The URL can be used to link to this page

2012-1786-Minutes for Meeting August 29,2012 Recorded 9/11/2012COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKBS 111 ~j~Ainuiiiiuu ~,,,m12 a,,:3, ~ Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate 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 BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2012 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Erik Kropp, Interim County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack and Paul Blikstad, Community Development; and nine other citizens including Erik Hidle of The Bulletin. Chair DeBone opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN INPUT Citizen William Kuhn said there is a problem with Code violations not being enforced. He will be filing a Code violation complaint regarding trees that were cut down near his home in 2007. There was a DR initiated by CDD and the four permits issued for that property were taken away, and the property owner lost his wildlife area tax deferral. He applied for a new conditional use and landscape management plan, and as a condition of that he was supposed to replant trees and monitor them. They were supposed to be watered through irrigation and that never happened. Only five of the original trees are still there. Mr. Kuhn said he contacted Mr. Peery and tried to work this out; then went to ODF&W and got a preliminary agreement with them to deal with some other trees that need to be watered. All of this is to protect the buffer and wildlife habitat. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 29, 2012 Page 1 of 12 This complaint is more against the County than it is Mr. Peery. The County gave him extensions on his LU and CU due to the economy. He says he continues to replace trees and make things better, and that all requirements are being fulfilled. He is not being honest. There is no water or irrigation system there. Mr. Kuhn asked who makes sure this happens. It will go on for five or six years, and then what. He asked the Board to please look into it. Mr. Kuhn said he also asked for personal meetings with Commissioners Unger and Baney. Commissioner Baney said she would not meet at his residence but perhaps somewhere for coffee. Mr. Kuhn asked if they could meet on adjacent BLM land. Chair DeBone said this could be discussed later. Mr. Kuhn asked how he can file a complaint against County Legal Counsel. He wants to know who to file it with. Mr. Kropp stated that the County can't provide him with this kind of legal advice. Chair DeBone said it could be submitted to him. The Board presented a plaque acknowledging Mike Bonetto's years on the Public Health Advisory Board. Tom Kuhn accepted on his behalf and spoke about Mr. Bonetto's leadership while on the Board. He resigned only because he is now working on high level health programs with the Governor's Office. He will remain involved in this issue on the local level, however. Commissioner Baney added that Mr. Bonetto provided good leadership and focus on cost-effectiveness, while remaining accessible. He helped to shore up valuable programs, and will be a good resource for the future. No other public testimony was offered. 3. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on a Type 2 Limited Use Permit for Six Commercial Events and Activities (Weddings) in an Exclusive Farm Use Zone (Downs; File #LUP-12-2). Chair DeBone read the opening statement. In regard to conflicts of interest, bias or prejudgment, the Commissioners indicated there were none; that all meetings are on the record. There were no challenges from the audience. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 29, 2012 Page 2of12 Nick Lelack gave a PowerPoint presentation providing the history and background of the issue, details on the property including a map and aerial photo of the subject property and surrounding area, the application and proposal, and staff recommendations. (A copy of the presentation is attached for reference) The Board was asked to call this up for review since there was some public interest and it is a unique situation, rather than have it go to a Hearings Officer. Staff feels that allowing this will not force significant changes in farm use on the property or the surrounding area. It is incidental to the agricultural use of the property. These terms are not defined in State law, although are referenced. The LUBA cases have been very specific to the project or case, so it is hard to apply these findings to another situation. DLCD issued a guide regarding wineries after SB 960 was adopted, and this guide is used to help with definitions. They look at other organizations and documents to clarify this issue and applied them accordingly. The question is, how does the event become related to or subordinate of agriculture, as it should be physically, economically and logically related to and supportive of farm use, and/or relate to a product that is produced on the farm. In this case the activities are felt to be related to a hay operation; but the question is how. There is a burden of proof required for this. He then went over the key findings, supported by AOC guidelines and now by the legislature. This is the first case of its kind to be addressed here. One finding relates to the amount of time dedicated to this use, and the area required in relation to the rest of the land. Traffic control was addressed as well. Staff interpreted that one traffic control person is required for up to 250 attendees, and another if there are more than 250. There were thirteen conditions of approval as required by the County or State law. The record can be left open for oral and written testimony, setting another date; or keep the written record open for a period of time; or close the hearing today. Since this is new territory, he suggested that the Board hold the public hearing today and leave the record open for a period of time, allowing time for rebuttal. Deliberations can occur after that, with a decision written for approval to follow. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 29, 2012 Page 3 of 12 The Board had no questions of staff regarding the staff report. The applicant was then allowed to testify. (Written documentation was provided) Dave Hunnicut, Oregonians in Action, representing the Downs, said he prepared written remarks. There are other exhibits to submit as well. They won't be extensive. Staff has done good work on addressing the criteria. This is the first application the Board is hearing, based on SB 960, which is now codified in State law. As part of his job, he spends time at the legislature and participated in hearings on SB 960. He thinks this will be helpful. Mr. Lelack is focusing the Board on the particulars of this application. The use is related to and supportive of agriculture, and will not materially alter land use in the area. Some of this came from the nonfarm use statutes regarding dwellings. There are a number of other criteria that they must meet, but staff has made them aware so they can appropriately make their case. They feel they comply with all of the criteria, including those that are not the key focus points at this time. Regarding incidental and subordinate uses, there is no definition in ORS on this; but these activities do not provide much guidance for the State or County. They are left with a combination of legislative history and possibly some case law. Much has to do with accessory uses which are subordinate to farm use. They often do these on their own particular facts for each case; there is no overreaching guidance from LUBA or the Courts on this. There is some legislative history that was created during testimony on SB 960 when it was in the House. It passed the Senate almost unanimously. During the House committee process, "incidental and subordinate" language was not addressed until the last minute. Rep. Paul Hovey from Eugene asked what this means; and was told the phrase was not defined but was used in conjunction with other farm uses in the past. And that it would be less than 50%, but there is no clear definition. He said he would argue that incidental and subordinate probably refers to income; they have to indicate that the amount received from typical farm activities has to be more than 50% of income. Staff also considered the amount of land used and the timeframe. He asked the Board make an additional finding that the percentage of income be considered as well. Mr. Downs indicated what he made from the sale of grass hay, and how much he made from incidental uses. The property is obviously in farm use based on photos and income. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 29, 2012 Page 4 of 12 Mr. Downs has said he will not charge more than $2,000 for a wedding there. If he is approved for up to six, that is a total $12,000, which is much less than he makes with hay production, considering gross income. The County's criteria have been addressed even if it is not apparently criteria of SB 960. They don't feel that the State requires the event be related to or subordinate to agricultural uses, and that this is above and beyond the State's requirement. The County's stance is entitled to deference if this goes to LUBA or the Court of Appeals. Mr. Downs' affidavit lays out the results of weddings in the past, some of which produced the sale of hay. Marketing of products is part of the farm use. In addition, they were asked to demonstrate whether there were specific hay sales generated through the events, and they can show that in 2009 five attendees from various events subsequently purchased hay grown on the farm. In 2010 there were sales as well. These sales figures are somewhat impressive. This is a good marketing tool for him and a way to make connections with people who want to purchase his products then and later. Regarding materially altering the land use pattern in the area, this language was chosen by the legislature as it appears in the non-farm dwelling statute. LCDC in Administrative Rule set out a test for this. The Downs are not proposing additional structures so this aspect does not apply. Staff laid out a list in the findings relating to adjacent properties within a mile radius, and within that list talked about the features of those properties. That list is representative of the area near the subject property and the various uses. There is nothing in the proposal that would in any way encourage other people to do the same thing. And there are really no additional impacts; the uses are identical if they are in farm use. Code generally tracks the language of statutory requirements, including complying with what the County feels is a significance change in use. Five or six events should not be a problem. Field spraying or similar things generally do not occur on weekends or in the evening so there should be no conflicts. (He provided two additional exhibits, attached.). Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 29, 2012 Page 5of12 Laurie Craghead referred to Mr. Hunnicutt's memo about testimony at the legislature regarding income. She said that it appears he wants the income to be stated as less than 50%. Mr. Hunnicutt replied that the income needs to be totaled and the amounts for each use determined as to which is 50% or more. Chair DeBone asked if this is irrigated land. Kerry Downs pointed out the land on the aerial photograph. He said that most is covered by COID on his land and the surrounding properties. Commissioner Baney asked if "related to and supportive of language is necessary, and to find out from the State if this is a requirement. Mr. Lelack said it was in the purpose statement. Ms. Craghead said that it is in the first statement although not listed again in the criteria. Her opinion is that this is a requirement of Statute. Commissioner Baney wants to be sure there is continuity in case the Board makes a determination on that basis. Ms. Craghead said it is in Code so has to be addressed in any case. James Gindlesperger said that he does not believe the burden of proof has been met regarding this use being supportive of agriculture. Central Oregon hay is valuable and most farmers have no problem selling theirs. He tried to find out where Mr. Downs advertises and it appears he does not advertise at all, so maybe has no hay to sell. Someone cuts, bales and hauls it off. He does not seem to have to sell it himself. He does not feel the County has assessed the traffic ramifications or has given enough thought to the financial limits imposed on these events. Faith, Hope, Charity Winery was ruled to limit this at 25%. A Sauvie Island case found the same. Katherine Daniels of DLCD recommended a limit of 25% of sales at the farm. Mr. Hunnicutt says it can be 50%, but it all seems to be limited to 25% elsewhere. In 2009, when Mr. Downs was under Code enforcement for improper use of a building, he said there was no commercial use at the time. Then he changed it from an agricultural building to an ancillary building, wanting to make it legal. Mr. Gindlesperger stated he feels that hay operations and commercial events have nothing in common unless it can be proven the product cannot be sold otherwise. They should have to show that they have not been able to sell their hay otherwise. They have just 40 acres of hay, and should not make more because of this. It is the only thing they should be able to do with this land. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 29, 2012 Page 6 of 12 Pam Hardy of 1000 Friends said that staff did a stellar job on this decision. The record needs to be thorough on this issue. 1000 Friends has two concerns regarding "incidental and subordinate" and "related to and supportive of". She also listened to the legislative hearings to find common points, but they did not mention related to/supportive of a single time. That left all involved trying to figure out what was meant. Essentially you have an applicant saying this are related to weddings due to a rural setting plus potential customers. If that is related to/supported of, then there is no event that isn't. What would not be allowed? There needs to be an objective nexus regarding the type of event being held. DLCD mentioned featuring the food or wine being produced on the property. But there is no objective nexus here. Regarding incidental, she asked what the consensus was. Essentially this had to do with income, set at less than 50%. She understands from the hearings that the legislature intended to stand behind the task force. The income level should be looked at carefully. She wants to review what was submitted in this regard. One question she has is to verify whether they are comparing apples with apples. Gross receipts from hay were $18,000 to $20,000, and weddings would be $2,000 per event. She asked if this is the gross receipts or net amount. She has no idea if this is accounted for somehow. The biggest concern is related to/supportive of, needing some meaning. They need to look for verifiable objectives between the use and event. Commissioner Baney said there has been a lot of discussion regarding farming as it relates to different parts of the state. There are limited products and limited cuttings here. She asked if there is room for interpretation regarding the problem of limited income from farming in some parts of the state. Ms. Hardy said she does not recall them addressing this. She agreed it is different here than in the valley. Jim Powell, currently a member of the Planning Commission that looked at this previously, acknowledged the work of staff and the applicant, and that this is a difficult issue. He had two things to address. Mr. Hunnicutt talked about this being subordinate to agriculture. Mr. Powell did not find any reference in the findings or referring to the link between hay sales and the application; a justification of the link. It is hard to determine whether this meets the intent of the task force or SB 960. He recalls when fabricating the ordinance, the County can be more restrictive than SB 960, but not less. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 29, 2012 Page 7of12 The second issue is the elephant in the application. During discussions at the Planning Commission level, both in 2008 and 2011, there was a relationship between people who wanted to hold events and those who opposed them. There seems to be a lack of appreciation of the interdependence of the event person and the neighbors. It takes little imagination to think things would change if there was silage fermentation, a hog farm or spraying going on when an event is being held. The tranquility and beauty of those who want to use these venues is a community event and not just based on the subject property. In the course of testimony, there were allegations that some event hosts have been using tactics to intimidate or threaten neighbors. There were supposedly threats of retribution. In the published findings, there are similar allegations. One applicant's name appeared in testimony this way. In his perspective, this is bullying and should not be tolerated. Social coherence is essential for a community. It is simply the fact that all people should feel nurtured, acknowledged, valued and safe. He hopes the decision regarding this application or future applications will reflect the fact that the desire of the County is to indeed create a healthy community. Activities such as threats or intimidation and a lack of feeing of safety will take years off someone's life. Paul Dewey, representing Central Oregon Landwatch, stated that most has already been stated. He asked for the record to remain open for at least two weeks to allow for review of documents. Regarding `related to, supportive and incident', he appreciates Mr. Powell's comments. Neighborliness and being interconnected, and what is done with the land, are mportant. However this is resolved, its success will depend on whether people support each other and accommodate each other's needs. He hopes this occurs. William Kuhn said that he has testified at hearings like this before. At least four times in 12 years he has mentioned this kind of thing. He asked, why not create a neighborhood association to deal with these kinds of issues. The concept of neighborliness is a key issue, solving issues together. No other testimony was offered. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 29, 2012 Page 8of12 Mr. Hunnicutt offered brief rebuttal. Mr. Gindlespurger raised the issue of income no more than 25%. In this scant legislative history, there should be some room. If the County chose to go below 50% it could, but he does not feel that it should. As long as the farm generates more income from direct farming than the other activities, it should apply. The 25% standard is found in the farm stand provision, which is an outright permitted use. The sale of incidental items is limited to 25% of sales at a farm stand. In regard to related to and supportive of, events that the Downs want to conduct will supplement the farm operation. They can use this income to enhance farm operations. This is a good marketing opportunity, an actual farm use. There is a direct tie-in and plenty of evidence of this. Whether a generalized, broad definition or based on a particular set of facts is used, there is plenty of evidence to determine this. He agrees with keeping the record open for two weeks. Nick Lelack said that the 25% limitation is in the farm stand and winery statutes. Staff interprets there can be more flexibility in this regard. Laurie: Leave written record open for 14 days (Sept. 12 5 PM, new info) and 7 days for response to what is submitted (9/19, 5 PM). Rebuttal 9/26 5 PM).. Total of 28 days. BANEY: Move that the oral part of the hearing be closed; that the written record be left open until September 12 at 5:00 p.m. (14 days), with seven days for responses to what has been submitted (September 19), and rebuttal open until September 26 at 5:00 p.m. This allows a total of 28 days. