N
t
d q
m p
L` N
U p
U
U U
N
-Z
rn
>
o
m °
a o N
t
C
Mn S
O
w
0
N h
3 o
a O C
O o
a
~
Hf
C
d
O
U ti
U .n Y
N
~
C
O
_
N
R
Q m 0
O
O
a
C
rn ~
m
O
O N
N
U
LN :Q m
C
N
f n
U
>
O O
..C
0
N
N
Z
I
-
N
U
n
m
L
_
p
G
= o
p
a
i
a
N
'o ai
M
a
i 0 °c' m
o.
N
r
N
a p N
a)
> O6 t
a)
L
C
.
a
%
.
N
>
C N U
>
.
j
~
p
Y L
Q m y a
Q
E
n
E
U
O
Q N O
E
LL.. d
O
O
?
Q
•
a
•
Q
•
Q
rn
c6
0
a~
`o
3
o
Q
L
U C
O
7 C
Z51
CL 0
i= t
cu U
N
L
O
N
0
(n
v
i
O
O >
_U O
O
C ~p
O
~ 'y
O C
O
C
T
O
v O
0 N
c
E 0)
w
O
C N
N
=
_ -O
N
uJ
cu `i'
c
O
o ?
m
o
c
m
= N
U C
c6
T
C y
a
13)
E N
ID
(2j 0 0
co CL 0
L)
U m
cu
T
m
fn
O T
C
a
C N
0 7
c 0
N
.
Oc0 '0
.L.. U
N
7
2
w
U:
N d o
N
3
a) m p
E
7
C
OO
C
U _
U O
N (6
U
M
N c
2 ai
.
a co
a)
>
O O
C L
Y
O
t'
N O
WE
(3
w
O
3
C N
U
C R
9
a
O
U o a
UCf)
w
_
c
cu
m
~
a
c
o
m
2
o
D_
c'
n
75
m
U
N
L
w
(D
-5
_
CL
ca_
cu
0
0
.
U
w
v
E
o
m
N
Q
U
C
U)
N
C/)
_O
CL
m
O
3
tm
U
>
N
co
i
O
cr
N
y
c
O
i
U
rn
N
=
N
O =
ca
a>
CL
O
Q
O U
CL
N
m
N
-
O
~
a
w
OL
y
a
o
'o
aci
t
c
O
n
C 7
y
d
o
U
E
G
U
O d
'00
V
N
Cn
W
o
O -
CT
~
c
M
O
R
}
a
d
Q
E
000
U
y
Q ~
Q
V
W
y
O
N
W :D
lj-
z
W
t
~ 1
~ C
W
w
0
a
c
cu
vi
N
a)
cu
N
7
O
Q
M
(D
(B
C
O
a)
C
O
c6 E
L O
U
L
v
m
a
N
Cu
U
~C
Rf
a
a
c c
U
Q
i
Q
Community Development Department
A Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 14, 2009
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Nick Lelack, Planning Director
Tom Anderson, Community Development Director
Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner
RE: REVISED - Event venue text amendment, code enforcement
On July 13, 2009, Kelly Brown, representing Country Gatherings Associates, withdrew application TA 08-
9, to allow commercial event venues in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone.
While the Board must still open the public hearing, the purpose of this memorandum is to briefly
present the Board with alternatives on whether and how to move forward with this text amendment to
the Deschutes County Code, and how to proceed with code enforcement.
The discussion is important at this stage because, unlike quasi-judicial land use applications, although
the applicants have withdrawn the application, the Board may continue with engaging in the process of
adopting an amendment to the county code. The application in a legislative matter is merely to initiate
the process. The Board can choose to finish it.
The table on the next page provides four alternatives for the Board's consideration.
Whichever direction the Board chooses, the threat of litigation remains.
Quality Services Performed zvith Pride
TABLE 1. Text Amendment / Code Enforcement Alternatives
Text Amendment
Code Enforcement
Comments / Results
• Ends current discussion of this issue
and closes the books on this
application.
1
• Immediately after opening the public
• Questions about whether commercial
hearing, close the public hearing since
•
Enforce the code without
event venues are permitted in the EFU
there is no pending application.
any abeyances.
zone will remain unresolved.