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. BANEY: Move approval with the exception of the minutes of the work sessions which have not yet been reviewed. UNGER: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 29, 2012 Page 9 of 12 VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Consent Aunda Items 4. Signature of Document No. 2012-430, a Contract for Subgrant between the Children & Families Commission and MountainStar Family Relief Nursery 5. Signature of a Letter Appointing Phyllis Lewis to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, through June 30, 2014 6. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of Mike Bonetto from the Public Health Advisory Board, and Thanking him for his Service 7. Signature of Letters Reappointing Jack Pribnow, Anthony Rosenthal and Keith Winsor to the Public Health Advisory Board, through August 31, 2015 8. Approval of Minutes: Board Meetings of August 20 and 22, 2012 • Work Sessions of August 20 and 22, 2012 CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Letter Appointing Bob Nelson to the Sunriver Service District Managing Board, through August 31, 2015. BANEY: Move approval. LINGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: UNGER: DEBONE Yes. Yes. Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 10. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of 157,743.52. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 29, 2012 Page 10 of 12 BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 11. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the Amount of $786.19. UNGER: Move approval, subject to review. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 12. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $390,727.79. UNGER: Move approval, subject to review. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. 13. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA None were offered. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 29, 2012 Page 11 of 12 Being no further items discussed, the meeting was adjourned at 11:35 a.m. DATED this L. Day of 2012 for the ----AfiAavL Deschutes County Board of Commissioners ATTEST: (S-~ Recording Secretary zoo 04~~~ Anthony DeBone, Chair a& ~Z~ Alan Unger, Vice Chair ab Tammy Baney, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 29, 2012 Page 12 of 12 n ~ Agenda Item of Interest BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REOUEST TO SPEAK Date ~CCG Name Address Phone #s E-mail address In Favor F~ Neutral,/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes z o 0 Opposed No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interests Date Name Address Phone #s S ( 6 0 E-mail address '~Z 1)- C,>v Lam) Upz Lk y. L ca n1 ❑ In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided 7j Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No -rc o < BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest 6a ws APR _ -Date 8 ~ ~ Q /Q_ Name Address 3 wA. oZ a-j-io Phone #s S-41- QI 4 - Q(j q SL E-mail address ❑ In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided Opposed at,i d~aFt~.d Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Eryes No ff%f BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest Z ~ Date 2- Name Address Phone #s ~:f V ST-23 E-mail address - & ? _/)I, -4: F] In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes F,~ No f4y~EgN o BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO _SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest -.c Date Name Address Phone #s 5j /I J C) r (Y 5 , E-mail address , ❑ In Favor F-1 Neutral/Undecided El Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes 7 No DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, OR 97701 Telephone (541)388-6575, Fax (541)385-1764 CODE ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT FORM Instructions: In order for you complaint to be accepted, you must fill in all questions completely and sign on the back of this form. It is important that you supply as much detail as possible. If you have any questions, call code enforcement at 541-385-1707. Date: 20) Z 4 8 Z,q . 3 Address of Violation(s): 6659 0 S (Se y%AQ, , City: rs!an & State: Zip: 0I Nearest Cross Street: Holn no,, 6 ree-)-- P4 1~ 4E.L. -S ara Subdivision: Residents Name: a.t Phone: Owner of Property: GY, i eeY Address: 39 ! d M) Ora r A City: r-s! Rwq. State: Off, Zip: 9 74u Daitu of duiat: Tft cowaint it against Da""" a t hr , APah .alyd Marilyn "F'erery. Cbb has issued 3 renewal / extension permits without verifying that the applicant has actually been doing what the LM and CU requires as a condition of the permit. The conditions of the LM A CU were created specifically as a result of the COUNTY INIATED DR-07-3. Mr. Peery wasn't being honest in his application for renewal when he said that "All requirements to this point have been fulfilled." IF Cbb hu t vev{ifft and ep =*WW4 00: I M- 604, W4140 WW CU-08-38 and LM-08-31 REQUIRE that the owners SHALL maintain the vegetation... that regular irrigation of the new trees continue until they are established... that the dead, dying and/or diseased vegetation be removed ANb replaced... that there be a water storage facility be installed... and that an automatic irrigation system with lines supplying water from the water storage facility to the new trees be maintained. THIS HAS NOT `ttAPP!WW.. ARE THERE ANY KNOWN OR SUSPECTED HAZARDS AT THIS LOCATION? IE: Dangerous or unstable residents, dogs, criminal activity, etc. ( ) YES (N) NO ( ) UNKNOWN If yes, please identify the hazard in detail: Continue on reverse side ,E Cu nplaini Form Rev. 04/11 Page I 1 The top portion of this side is required and must be completed. Complainant: (Your Name) Name: b) ►1,11 a-nn J o I Y-% K, t; ~ Yl Address: 8v 1o City: State: ale, Zip: ?p -L2 Daytime4hone 4(, Can violation be seen from the road? (K) Yes (OkkjNo f not, what is the best inspection point? Ve,* w1 ids58 0 5,se m,re Is the Complainant a neighbor? (XlYes ( ) No Ac-<ass , The complainant gives the Code Enforcement Technician permission to use their property for viewing the violation: ( ) Yes ( ) No If not, why: 94 Will you, the complainant, testify in court, should the need arise? NlYes ( ) No (Note: your complaint may not be accepted without your being available to testify.) If you have photos, or other related information, that can be used as evidence of this violation, please submit them with this form. The submitted documentation will not be returned and will become part of the complaint file. By signing below, I declare, under penalty of perjury, that all information submitted on and with this form is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. COMPLAINANT 2nfZa6Z4 3 DATE Thank you for assisting in making Deschutes County a better place to live. Your Code Enforcement Staff FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Subdivision: Lot: Block: Cf Coinplamt Form Rev, 04111 Page 12 2.O I j a at., . RTES ru a Community Development Department: ❑ 2WIdA Planning Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, DR 97701-1925 (541) 3138-6575 - Fax (541) 385.1764 http://www.deschutes.org/cdd APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OFA LAND USE PERMIT FEE: 3 to Applicant's Name (print): ,e g'e Phone: (.~31) Mailing Address: 3gLd-.M I R_R oA .,.,Pa, ub bjoj1 City/StatetZip: E &6'~ fE. 8~7 V E' Property Owner's Name (if different)": 5 qm E Phone: ( ) Mailing Address:. Nature of Application: Gity/State0p: Property Description: Township /6 Range Section IV- U Tax Lot tp 0 Deschutes County Appll fatign ~l~n}b ~ C - r Date of Approval: l / Q Permit Expiration Date: Property Zone: On the reverse side, or on a separate sheet of paper, please respond to the following: 1. Describe any action that has been taken to fulfill any or all conditions of approval. 2. Describe the reason(s) for not beginning or continuing development or meeting conditions of approval within the approval period. Applicant's Property Owner's Signature (if differentp: / Dale; Agent's Name (if applicable): /VZ/~ Phone: Mailing Add Civstateop: If this application is not signed by the property owner, a letter authorizing signature by the applicant must be attached. VD (over) [ t'f'f - i7 b - /r C4 74 U- D Z- Z C SCAM*) gyros t h L E> Jlr 1M ?dllai~' 1 -2- (This page may be photocopied if additional space is needed. 20 (0 0,50 t (This page may be photocopied N additional space is needed.) i TES Zoi(5 o9, al ru a Community Development Department Q U'rA" ~ Planning Division -Y 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, OR 97701-1925 (541) 3SM575 - Fax [541) 385-1764 http: //www, deachutes. u-g/ cdd APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF A LAND USE PERMIT FEE: !il Applicant's Name (print): ¢ M ,4 L YW EEC Phone: 6L4A( 6 f6 -,7,/ 6 9- Mailing Address; cityistatemp: EU6FA/E~ 97VeY Property Owner's Name (if different)*: .57AMiC Phone: Mailing Address: City/Statelzip: Nature of Application: A6: aajr F,0 / mF L/O .t/ s'. Property Description: Township rfn-„ Range_L/ Section ale Tax Lot _ /00 Deschutes County Application Number:.. _LL4 06 5 Date of Approval: L-30 D ( - Permit Expiration Date. d as d Property Zone: JELU_248, LLm ._Y_ WA On the reverse side, or on a separate sheet of paper, please respond to the following: 1. Describe any action that has been taken to futtill any or all conditions of approval. 2. Describe the reason(s) for not beginning or continuing development or meeting conditions of approval within the approval period. Applicant's Property Owner's Signature (if different Date: Agent's Name (if applicable): Phone: ( Mailing Address: lc-)A City/State/Zip: iC UG N~! oR 9~yo~ *tf this application is not signed by the property owner, a letter' authorizing signature by th must be attached. (aver) I ~ jot to Zt>llolel~ Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division X 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ August 15, 2011 Ron R. Peery 3910 Mirror Pond Way Eugene, OR 97408 Re_ E-11-47; Extension of Application LM-08-51 on Property identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 16-1.1-20 as Tax Lot 100. Dear Mr. Peery: The Planning Division has reviewed your request for an extension of application LM-08- 51 against the criteria contained in Section 22.36.010(C) of the Deschutes County Code (DCC). Based on the burden of proof statement submitted with the application, it is staff's opinion the request satisfies all applicable criteria for approval. This extension will allow a one-year extension of LM-08-51 to October 13, 2012. PLEASE NOTE: This is your second extension. You are eligible for one additional one-year extension and ane additional two-year extension pursuant to DCC 22.36.010(C)(3)). The approval granted under LM-08-51 will expire can October 13, 2012 unless the use Is Initiated or further extended. Additionally, please be aware that conditional use permit CU-08-38 will also expire on October 13, 2012 unless initiated or extended. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at (541) 385-1401. Sincerely, DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION . 9.'_AL_- Kevin Harrison, Principal Planner Quality Services Performed with Pride Community Development Department " e-V Planning Division Building Safely Division Environmental Sails Division } 'J& ~f 4 'I R M 5 r. Mi•r i d.yw.=Li[e:~. .~G aae_'.lay.. - 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http!//www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FILE NUMBER: E41-47 DOCUMENT MAILED: DECISION LETTER MAP/TAX LOT NUMBER: 16-11-20, TAX LOT 104 I certify that on the 15th day of August, 2011 the attached notice(s)/report(s), dated August 15 , 2011, was/were mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the person(s) and address(es) set forth on the attached list. Dated this 15th day of August, 2011. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT By: Kathleen Stockton Ron R. Peery 3910 Mirror Pond Way Eugene, OR 97408 Quality Services Perforined with Pride 4 T of Community Development Department { planning Division 117 NW Lafayame Avenue, Bend, OR 977011-1925 (541) 388-6575 - Fox (541) 385.1764 http://www.deschutes.org/cdd APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OFA LA// D USE PERMIT 1-2 ~Z, °a Q FEE: Applicant's Name (print): Wa A ( Phone: Z.Y -2- Clty/State/Zip: j5U&-r-1PB d4g71109- Mailing Address: a m1p Property Owner's Name (if different)': Q±/n 6f Phone: ( ) Mailing Nature of Application: City/State/Zip: Property Description: Township, Range Section A 4 Tax Deschutes County Application Number: Date of Approval: 71,30 10 f~-S i -f-, /S Iermit Expiration Date: Property Zone: 415 Q On the reverse side, or on a separate sheet of paper, please respond to the following: Describe any action that has been taken to full any or all conditions of approval. 2. Describe the reason(s) for not beginning or continuing development or meeting conditions of approval within the approval period, Applicant's Signature: Date: 6 4s-l Property Owners Signature (if different)": Agent's Name (if applicable): Phone: C_-) p Mailing Address: 91/Q M I ~ VP, r D d A(h City/State/Zip: F-t/~~A)P O q74"40 f If this application is not signed by the property owner, a letter authorizing signature by the applicant must be attached. (over) 4 7109 ' ` 3R (This page may be photocopied if additional space is needed.) 1- t1 ,z:we..xww,sr fin. ~ f July 3, 2012 Ron R. Peery 3910 Mirror Pond Way Eugene, OR 97408 Community Development Department Punning D'rvist" Building Safety Division Environmenlai Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 I'IW Lafayette Avenue Bend. Oregon 97748.6005 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.ol'.us/cdd/ Re: E-12-38; Extension of Applications LM-08-51 and CU-08-38 on Property Identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 16-11-20 as Tax Lot 100 Dear Mr. Peery: The Planning Division has reviewed your request for an extension of applications LM-08-51 and CU-08-38 against the criteria contained in Section 22.36.010(C) of the Deschutes County Code (DCC). Based on the burden of proof statement submitted with the application, it is staff's opinion the request satisfies all applicable criteria for approval. The dwelling approved under CU-08-38 constitutes a nonfarm dwelling as described in Section 22.36.010 (13)(4)(a). This extension request was submitted before the end of the expiration date approved under CU-08-38. Section 22.36.010 (C)(2) allows for the granting of a two-year extension for those dwellings listed under DCC 22.36.010 (B)(4) where, as here, the applicable criteria have been met. The extension request was also submitted before the end of the expiration date for LM-08-51, as extended by E-11-47. This extension will allow a two-year extension of CU-08-38 to October 13, 2014 and a one-year extension of LM-08-51 to October 13, 2013. PLEASE NOTE: This is your first extension of CU-08-38 and your third extension of LM-08-51. You are eligible for two additional extensions of CU-08-38 and one additional extension of LM-08-51. The approval granted under CU-08-38 will expire on October 13, 2014 and the approval granted under LM-08-51 will expire on October 13, 2013 unless the use is initiated or further extended. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at (541) 385-1401. Sincerely, DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION A,-- Kevin Harrison, Principal Planner Quality Services .i erjoriurd with Pride Z-d(za I a3 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Sadtty Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6065 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes,or.us/cdd/ CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FILE NUMBER: E-12-38 DOCUMENT MAILED: Decision Letter MAPITAX LOT NUMBER: 16-11-20, Tax Lot 100 I certify that on the 3rd day of July, 2012 the attached notice(s)/report(s), dated July 3, 2012, was/were mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the person(s) and address(es) set forth on the attached list. Dated this 3`d day of July, 2012. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT By: Sher Buckner Ron R. Peery 3910 Mirror Pond Way Eugene, OR 97408 Quality Services Performed with Pride DECISION OF DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBERS: APPLICANTS/ PROPERTY OWNERS: APPLICANTS' ATTORNEY: CU-08-38, LM-08-51 Ron and Marilyn Peery 39 10 Mirror Pond Way Eugene, Oregon 97408 Stephanie Hicks Ball Janik, LLP 15 S.W. Colorado Avenue, Suite 3 Bend, Oregon 97702 n~ ~ 4V 2pp$ CV ~ cJ ~ GN~ ti fi. ,QV REQUEST: The applicants request conditional use and LM site plan review to establish a nonfarm dwelling on a parccl zone EFU-TRB, LM and WA located northwest of Bend on Sisemore Road. STAFF REVIEWER: Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner 1. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: A. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance 1. Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zone - EFU * Section 18.16.030, Conditional Uses Permitted High Value and Nonbigh Value Farmland * Section 18.16.050, Standards for Dwellings in the EFU Zones * Section 18.16.060, Dimensional Standards * Section 18.16.070, Yards * Section 18.16.090, Rimrock Setback 2. Chapter 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone - LM * Section 18.84.020, Application of Provisions * Section 18.84.050, Use Limitations * Section 18.84.080, Design Review Standards * Section 18.84.090, Setbacks 3. Chapter 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining WA * Section 18.88,040, Uses Permitted Conditionally * Section 18.88.050, Dimensional Standards * Section 18.88.060, Siting Standards Peery Dwelling CU-08-38/LM-08-51 Page l of 28 Page 2 of 2 We hope that all further disturbance to this site, building plans,etc. should be curtailed until the current owners are contacted and and the county has had a chance to asses the situation.. Thank you , Irene Hardwicke Olivieri 65580 Sisemore Road Bend, Oregon 97701 385-9254 ireneigvellowknifewireless.net 8/29/2012 Page 1 of 2 Main Identi From: "Irene" <irene@yellowknifewireless.net> To: <kevinh@co.deschutes.or.us> Cc: "Larry Pecenka" <Larry. L. Pecenka@STATE.OR. US>; stoma@co.deschutes.or.us>; <cmorrow@co.deschutes.or.us>; <anthony@co.deschutes.or.us>; <timg@co.deschutes.or.us>; "Lance Olivieri" <lolivieri@steele-arch.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:34 AM Subject: Recent Land Use Action E072/please help.... Dear Kevin, Ron and Marilyn Peery just filed for Deschutes County Land Use Action E072 01/26/07 RON AND MARILYN PEERY 65590 SISEMORE RD,BE REQUEST: EXTENSION REQUEST FOR CU-02-124 AND MG-06-2. Because this is a land use action and because of the recent destruction of trees and wildlife habitat outside of the approved building envelope, in violation of CU-02-124 AND MC-06-2, we are specifically requesting the County to deny their request for an extension, (or a temporary tolling of the clock if requested by the current property owners), until the clearing issue has been resolved. We filed a code violation complaint on Friday, January 26th against the current property owners regarding the clearing We are concerned since the activity on the land seems to portray a serious disregard for the restrictions that are part of the current Deschutes County CUP and also the Wildlife Habitat Conservation Management Plan agreement with the ODFW for tax deferral which is currently in place on the property. It is especially disturbing because when I met the owner, Ron Peery and his realtor, Jack Rinn on Monday September 18 1 spoke to them about the restrictions on the land, the wildlife overlay, landscape management plan as well as the conditional use permit not allowing cutting on the land outside of the approved building pad. I have a deep respect and love for the landscape and the animals who live here and I was very happy to have a chance to meet our new neighbor and talk about these important issues. I was also eager to tell him before he started work on his property because the previous owner, Rob Wesson, had cut down many old growth junipers far outside of his allowed area. (And before we could react to that, he sold the property exactly one week later) Another reason I wanted to make sure that Ron Peery knew about the restrictions is because when we bought our property next door, our realtor did not tell us of these restrictions and I knew how important it was that Ron Peery understood this prior to cutting trees.. Mr Peery and Mr Rinn both acknowledged to me (standing in front of our house on the morning of September 18) that they were aware of these restrictions and were going to be extremely careful about cutting trees. They mentioned that they would be meeting with wildlife biologist Larry Pecenca at ODFW for his input and intended to stay active in the wilfdlife management plan. Shortly after, Mr Peery and Mr. Rinn spoke with Larry Pecenca and assured him as well that Mr. Peery was going to be very careful about not destroying the habitat. Mr. Pecenca and I even spoke about how fortunate I was going to be to have new neighbors that seem to care so much about the wildlife habitat, protecting the land,etc. Then, on January 19, approximately 2-3 acres on Mr. Peery's land were clearcut with logging equipment . Approximately 8000 sf of wildlife habitat and 14 trees on our land were also destroyed during this clearcutting. While I beleive the destruction of trees and other vegetation on our land was an accident, I mention it here because it happened and there was no regard to property lines. The property lies within the Tumalo Winter deer Range which is considered a Wildlife Combining Zone and tree cutting restrictions outside the approved building envelope and within the scenic corridor are in place. 