• May result in individual quasi-judicial
applications for event venues as
private parks as was done in Benton
County.
• Open the public hearing on July 15
. Keeps the issue "on the table."
with notification to the public that the
application was withdrawn and that
• This issue can be considered in the
the Board will not be considering this
context of all EFU-related issues and
application further, but invite public
policies during the Comp Plan update.
2
comments on this issue generally to
• Enforce the code without
• However, the same issues and
gain input as art of the Comp Plan
p p
any abeyances.
participants currently involved in this
update.
text amendment will be involved in the
• Direct staff to discuss this and similar
Comp Plan update. Therefore, delaying
EFU issues during the Comp Plan
this discussion may not achieve
Update's community conversations.
agreement on EFU land uses.
• Continue existing code
• Conduct the public hearing on July 15
enforcement direction
• the Board decides to become the
on this text amendment.
(events scheduled prior
a
applicant, the public hearing should
3
• Following public testimony, the Board
to September 2008 are
remain open and continued to a
will decide whether to become the
held in abeyance; all
specific date.
applicant for this text amendment or
others are enforced),
• If the County does not become the
not.
OR
applicant, the text amendment file will
be closed.
• Enforce the code.
• Upon opening the public hearing, the
Board will decide that the County will
become the applicant for this text
• County may be in a no-win situation by
amendment.
. Continue existing code
initiating an ordinance that both sides
• Conduct the public hearing on July 15
enforcement direction
oppose, and the County may be in the
4
to gain input on if/how the text
(events scheduled prior
position of defending if it is appealed
amendment should be revised,
to September 2008 are
to LUBA,
continue the public hearing, and
held in abeyance; all
OR
consider scheduling a work session(s)
others are enforced).
. County may be able to adopt an
to revise the amendment based on
ordinance that is not appealed.
public testimony and the Board's
direction.
July 13, 2009
Nick Lelack, AICP
Planning Director
Deschutes County Community Development Dept.
117 NW Lafayette
Bend, OR 97701
RE: Event venues as private parks
Dear Mr. Lelack,
We received your inquiry requesting clarification from the Department of Land
Conservation and Development on the legality and appropriateness of defining private
parks in Exclusive Fann Use (EFU) zones to include commercial event venues. We
appreciate the many complex and interrelated issues Deschutes County is considering and
weighing in developing a reasonable approach to accommodating event venues, and in
particular weddings, in. outdoor settings. We trust you understand that our concerns on
this issue extend beyond Deschutes County to other counties across the state that may
choose a similar approach to Deschutes County in accommodating commercial event
venues.
Both Jon Jinings, Central Oregon Regional Representative, and Katherine Daniels, Fann
and Forest Lands Specialist, of our staff have provided written, email and spoken input
into the county's process since November 2008, attempting to provide helpful guidance.
This letter addresses the department's view of revising county code to allow event venues
as private parks in EFU zones.
We know you have consulted with your county counsel regarding the legal aspects of the
issue, and we shall not attempt to provide legal advice here, but we would like to share
some information regarding case law. As you know, the absence of a definition in state
statute and administrative rules as to what constitutes a private park has placed counties
in the position of defining this term largely for themselves. Because of this flexibility, the
private parks provision has become an avenue to approve uses that seem reasonable but
might not fit well under other provisions of law, including loud and potentially
controversial activities like public and private shooting ranges, sporting clays courses and
music concerts.
A few LUBA cases have given counties the discretion to define private parks to include
paint-ball activities and motocross tracks, indicating a broader tolerance for what can
constitute a private park in EFU zones; such uses arguably require a rural location. More
importantly, the uses described in these cases were all clearly forms of recreation. For
example, in Spiering v. Yamhill County, 25 Or LUBA 695 (1993), the Court of Appeals
concluded that a "park" is a tract of land set aside for public recreational use. Commercial
Deschutes County -3- July 13, 2009
Second, DLCD is concerned with the lack of required consultation with adjacent and area
fanners as to farming practices that could be adversely impacted by traffic or other
factors connected with large commercial events. We believe such advance consultation
and acceptable mitigation would be a necessary part of the satisfaction of the ORS
215.296 criteria for non-farm uses and should be specified in text amendment language.
To summarize, it is unclear whether commercial event venues can be considered to be
recreational uses. If determined to be permitted, we believe that carefully circumscribed
provisions for such uses may be crafted if they 1) provide that the use is accessory to a
commercial farm, winery, nursery or bed-and-breakfast use; 2) meet the minimum lot
size standard of the EFU zone; and 3) provide for consultation with nearby farmers,
including mitigation of impacts.
We appreciate this opportunity to offer comments to the county as you deliberate this
proposed text amendment. We would be happy to answer any further questions or
provide any additional information. You may contact Katherine Daniels at (503) 373-
0050 ext. 329 or katherine.daniels[a).state.or.us, or Jon Jinings at (541) 318-2890 or
ionJininRsQstate.or.us.
Sincerely,
ti"1=w
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 977)1-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX(541)335-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 7, 2009
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner
RE: Event venue text amendment, File No. TA-08-9
The Board requested a matrix from Planning staff on the text amendment application at the
initial work session with the Board on May 4th. We discussed that draft matrix with the Board at
the July 1St work session. A public hearing is scheduled on the text amendment for Wednesday,
July 15th at 5:30 p.m.
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DCLD) Regional Representative Jon
Jinings will attend the public hearing.
As the Board considers this amendment to the Deschutes County Code, staff recommends the
Board consider the following policy issues:
1. Generally, if acceptable criteria can be developed, should commercial event venues be
allowed in rural Deschutes County outside of higher intensity areas such as
unincorporated communities and destination resorts, and specifically in the Exclusive
Farm Use zone?
In an effort to address criteria systematically, it is recommended that the Board begin with
the broadest criteria components, thenand then progress to the more narrow.
2. What minimum property size should be required to hold event venues, and how far/close
should the events and associated facilities ("activity area") be located from residences?
3. Should amplification be allowed for all or part of an event, during specific hours of the
day or for specific periods of time? Further, should it only be allowed inside an enclosed
hard-walled structure?
4. Should limits on events be imposed, and if so, how often should they be allowed and
how frequently should they be allowed? Should the operator be required to submit
annually a list of scheduled event dates for the coming year, and be required to submit
any changes to that list that come up?
Quality Services Performed zvith Pride
5. What type of facilities should be provided or allowed for commercial event venues?
Should permanent or temporary structures be allowed or both? Should temporary
restrooms be allowed, or should permanent restroom facilities be required?
6. Should any new structures be allowed to accommodate these uses or only existing
structures?
7. How should event venues be monitored? Should an owner-occupied home be required
on the property, and is this enough? Should the owner be required to be on site during
events? Should there be an additional on-site event manager/monitor, compliance
officer (public or private), etc.?
8. What should the review process be for events venues and operators? The proposal is
for a CUP process. Is this process adequate? Should annual renewal or review of the
CUP be required similar to a home occupation? Should the operator(s) be licensed and,
if so, should the license be renewed or reviewed annually?
9. Should the permit run with the person/owner rather than with the land?
10. Should the restrictions requested by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife be
placed into the revised code language.
The public hearing testimony on the proposed text amendment may help the Board decide what
positions to take on these issues.
Staff will seek the Board's direction on how to move forward following the testimony at this
public hearing. For example, staff can provide alternatives or revised text for the Board's
consideration and public testimony at a subsequent public hearing.
If you should have any questions, feel free to contact either Nick Lelack or me at your
convenience.
& 13, 2 009
-eS c- k", j ~e s c~"t) ~lOLAA K«i pt~ ~
vz ( A -o° -09
RECEIVED
aY: SL al, ; ~s I-q el
JUL 1.3 2009
DELIVERED BY:
&/(t/ Arocopi-
6f P) ~cavt~
~S-0 1 ctnt„ ~eu.cs~h~
~tyd-
&w"w-uA~-
w k4~ra"Y~ 4~
1 vlf~vp,.~ldY\ S ~j ~ ~-(C GVU~?cS ~o ~ 1
ate ~.1ne, w~ti►~b{.tiS Q{` Co~~
cw~. re p r w S cv[ ,'t
s 4s5ockjci .
July 13, 2009
Nick Lelack, AICP
Planning Director
Deschutes County Community Development Dept.