8/29/2012 i~ There-may be differences with what is to be done inside the building envelope and outside. Of course. the Wildlife Habitat agreement is to be a consideration coupled with on the ground issues of esthetics, etc. We see some tree removal,,, some limbing,frozL ground up, some limbing of select in tree limbs, brush and root ball removal, etc. Don't forget the issue of fall burning of piles; this should be part of pricing. Please give us your ideas and options surrounding pricing like chipping left on ground, chipping removed from property, chip piles to be binned, hand removal of all, etc. This includes existing downed ugly stuff. Maybe some of the work should be time and materials. Removing barbed wire on property is to b& d(me;. this: you may wish-try do as time and material as no one knows exactly how much wire there is. Some details: as a licensed' contractor you certainly have workmans' comp. insurance and liability should a fire start and get to neighboring property. Of course the fire index needs to be down before wort would. commence. I would like to be on site the l" day you commence to answer any questions. Please bid as follows: 1). Chipping..anct leaving, all material- 2} Chipping , falling, limbing and burning material 3) Removal of all material. We will contact you as to a time to get together with Lary. Anytime you can contact Jack Rinn or Christin Barber, as they are sometimes easier to reach and we will be working with them. Sincerely yours Ron Peery P.S. I am in the process of trying.to schedule. a: meets for y errand I with Larry Pe~rle$ and will coordinate with your schedule. September 11, 2006 Wade Fagan Fagen Trees & Chips 1328 NE Seward Bend, 43.97701 Dear wade ql 7 Tbanka far c fining tai ,m r property; you have :done so :aaw twice and we -are confident we are in good hands. Whether we build or someone else surfaces that wants the property even more than we do,.it.is vital that.this building_ttc.look like a million dollarsl Potentially this is a one-of-a-kind parcel. In the entire proximity there are only 4 -private parcels. One is across Sisemore; that person you saw come introduce himself the day we were there. The house we pass on the driveway, and one site behind it [not yet built], and our 13.2-acres are itl Two sides of our property (a short half-mile] border BLM land. BLM designates their land-as special resource [refers to wildlife winter range]. And-, our property and the other three, are. under. a Wildlife Habitat Conservation and Management Plan. These elements, coupled with, the view corridors we create and the near foreground that.is forest and void of development to us makes the property very special indeed. From the logical building site the ground slopes doom, west, north, and east. This relief, especially west and north, .affords the expansive view of forest lands in the foreground with snow capped mountains on the horizonl Even east it is difficult to see development. To us as well as Jack and Christie our vision,is.a site with view corridors of -the mountains. From West to 'North these may include: Broken Top, Three Sisters, Mt. Washington, ThreeTingered Jack, Black Butte, Mt. Jefferson, and even Mt Hood. on a clear day! You may refer to the.map enclosed. S.oxne.select fongmund-expawive views ac3ress-the ft=st-below may benefit from select cutting, limbing, brush removal and the like. YOU -nay refer to thebuilding envelope map endlosed. The black Circles are specific trees. I am assuming; "but you will learn direct from Larry Pecenka, that these must be left. Jack says that he just received an inch of material,from Larry. He notes that older Bitterbivsh and 8-inch juniper may be fair game, and.I think we should-clear as much as is reasonable. Tw- Peery. file. 1. .~.~4.; 32)2 ~-3~ From: Jack Rinn 1 S.uh}ect_ ODFW Larry Pecenka Date: 5-16-06 I emailed Larry to introduce myself and the new owners. We then talked by phone. He already knew about the sale;, he learned from neighbors Oliveri. We must assume they told him in the interest of enforcement. I couldn't ask him. It makes no difference we expect to follow the rules! He was nice to talk to. One thing. he said is that you can buy your way-out of the program; I told him the owners would not wish to. I thought the program is a positive for the property. He said we can off haul logs/limbs, etc. They like some left, but they are concerned with fire fuels too. He is happy to meet us out there any time although he is not regwred to. He was impressed that no wheeled/tracked equipment would be used. From ODFW standpoaint.they wish.lots of Junipers r' and below removed [S" at chest heightl. I told him we might mark some and ask he look at them in advance. He said he would if wL-wished. Unincorporated Community - La Pine, to be constructed as far south on their lots as is necessary and feasible. FINDINGS: The applicants' submitted building elevation drawings show the proposed dwelling would have a maximum roof peak height of approximately 22 feet, requiring a 45-foot solar setback. The applicants' submitted site plan shows the proposed dwelling would be located least 167 feet from the northern property line, therefore satisfying the required building setback for the protection of solar access. IV. DECISION: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearings Officer hereby APPROVES the applicants' proposed conditional use permit and LM site plan review for a nonfarm dwelling on the subject property, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. This approval is based upon the applicants' submitted site plan, building elevation drawings, landscape plans, supplemental materials, and written and oral testimony. Any substantial change to the approved plan will require a new land use application and approval. PRIOR TO OBTAINING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE DWELLING: 2. The applicants/owners shall sign and record with the Deschutes County Clerk a document binding the landowner, and the landowner's successors in interest, prohibiting them from pursuing a claim for relief or cause of action alleging injury from farming or forestry practices for which no action or claim is allowed under ORS 30936 to 90.937. 3. The applicants/owners shall obtain an approved Authorization Notice or Septic Site Evaluation from the Deschutes County Environmental Health Division. 4. The applicantslowners shall comply with all requirements of the Cloverdale Rural Fire Protection District identified in the district's July 11, 2008 comment letter, and shall provide to the Planning Division written documentation that all such requirements have been met. WITH CONSTRUCTION OF THE DWELLING: 5. The applicants/owners shall protect and preserve the three trees located near the dwelling footprint by hand digging for the foundation near these trees. 6. The applicants/owners shall plant the additional vegetation depicted on the August 20, 2008 Sandrock Landscape Design landscape plan included in this record. Peery Dwelling CU-08-38/LM-08-51 Page 27 of 28 AT ALL TIMES: 7. Except as allowed under Section 18.84.080(A), the applicants/owners shall retain on the subject property all trees and other vegetation that existed on the site as of June 5, 2008 and that provide screening of the dwelling from Sisemore Road. 8. The applicants/owners shall continuously maintain the vegetation depicted on the August 20, 2008 Sandrock Landscape Plan. Required maintenance shall include the following: a. regular irrigation of the new trees until they are established; b. removal and replacement of dead, dying and/or diseased vegetation; C. installation of a water storage facility on the subject property, such as a water tank, and if a water tank is installed above ground it shall have an earth-tone color exterior or be camouflaged so it is not visible from Sisemore Road; and d. an automatic irrigation system with lines supplying water from the water storage facility to the new trees. 9. The applicants/owners shall install any exterior lighting, including security lighting, so that it is directed downward and is not directly visible from Sisemore Road, and in compliance with the county's outdoor lighting ordinance, Chapter 15.10 of the Deschutes County Code. 10. The applicants/owners shall install any new fencing on the subject property in compliance with the fencing standards in the WA Zone as described in Section 18.88.070 of the Deschutes County Code. 11. The applicants/owners shall apply for a building permit for the approved dwelling within two (2) years of the date this decision becomes final, or obtain approval of an extension under Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code. Dated this -:~Dkday of September, 2008. Mailed this -W- Mailed of September, 2008. XA Karen H. Gre , Hearings Officer THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL TWELVE DAYS AFTER MAILING UNLESS TIMELY APPEALED. Peery Dwelling CU-08-38/LM-08-51 Page 28 of 28 t. Y'. f i 3 t w Z ~ E W ~ N M m E CL J L~ c O E N E ° o N V ~ N VI O V ~ Q O ,.Q m O m w. `S t L 0 Q V) _ .t ~nr O hL buo u m co O^ CL 0 ^L CL O L. CL m ^L W c 0 V) W cz V) W) c LL V) c 0 CL 0 ru V 0 co .0 ^V) W 0 . . . . . . O O O r-I O O O -J tLo -0 V ~ o V O a~ zf co E O V o =3 O O L (.O m cn CO O W m E U 0- O Q V O U Qa ca +a C •O a~ Q O N ~ O aJ a~ a p I-..