117 NW Lafayette
Bend, OR 97701
RE: Event venues as private parks
Dear Mr. Lelack,
We received your inquiry requesting clarification from the Department of Land
Conservation and Development on the legality and appropriateness of defining private
parks in Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zones to include commercial event venues. We
appreciate the many complex and interrelated issues Deschutes County is considering and
weighing in developing a reasonable approach to accommodating event venues, and in
particular weddings, in outdoor settings. We trust you understand that our concerns on
this issue extend beyond Deschutes County to other counties across the state that may
choose a similar approach to Deschutes County in accommodating commercial event
venues.
Both Jon Jinings, Central Oregon Regional Representative, and Katherine Daniels, Fann
and Forest Lands Specialist, of our staff have provided written, email and spoken input
into the county's process since November 2008, attempting to provide helpful guidance.
This letter addresses the department's view of revising county code to allow event venues
as private parks in EFU zones.
We know you have consulted with your county counsel regarding the legal aspects of the
issue, and we shall not attempt to provide legal advice here, but we would like to share
some information regarding case law. As you know, the absence of a definition in state
statute and administrative rules as to what constitutes a private park has placed counties
in the position of defining this term largely for themselves. Because of this flexibility, the
private parks provision has become an avenue to approve uses that seem reasonable but
might not fit well under other provisions of law, including loud and potentially
controversial activities like public and private shooting ranges, sporting clays courses and
music concerts.
A few LUBA cases have given counties the discretion to define private parks to include
paint-ball activities and motocross tracks, indicating a broader tolerance for what can
constitute a private park in EFU zones; such uses arguably require a rural location. More
importantly, the uses described in these cases were all clearly forms of recreation. For
example, in Spiering v. Yamhill County, 25 Or LUBA 695 (1993), the Court of Appeals
concluded that a "park" is a tract of land set aside for public recreational use. Commercial
Deschutes County -3- July 13, 2009
Second, DLCD is concerned with the lack of required consultation with adjacent and area
farmers as to fanning practices that could be adversely impacted by traffic or other
factors connected with large commercial events. We believe such advance consultation
and acceptable mitigation would be a necessary part of the satisfaction of the ORS
215.296 criteria for non-farm uses and should be specified in text amendment language.
To summarize, it is unclear whether commercial event venues can be considered to be
recreational uses. If determined to be permitted, we believe that carefully circumscribed
provisions for such uses may be crafted if they 1) provide that the use is accessory to a
commercial farm, winery, nursery or bed-and-breakfast use; 2) meet the minimum lot
size standard of the EFU zone; and 3) provide for consultation with nearby farmers,
including mitigation of impacts.
We appreciate this opportunity to offer comments to the county as you deliberate this
proposed text amendment. We would be happy to answer any further questions or
provide any additional information. You may contact Katherine Daniels at (503) 373-
0050 ext. 329 or katherine.danielsgstate.or.us, or Jon Jinings at (541) 318-2890 or
jon.j iningsnstate.or.us.
Sincerely,
Land use ruling clips farm activities - Anna Griffin - Oregonian columnist - OregonLive.com Page 1 of 6
Land use ruling clips farm activities
Posted by tbottomly_ July 10, 2009 20:24PM
Don Kruger always figured it was just a matter of time before somebody complained.
Kruger, a Sauvie Island farmer, began offering happy couples the right to wed on his 160-acre spread seven years ago.
He's since added birthday parties, corporate picnics, summer concerts and bike races.
He knew the events would draw more visitors to this lush little jewel just north of the city limits. That was the whole
point. He also knew that eventually a neighbor would challenge his right to use farmland for more than just farming.
What he didn't figure was that he'd lose.
This week, Multnomah County planners ruled that Kruger's Farm cannot host weddings, picnics or parties. Concerts
can continue.
"It's just the most ridiculous thing," says Kruger, probably the most famous farmer in Multnomah County thanks to
both his passion and promotional skills. "It's not like I'm running Disneyland out here. I'm letting people say their vows
under the oak tree and taking kids on hayrides for their birthdays."
His frustration is understandable when you consider the history: Kruger, a Southern California native, first set foot on
his future farm 19 years ago while taping a segment as KOIN's "Green Grocer." He was so smitten with the scenery -
the rolling hills, the 1903 farmhouse, the mighty old oak tree he told the owners to let him know if they thought of
selling.
Ten years later, Kruger leased the place. Two years after that, he declared bankruptcy. He emerged with a new business
model: Less farming, more other stuff.
"It grew naturally and sweetly," he says. "It grew the way a business should."
Today, Kruger's farm stand earns about $1.25 million a year. Twenty-two percent of that comes from weddings and the
like. Last year, thanks largely to those ancillary activities, he was able to buy half the farm.
Kruger never sought county approval to diversify. A land-use lawyer he consulted two years ago said he was fine until
someone complained. Last year, a neighboring cattle farmer did. The gist: Too much traffic and noise, too much that
has nothing to do with what rural zoning allows.
Kruger, who lives on the mainland in nearby Linnton, is by no means the only farmer profiting off agricultural toursim.
Each October, several Sauvie Island farms turn into a miniature, pumpkin-themed amusement parks complete with
rides and all the elephant ears you can eat.
Kruger is the most successful of these entrepreneurs. His summer concerts, for example, attract hundreds. As the sun
sets, parents drink wine and eat salmon burgers while their kids play soccer and tag on a grassy meadow. It's idyllic,
but also easy to see how actual island residents might resent the weekly influx of Subarus and mini-vans.
Like much of Sauvie Island, Portland's own little Brigadoon, Kruger's property is zoned for farming and nothing else.
The county zoning code allows produce stands, as long as any side ventures at such stands promote the sale of meat
and produce from the farm.
http://blog.oregonlive.com/griffin_impactl2009/07lland_use ruling_clips_farm_actlprint.html 7/15/2009
Land use ruling clips farm activities - Anna Griffin - Oregonian columnist - OregonLive.com Page 2 of 6
In Kruger's case, planners ruled that races, weddings and birthday parties don't do that. Cyclists buy plenty of fruit to
fuel themselves, and couples who marry on the farm must purchase $800 in flowers, fruits and vegetables. But they're
not visiting the farm because it's a farm.
Kruger plans to appeal. Here's hoping that prompts a broader conversation among county commissioners and state
legislators about the future of Sauvie Island, a place easy to ignore but vital to protect.
"This is a public island with public places on it," Kruger says. "We need to learn to share it without ruining it. In that
way, this isn't a story about one guy's farm. It's Oregon's story."
Anna Griffin: 503-412-7053;
annagriffin v news.oregonian.com
twitter. com/annargriff
Categories: Columns
Comments
tmittelstaed says...
Sauvie Island has some of the best farming soil in the area, fruits and berries grown out there are fantastic when you get
them in season, at the peak of ripeness. I've gone out there in the fall many times to buy fruit and I've lived here since
the mid 70's. I've watched Kruger's farm get bigger and bigger and less and less about farming over the years and it has
concerned me. His retail produce prices are among the highest of any other farmers on the island and in my opinion
he's been basically turning his farm from a farm into a kind of rustic Corno's Market out there.
If he is allowed to continue with what he's been doing it won't be much longer before the other farmers out there feel
they have to do the same thing to compete - and I can easily forsee in another decade where Sauvie Island changes from
a beautiful place with a bunch of commercial farms with cheap and tasty produce, and an unspoiled, beautiful nude
beach, into some sort of Napa Valley tourist trap with more produce and food grown in California and flown in and
sold on the Island to dumb yuppies, than is actually grown there.
Expansion is already well on it's way to wrecking some of the great old farms down in Tigard/Tualatin area, let's please
leave Sauvie Island alone and nip the retail growth in the bud and keep the Island a collection of commercial farms and
farmers stands. We don't need any strip malls out there. Hayrides and the fall pumpkin patch stuff is fine, but weddings
can go to Howell Park up the road, and corporate picnics can be had for free at Walton Beach.
Posted on 07/11/09 at 3:39AM
skybird says...
Mr Kruger has been attempting to accomplish a major change in Sauvie Island land use without getting official
permission because he knows he wouldn't have gotten it. As a long time resident, he knows the rules out there - Sauvie
Island is meant to stay a real farm land, not a visitor attraction, wedding parlor or a mecca for home development. Most
attempts to make an end run around bureaucratic requirements do not succeed in the long term.