• • N 00 O > ° O U1 O r i c N Q m O Q O • cn 0 ~ •(1) c o -a O c rV N i 1 Ul p E cu a~ w 23 p - U > M cn p O CL E V CL _0 ul Q Q Q co 7,, 1_Y. V'f E O 0 0 M CC3 CN V) p - 4-J U cl~ O cu CL cu Q) Ln > C: O p U ~ O Lf, 4-J cu oollft% 1;j, C: CL - - _0 _0 m O m 0 • C: ~ o a N N p m ~ 4-1 -I-J •-a) CL 0 (3) CL 75 C c~ N L L- ~ U LL m m -0 > CL 4-J 0 N O Ln C: cn o a~ 0 C w C •D i t _ N aj CL rl Ln a Q) ~ (1) _N Q a~ E a~ U L' 3: cn Q v a E L n' c F-- U v I I I I I diJ L ~ w u i fie cu E C: O D :t ~ ca 4=J cn 4-' cn V to u u Q V j E a 0 V ago - ~ ~ ~ O Ln m •+E 00 00 00 Cl CL u N m w 4-J = 0 • t~A cn V~ -0 to CV > O cn CL O O w OZ oC Z O 0 w Z CL V sx cu at ~N It 7 ~ ~i LW i L` i~~ 'FS. _ * r.' Y~ ~ .hwt~~. ~`~S;t. •i .4 M X-A 4-0 N • . . CL ~ O i" ,t„ y r . r ~ Marc , yw ~ - • J r K~ L V 4w C . rr U d1 4 ~ rte- ' • ♦ K r ..f ,tw rr r y + w Nw . Y M '4 frA ma y. ~;p L m rte' 0 . y Alp. R w t 21 t O y r s 46 -WA w. ej i, 40 Ilk 64 F ~ ~xy ~ ~ W y}e m +~'IY `~G~k^-' gar L U 0 U 4-J 0 V cn 4-J Jc u r) V C6 O CAA c 0 N 00 r-I H I O N U- W lD 00 V I .a y E ul +-j 0 E O cn L Q w N • O ~ lD rl ~ co • J r-I O V f ~ C: U .0 V -C a--+ V) I O Q kJo rl N Ln r-I N V) OC O ~ R RV T 0 Ul 0 C~ L ■=J Ul E Q ` J Vet ~J 4 ...y~..y. L?l + ~w cu (f) O C O co • Q ~ ~ L V 4 L O ~ C Q 'i O Q U CU ~ 4--a a -J C (31 = 4-J a-J to U ! 0 C: ( . • r; +-j Ca = E .E L CLO O aj O O U Ln ~ L U ~ L CU r6 U- o L CL I I U ~ ~1 ~ H Fn H' i U a U O O co O N 4-J Ca OC L f6 to as a-j O L cz m 4-J "Z3 40 E (v E CCS O a ~ Ln bi) • c c _ o 0 o u cn • O U CA a hA o C: O . • - ' m a Ln • ♦.d C: O ~ i _ V) U LL CL O _ 0 ,.C o Q~ C: Q m a, co .0 (3) (/9 E v a Q~ ~ V c n v F~- a ~ r I oC . w a .y ix, +v 4 i a t/'f L L L U L1C o L LU O O zs (13 LL C a c cn ra O c n . W U-) 4-J U H N .(3) O O C: - O Q O O a E Z U ~ U N E o a ~ L o W (3) L ra L. J O v Q D N Q C: co O V) I I y _ y Ln LL L a O L (n Q ~ U C' 0 CL cv a~ - E U 4-j m CL 1 ~ a ~ . . . 4-J Cl O CL C: L O L O cn i.. a E bn a E a a U . a L C: 0 O U E 0 U m Q a O .0 a.i O . . U 4-J N . U fL3 4-J a 0- E L~ as O Q. L f0 . O cn 0 0 0 0 co O (3) 4-J o a~ 0 i. u hn Q 0 LL E a - a-J •V) o CL O ~ Zn • O .v O O Q a N U 4 cu +j O O c a co O 0- v E ft3 ~ ~ V U U L ~ V to O O Q t 0 a O a yd 1 O c cu a~ U 4--0 tw • N N Q > CL N =3 Ca ~ j ~ _ O Ln a ~o.~.E Q o o E " ru c~ o ~ L aj a) > E _v 4-J Ln +j -C o o O cn = L % o i, m V) a O ~ CAA ~ Ca CL 70 LL 4-J O V U L ~ E c6 E Q O u r-I V S Q L f~ a~ 0 N a 0 c~ _0 O a--+ C 0 u ~ U ~ GJ CC3 a ~ U U ai > E O c O 0 a►o a O O O a c~ vn 0 b-0 u c cC3 , ~ O - O Z3 4-J -a _ J f N Q cu a I I E 4-J E uWiD ~ a Q fQ =3 O N aJ -i5 C: ~ a 0 a0 4-0 L CU E O O U ~s ~'T - m V Ln r~ E o LL E +j O ~ U m 4~ au S: \000 _0 cn O o cn = cz "4 • 0 C6 a~ 0 0 Q U fu aJ cu O V ra tai) ' U D a~-+ 0 0 C~tS E ° ts ago Ln O m (U vi tin cn m O -J a) 4--' cn > to cn -0 a) fu +J o o Q O O a cn ro o O m wo -0 w 00 W a) w ca ca c~ m z blo LL - - O c O U V C6 4-J c~ ca .u H ai vi U U O U W C L - O X a) Q 4-J • to o O m 0 O } , ° co c to O o ~ o a, aJ • ° E o -0 CL aj _ p -0 ai rH O N O O + _C 0 ai u CU 4-j * aj M U 4-1 +-j o ai C) 4-j - i- O c„ p ai z0 ai X a' N O c6 p aj o as +-j ~ 0' m E L- + J Y (n p -j a , + p p + V fu 4-J W Q u O (A Q . (7 v r txo (L) O L • N cr co ~ 1 L Q~ Q~ O C: r O U • =3 O O . 4-j U u L C: u - u > E 0 CL Q. E 1.11 3: Q O -j • } y 40 f' ,JAI Q'i. U O .WOMEN E co Q ~ a~-+ O 0 0 E 0 E U CCi 0 O co O . qA J O 0 U O LL- r-i C1 O ~ v ~ co o co r0 L- O O L o V N U O co 4-J U a~-+ 0 +.i c 0 T~3 O m ca 0 QJ -V CQ O O U O_ 4-1 ap c~ a~ U 0 O ~ 4-J a~ s o d] 4 a (3) U S can m L 0 a 4-' o db4 aA a) Ln o0 cu u 0 a co CLO U CL 0 0- U_ 4-0 a Q o co +-j 0 . . . ~ . . E a U 0 U U H- .c: O Ln CO rq .~a h 0 c~ E L 0 a Ln Ri Ln a~ N 0 m ~ a a ~ E 0 0 _0 m -0 m L m 0 m cu E E 0. Cis ow ow -W N ~ O1 Cr vi _0 rq a N c CL 0 CL LnmN~(A E . U 13 0 M ~ Ln 0 L a~ 0 .0 U ~ a ' 0 "Z3 L a 0 _0 co . . 4-j r4 0 0 4+ o L tD Z 0 ~mw W D r-+ ~~T Y -tea W AFFIDAVIT OF KERRY DOWNS I, Kerry Downs, being first duly sworn, depose and say that: I am one of the applicants, along with my wife, in LUP-12-2. We are seeking approval to use our property for a limited number of commercial events or activities. Our property is in active farm use. We produce grass hay on the property. In the last three years (2009, 2010, 2011), we have grossed $19,858, $22,516, and $20,205, respectively, from the sale of grass hay raised on the properly. The annual production of hay on our property ranges from 80-100 tons. At current hay prices of $225/ton, we expect to continue to gross between $18,000 and $22,500 for our farm use of the property. We will charge no more than $2,000 for a wedding or other commercial event or activity on the property. If we receive our approval, we will gross no more than $12,000 for use of our property for commercial events or activities, far less than what we have grossed or project to gross from farm use of the property. The money which we make from the commercial events or activities on the property will be used to supplement our income generated from hay sales, to allow us to keep the property in farm use and support our farm operation. In addition, prior to 2010, we held a number of weddings on the property. During those events, I met a number of guests who were in attendance and who were interested in purchasing hay grown on the property. As a result, a number of hay sales were generated from the events we held on the property. We suspect that will continue, and will market our hay when guests attend a commercial event or activity on the property. I have reviewed the list of neighboring properties found in the Planning Director's Findings and Decision in our case. The properties on that list are representative of the properties in the area in all accounts, including parcel size, predominant use, and ownership patterns. I am not aware of any pesticide spraying on any of the properties in the list, and especially not during the summer or during the evening when we would hold an event. While there may have been some isolated herbicide spraying on a few of the parcels in the past, it was done during the spring, when I would not be holding an event, and I do not recall there ever being any spray drift onto the property. DATED this 28th day of August, 2012. Kerry owns SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me this 28th day of August, 2012. OFFICIAL SEAT. JOSHUA T BOSTOCK NOTARY PUBLIC- OREGON COMMISSION NO. 45974. COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 30 201 Hay Sales via introduction through hosted wedding on property Bates Carhol Attended a wedding 8/09 2009 2 tons $370 2010 5 tons $875 2011 6 tons $1080 2012 2 tons $510 Attended a wedding 8/10 2010 1 ton $185 Thembley Attended a wedding 7/09 2009 11.76 tons $2050 Fichter Attended a wedding 9/09 2009 4 tons $740 2010 8 tons $1240 2011 10 tons $2100 2012 5 tons $1100 Devencenzi Attended a wedding 8/09 2010 10tons $1550 2011 12 tons $4410 2012 6 tons $1320 Roberts Attended a wedding 9/09 2009 3 tons $585 OP\E NPAN S L e g a 1 C e n t e r August 24, 2012 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Deschutes Services Bldg. 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 Re: LUP-12-2 Applicant: Kerry and Deborah Downs Dear Commissioners: The Oregonians In Action Legal Center represents the applicants in the above-numbered matter, and offers this memorandum in support of the application. Please enter this memorandum into the record of these proceedings. The applicants concur with the Findings and Decision made by the Planning Director in this matter, dated June 15, 2012, and urge the Board to affirm that decision. The applicants have introduced evidence in the record to satisfy each of the criteria to operate a commercial event or activities facility on their property, as authorized by DCC § 18.16.042. Therefore, their application should be approved. We are mindful that this is the first opportunity for the Board to interpret this new section of the DCC, and that we are, for lack of a better term, the "guinea pigs" in a case that will likely work its way up the ladder to the Oregon appellate courts. As a result, it is imperative that the Board findings address each of the criteria with specificity. With that in mind, we offer the following additional comments to supplement our previous submittals. INCIDENTAL AND SUBORDINATE We suspect that one of the primary points of dispute in this application will turn on whether the applicants' proposed use is "incidental and subordinate" to the farm use they are engaged in.on the subject property, as required by DCC § 1 8.16.042(C)(2)(d). The phrase "incidental and subordinate" is not defined in either the DCC or ORS 215.283(4), the state statute which allows the county to approve commercial event or activities facilities in EFU zones. Consequently,-the Board must rely on alternative sources to make the determination of what that phrase means, and apply it to the facts of this case to reach a decision. As you know, since DCC § 18.16.042 is closely patterned upon ORS 215.283(4), and since the "incidental and subordinate" requirement appears in both the DCC and the statute, any effort by the Board to define the phrase "incidental and subordinate" must comply with the legislature's intent in codifying that phrase in statute. Mailing Address: P.O. Box 230637 • Tigard, OR 97281-0637 Street Address: 11735 S. W. Queen Elizabeth Street, Suite 101 • King City, OR 97224 (503) 620-0258 • FAX (503) 639-6891 • website: www.oia.org The process by which an Oregon court (or LUBA) interprets a statute is set forth in State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (2009). In Gaines, the Oregon Supreme Court set out the