Incidently the Columbia River Gorge area is also mostly off-limits to wedding businesses as a few residents with
development plans learned to their disappointment. Thanks to all who care enough to protect Oregon's unique natural
areas from the constant threat of commercial development.
Posted on 07/11/09 at 5:55AM
http://blog.oregonlive.comlgriffin_impact/2009/07lland_use_ruling_clips_farm_actlprint.html 7/15/2009
e
Date: July 13, 2009
To: Deschutes County Commissioners and County Administrator
Tammy Baney
Alan Unger
Dennis Luke
Dave Kanner
1300 NW Wall St. Suite 200
Bend, OR 97701
RE: TA-08-9 Public Hearing on July 15, 2009
Dear County Commissioners and County Admiinistator:
We are dismayed to see the Applicant's Final Draft TA-08-9 regarding wedding venues on agricultural land. On
the 15th there is a public hearing on this issue, but we will be out-of-town so cannot be there in person to make
statements. We ask that this letter be included with other public comments related to this issue.
We have grave concerns regarding neighborhood disturbance and rural quality of life, safety, effects on wildlife,
and the financial burden that allowing weddings and other events on farmland could put on others. We also
believe that this idea is totally inconsistent with the intent of rural zoning of farmland in Oregon.
We purchased agricultural land with the expectation that zoning would protect our quality of life and the rural
character of the surroundings. We did not expect that anyone would even consider the possibility of commercial
events taking place in our peaceful, neighborhood where a low-density population is the norm.
Existing roads are not designed to accommodate the additional traffic that would be generated by events. The
intersection at Pinehurst and Highway 20 near out property is already dangerous, and more vehicles would
make. it worse. Additionally, alcohol is frequently available at weddings and other events and could result in
careless driving.
We both have graduate degrees in Wildlife Management and know that agricultural lands provide critical
habitat for wildlife, in part because of the low population density. Increased traffic could result in more road
kill, and noise and other human activities would scare birds and mammals and disrupt their behavior,
particularly during breeding season when weddings are likely to be especially popular.
Our mountain view is worth a great deal to us personally as well as to the value placed on this property. Real
estate values near event venues would drop. If a wedding venue moves in next door, the impact will not only
degrade, our property value, but also diminish our enjoyment of our home. There is no way that berms or
landscaping could adequately conceal hundreds of people, their cars, temporary structures, and set-up and take-
down activities. With an allowable one' event per week (M5) plus a day to set up and part of another day to take
down each event, we could be disturbed three days of every week. What a great way to enjoy our private lives!
The idea that a private piece of land could be designated as a "park" is ludicrous. The lands proposed for these
events are farmlands. To group an event venue along with playgrounds, hunting and fishing preserves and
campgrounds is unreasonable.
A number of landowners of these proposed venues have been operating illegally. Why have county officials
allowed this disregard of the law? A few individual landowners have money to gain if they can hold commercial
events on their property. Caterers, musicians and others associated with weddings would not lose money at all.
They would just go to one of the already established, suitable locations for this type of activity.
Only a few people would find monetary gain in allowing events to take place on agricultural land, yet many
could suffer financially. Roads would require more maintenance, and law enforcement associated with events
would be supported by taxpayers. Public funds are already in short supply. Will my taxes go up to support the
additional enforcement and monitoring associated with events if land-use regulations are changed? Will any
enforcement be complaint driven, putting neighbors at each others' throats? Additional water use by large
groups could cause wells in the area to go dry, and we, along with other affected neighbors, would have to deal
with this stress and financial burden of this loss while those using the extra water would-have no penalty.
Through hard work we purchased a piece of property where we now live and intend to retire. We built our home
here. Our future can be totally ruined if an event venue moves in nearby. According to the final draft TA-08-9, a
parcel size of 10 acres would be permissible for an event venue. Proposed setbacks from the activity area (100
feet from the property line or 300 feet to the nearest dwelling) (M2) are completely inadequate to avoid
disturbances to adjacent neighbors and disruption of wildlife activity. There is no way that sound amplification
will be muffled by the proposal under M6. If restricted to indoor environments, the sound is still heard,
particularly as doors open and close. On parcels of 20 acres or even 100 acres, where the proposal suggests that
amplification could be outdoors (M6), sound travels easily to disturb others. Residents on farmland often get up
early and go to bed before the 10 pm time frame indicated in M9. Just one venue on nearby property would pose
multiple problems. What about the cumulative effect of two, five, or ten event venues in one neighborhood?
Many suitable facilities for weddings and other events exist now - resorts, fairgrounds, churches, and
community buildings. These have adequate facilities to provide for sanitation, traffic impact, and food
preparation. I am not opposed to weddings and other events, but they should be restricted to appropriate sites
and should not be permitted on land that is designated for Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) or Multiple Use
Agricultural (MUA).
Research by Ed Whitlaw, a professional economist, shows that allowing event venues would not benefit the
county financially. The drawbacks would far outweigh any positive aspects of TA-08-9 if it were approved.
The concept of allowing commercial event venues would have tremendous negative impact on rural lands and
landowners in Oregon. Simply because a special-interest group has proposed changes in existing land use
regulations does not mean that their ideas are in the interest of the general public. A huge amount of public
money and time have already been invested in hearings, draft revisions and analyses of the TA-08-9 application.
We honestly hope that you, who are supposed to be representing all residents and landowners in this area are
not being swayed by only a few who could gain from the proposed changes. Why should compromises be made
to accommodate their application when it has no merit begin with? It is easy for those holding events to gather
numerous signatures and to solicit letters from entire wedding parties on behalf of landowners holding events. It
is far more difficult for the ordinary citizen to keep abreast of hearings and decision making by County
Commissioners.
The existing land-use laws were thoughtfully written to protect resource lands, wildlife areas, and farm country.
We urge you to think about the future of all of the citizens of Central Oregon and dismiss the ill-conceived idea
of holding commercial events on farmland.
Sincer ly,
Robert and Gretchen Pederson
18925 Pinehurst Rd
Bend, OR 97701
,'Ifone of 1q, St
t A BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest: Event Venues Text Amendment Date: July 15, 2009
Name " Oct-"
~ ~ V r ► C- ~ C' i c>r ~
Address A 4 7 11 .-c) 0 6ds k L
Phone#s 6,7-{j-
E-mail address
cbri 1&e rayxctit 40
GL01 ! C0
1-1 In Favor
Neutral/Undecided
Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? [A Yes No
Please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest: Event Venues Text A endment Date: July 15, 2009
Name lr('51(e KC1 V Cw6S
Address b 9~ 3 7 PD i cre tt & 6-~fe
Phone #s
E-mail address
AD ~ 1 C4,711"
❑ In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided ❑Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? E Yes No
Please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ❑
~ T F- or
{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest: Event Venues Text Amendment Date: July 15, 2009
Name 6f 1rl,~ V ~A Q_ noO
Address
~3_ 0 130
Phone #s 393-0136
Coo UA 3 of e
E-mail address r ~v~ ds Ad , Ctm/u
❑ In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
Please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
Opposed
❑ No
a { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest: Event Venues Text Amendment Date: Jul 15 2009
Name . .
Address
Phone #s
E-mail address
❑ In Favor
1XI
❑ Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑G es
Please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
❑Opposed
❑ No
v-r~s n
o { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest: Event Venues Text Amendment Date: July 15 2009
Name -
Address -zz g S W
(*0 bp, g o I
Phone #s 3% Qy I., 03
E-mail address & r1r,
❑ In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes
Please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
Opposed
K No
T'>~ n o,~
L U ` \ 4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
\ REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest: Event Venues Text Amendment Date: July 15, 2009
Name
Address
F
Phone #s
E-mail address
❑ In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes
Please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
❑ Opposed
[~J-No
o U \ { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest: Event Venues Text Amendment Date: July 15, 2009
Name
Address
Phone #s
E-mail address
In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes
Please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
❑ Opposed
JFV] No
o U \ { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest: Event Venues Text Amendment Date: July 15, 2009
Name e P_jA n~ .
Address VJ~
Phone #s
E-mail address
0 In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 1-1 Yes No
Please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.