following methodology for interpreting a statute: "We therefore conclude that, in light of the 2001 amendments to ORS 174.020, the appropriate methodology for interpreting a statute is as follows. The first step remains an examination of text and context. PGE, 317 Ore. at 610-11. But, contrary to this court's pronouncement in PGE, we no longer will require an ambiguity in the text of a statute as a necessary predicate to the second step consideration of pertinent legislative history that a party may proffer. Instead, a party is free to proffer legislative history to the court, and the court will consult it after examining text and context, even if the court does not perceive an ambiguity in the statute's text, where that legislative history appears useful to the court's analysis. However, the extent of the court's consideration of that history, and the evaluative weight that the court gives it, is for the court to determine. The third, and final step, of the interpretative methodology is unchanged. If the legislature's intent remains unclear after examining text, context, and legislative history, the court may resort to general maxims of statutory construction to aid in resolving the remaining uncertainty." Gaines, 346 Or at 171-72 (2009). Applying Gaines, there is nothing in either the text of ORS 215.283(4)(c)(A), or the surrounding context to indicate what the legislature intended the phrase "incidental and subordinate" to require. The term is not defined anywhere in Oregon statute, and appears in only two other statutes - ORS 215.213 (the equivalent of ORS 215.283 for Oregon's two marginal lands counties - Lane and Washington), and ORS 215.453, relating to wineries. There is, however, a small bit of legislative history that is helpful in determining what the legislature intended the phrase "incidental and subordinate" to mean. ORS 215.2$3(4), the subsection authorizing commercial events in EFU zones, was adopted by the Oregon Legislature in 2011 as Senate Bill 960. SB 960 was adopted by the Oregon Senate on June 2, 2011, and was sent to the Oregon House of Representatives, where it was subsequently referred to the Oregon House Rules Committee. The House Rules Committee held a public hearing on SB 960 on June 9, 2011. At that hearing, Art Schlack, the land use specialist for the Association of Oregon Counties, and a person who was instrumental in the drafting and negotiations leading to the passage of SB 960, was asked by Representative Paul Holvey, a member of the House Rules Committee, what the term "incidental and subordinate" meant. In his response, Mr. Schlack indicated that the phrase was not defined in SB 960, that it had been used in conjunction with other land use activities in the past and has some historical use, and that it "certainly is less than 50 percent, but at this point there is not a clear definition of incidental and subordinate." In response, Representative Holvey asked if Mr. Schlack's "less than 50 percent" comment was directed at the uses. Mr. Schlack responded that it was "less than 50 percent of the income." That was the conclusion of the hearing. The House Committee then proceeded to immediately vote on the bill, the bill was approved unanimously, and the bill was subsequently approved by the Oregon House on a 53-5 vote. Assuming, based on the aforementioned colloquy between Mr. Schlack and Representative Holvey, that the legislature intended the phrase "incidental and subordinate" in ORS 215.283(4)(c)(A) to require that less than 50 percent of the income generated by use of the property to come from the commercial events and activities authorized by the statute, the applicants in this case more than meet that test. Mr. Downs has previously submitted his IRS 1040 Schedule F returns for the last three tax years. The Schedule F documents show the farm income which the applicants generate from "farm use" on the subject property. The applicants income from farm use on the subject property for the last three years was $19,858 (2009), $22,516 (2010), and $20,205 (2011). As the attached affidavit from Mr. Downs indicates, the applicants will not charge more than $2,000 per commercial event on the subject property. This amount represents the entire fee which the applicants receive from each commercial event. Assuming the applicants book all six events which would be authorized by their application each year, the maximum amount of income they will generate from the use of the subject property for commercial events is $12,000. This amount is significantly less than 50 percent of the income which the applicants receive from the production and sale of hay grown on the subject property. In other words, the use of the property for commercial events is "incidental and subordinate" to the use of the property for hay production, which is obviously a "farm use" as that term is defined in ORS 215.203. Moreover, as Mr. Downs indicates, the current market price for hay is $225/tan. The annual production of hay from the subject property is 80-100 tons. At today's price, the applicants will gross $18,000 to $22,500 from the sale of hay. This amount greatly exceeds the amount which the applicants will gross from use of the subject property for commercial events or activities. Alternatively, if the County wishes to adopt a different test for "incidental and subordinate," the applicants meet those tests as well. For example, in the Planning Directors Findings and Decision, staff adopted an analysis that the use of the subject property for commercial events and activities was "incidental and subordinate" to the primary farm use of the property based upon the very minor percentage of the calendar year that the property would be used for commercial events compared to the amount of time the property was used for farm use, or, alternatively, the relatively minor portion of the property devoted to the commercial activities compared to the portion of the property dedicated to farm use. Under either of those two scenarios, the use of the property for commercial events will be "incidental and subordinate" to the farm use on the property. The applicants agree with the foregoing staff analysis, but urge the Board to make subsequent findings that the proposed use would also be "incidental and subordinate" based upon the income test. Finally, a review of prior Oregon case law does not provide much useful guidance on what the phrase "incidental and subordinate" means for purpose of ORS 215.283(4)(c)(A). For example, in Reed v. Jackson County, LUBA No. 2009136 (2010), LUBA held in dicta that: "n3 We seriously question whether large commercial weddings held on EFU-zoned property would satisfy the requirement that the accessory use be "incidental and customarily subordinate to principal uses" and "necessarily and customarily associated with, and appropriate, clearly incidental, and subordinate to" the principal farm uses allowed in EFU zones, as required by LDO 6.4.1." LUBA's interpretation certainly address one of the types of "other commercial events" contemplated by SB 960, but is an interpretation not of the legislature's intent, but of Jackson County's intent in using a similar phrase in their local zoning ordinance, and was written prior to the adoption of SB 960, which specifically authorized "commercial events" in the EFU zone. Similarly, in Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition v. Coos County, 51 Or LUBA 500 (2006), LUBA interpreted the phrase "incidental and subordinate" as that phrase appears in Goal 17 as follows: "Goal 17 permits nonwater-dependent uses within water-dependent shorelands that are "in conjunction with and incidental and subordinate to a water-dependent use." Examples of incidental uses include a restaurant on the second floor of an existing seafood processing plant or a retail sales room as part of that plant. Incidental "means that the size of the nonwater-dependent use is small in relation to the water-dependent operation[.]" LUBA's interpretation is consistent with OAR 660-037-0080, one of the OAR's interpreting Goal 17, which provides, in part: "(3) To protect a designated water-dependent shoreland site, local land use regulations may do any of the following: (a) Allow only water-dependent uses. (b) Allow nonwater-dependent uses that are in conjunction with and incidental and subordinate to water-dependent uses on the site. (A) Such nonwater-dependent uses shall be constructed at the same time as or after the water-dependent use of the site is established, and must be carried out together with the water-dependent use. (B) The ratio of the square footage of ground-level indoor floor space plus outdoor acreage distributed between the nonwater-dependent uses and the water-dependent uses at the site shall not exceed one to three (nonwater- dependent to water-dependent). (C) Such nonwater-dependent uses shall not interfere with the conduct of the water-dependent use. Under this interpretation of "incidental and subordinate" a nonwater-dependent use may be considered "incidental and subordinate" to a water dependent use if the nonwater-dependent use occupies a relatively minor portion of the property in comparison to the water dependent use. There is no reliance upon income generated by each type of use, hours of operation of each type of use, etc. It is simply a comparison of the amount of land occupied by each type of use. If this is the correct interpretation, then the applicants in this case certainly meet the standard, as evidenced by the record. In Heilman v. Corvallis, 47 OR LUBA 305 (2004), LUBA was asked to define the phrase "incidental and subordinate" as it was used in the land use regulations of the City of Corvallis, and specifically as it related to the amount of sales of non-construction related items at a big box hardware store like Lowe's or Home Depot. According to LUBA: "With respect to the sales of materials not related to construction/maintenance/repair or remodel--such as house plants, barbeques or comestibles from food or coffee carts--the city concluded that sale of such items would be incidental and subordinate to the principal use: retail sale of materials related to construction/maintenance/repair or remodeling of structures. Petitioners cite to testimony suggesting that sales of non- construction items are a significant portion of the sales at a typical home improvement stores, and argue that there is no substantial evidence to the contrary. However, the cited testimony is based on a narrow view of what constitutes construction-related material and a broad view of what constitutes non-construction related material, views the city council clearly did not share. In any case, the cited testimony does not establish that sales of non- construction related items at typical home improvement stores are so predominant as to make such sales the principal use. The city did not err in concluding the contrary." It isn't clear from this opinion what LUBA would consider to be "incidental and subordinate" but it appears that the City (and the opponents of the land use approval) were comparing the total sales of the "construction-related materials" v. the "non-construction related materials" to make the determination of which use was primary and which was accessory (and thus incidental and subordinate). In any event, LUBA did not appear to reject the City's test based on total sales as the determining factor. Using this "income" approach in this case, the applicants qualify for the reasons set forth above. LUBA has held that a tennis facility with multiple courts, bleachers, lighting, clubhouse, RV parking etc. is not "incidental and subordinate" to a residence built on the same property. McCormick v. Baker City, 46 Or LUBA 50 (2003). In that case, LUBA relied in part on the dictionary definitions of "incidental" and "subordinate" as follows: "Incidental: subordinate, nonessential, or attendant in significance." "Subordinate: to place in a lower order or class: make or consider as of less value or importance." In McCormick, Baker City had relied on the temporary nature of the tennis facility and the fact that the owners of the residence were not charging people to use the facility, and thus weren't operating a business. LUBA seemed to acknowledge that these could be proper factors, but held that the tennis facility was similar, if not identical, to other types of conditional uses allowed in the zone, and thus couldn't be considered accessory to the primary use. This is an extreme example. Applying the dictionary definitions of "incidental" and "subordinate" used by LUBA to this application, it is clear that the proposed use of the property for commercial events and activities would be both "incidental" and "subordinate" to the farm use on the property. The commercial activities are less significant than the farm use of the property in terms of amount of property used, time devoted to the use during the calendar year, and income generated from the two uses. In Durdan v. Deschutes County, 43 Or LUBA 248 (2002), the County Hearings Officer approved a guest ranch with 10 cabins, 3-4 employees, food service, and recreational activities as being "incidental and subordinate" to a livestock operation with 42 cattle. The Hearings Officer focused on the fact that the guest ranch would occupy less than 2% of the ranch and would be located on the least productive portion of the ranch. The Hearings Officer rejected arguments that the guest ranch would be operated year round, while the ranch would operate only part of the year, and that the majority of the income of the ranch would come from the guest ranch activities. LUBA rejected a substantial evidence challenge brought by opponents to the application, and sustained the Hearings Officer, although LUBA expressly held that they were not going to interpret the phrase "incidental and subordinate" as that term is used in the guest ranch statute. . In Greer v. Josephine County, 37 Or LUBA 261 (1999), LUBA affirmed a Josephine County approval of a auto repair business in a home garage as a home occupation. Josephine County code required that a home occupation be "incidental and subordinate" to the primary use. The County held that the auto repair business met this standard, based on a comparison of the total square footage devoted to the residential use v. the business use, and the time spent each week devoted to the residential use v. the business use. The neighbors complained that the County should have also considered factors such as business activities occurring outside the garage and hours that the garage is available for business use, whether it is actually being used or not. LUBA ruled for the County, indicating that their interpretation was plausible and entitled to deference. Applying this interpretation to the application in this case, the applicants proposed use of the property for commercial activities and events would be incidental and subordinate to the farm use. . Leonetti Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. City of Beaverton, 13 OR LUBA 59 (1985) is an interesting case on the meaning of the phrase "incidental and subordinate." In that case, LUBA held that Beaverton did not err in defining those terms to mean that the accessory use (the use that is required to be "incidental and subordinate" to the primary use) must be. "extremely minor" in comparison to the primary use. LUBA held that that interpretation was a reasonable interpretation of the phrase "incidental and subordinate," although LUBA also held that the phrase is so inexact it could also be interpreted to mean that an accessory use that generates 49% of the income attributed to the property could be "incidental and subordinate" to the primary use generating 51% of the income attributed to the property. The gist of LUBA's opinion is that the phrase "incidental and subordinate" is very imprecise, allowing local governments wide latitude in definitions. No matter how the Board chooses to interpret the phrase "incidental and subordinate" in this statute, the applicants satisfy the test. RELATED TO AND SUPPORTIVE OF AGRICULTURE We suspect that another point of contention in regard to the applicant's request will concern whether the applicant's proposed use of the property for commercial events and activities is "related to and supportive of agriculture" as that term is used in DCC § 18.16.042(C)(2)(d). As an initial matter, the applicants do not believe that ORS 215.283(4)(c) requires that the use of property for commercial events or activities requires a demonstration that the commercial events or activities will be "related to an supportive of agriculture." That phrase is used in the first sentence of ORS 215.283(4) as follows: "(4) The following agri-tourism and other commercial events or activities that are related to and supportive of agriculture may be established in any area zoned for exclusive farm use:" This is the only place in ORS 215.283(4) where the term "related to and supportive of agriculture" appears. The use of the phrase "related to and supportive of agriculture in the first sentence of ORS 215.283(4), before any of the criteria for approving or denying the use are set forth, is an indication that it is not an approval requirement of ORS 215.283(4) that an applicant demonstrate that the use of the property for commercial events or activities be "related to and supportive of agriculture." Rather, the placement of the phrase at the beginning of ORS 215.283(4), and not as a part of the criteria which must be satisfied under ORS 215.283(4)(c), is an indication that any use which meets the criteria under ORS 215.283(4)(c) is automatically considered a use that is "related to and supportive of agriculture." This is significant because, although it is clearly a requirement of DCC 18.16.042(C)(2)(d) that the use of the property must be "related to and supportive of agriculture," meaning the applicants in this case must demonstrate that they have satisfied that requirement, that is not a requirement of ORS 215.283(4), and is simply an additional requirement imposed by Deschutes County. As a result, should the Board choose to clarify the meaning of that requirement in this case, both LUBA and the Oregon appellate courts would be bound by that definition,. provided the definition is not inconsistent with the express language of the DCC. ORS 197.829. In any event, the applicants concur with the Planning Director's interpretation of the phrase "related to and supportive of agriculture" in the Findings and Decision, the analysis which the Planning Director undertook to reach that definition, and the application of the definition to the facts of this case. As Mr. Downs' affidavit indicates, the use of money generated by the commercial events and activities proposed will be used to supplement the income generated by hay sales in order to support the farming operation. Moreover, as Mr. Downs has indicated, and as his supplemental affidavit and additional evidence provides, past use of the subject property for weddings and other commercial events has generated hay sales, as Mr. Downs takes advantage of the opportunity provided by having a large group of people on his property to market the hay produced on site. Direct marketing of the crops grown by the applicants on the subject property is certainly "related to" agriculture - in fact, the marketing of crops grown on the farm is considered a "farm use" under ORS 215.203. The phrase "related to and supportive of agriculture" does not appear in the Oregon Revised Statutes in any location other than ORS 215.283 and ORS 215.213. The phrase has never been defined by LUBA or the Oregon Appellate Courts. It was not discussed in any of the legislative hearings leading to the adoption of SB 960. In short, there is nothing beyond what the Planning Director has identified in the Findings and Decision in this case to guide the Board. That decision should be affirmed. MATERIALLY ALTER THE STABILITY OF THE LAND USE PATTERN IN THE AREA Both DCC § I 8.16.042(C)(2)(g) and ORS 215.283(4)(c)(E) require the applicant for a commercial event and activities facility to demonstrate that the activities will not, in combination with other commercial events and activities facilities or other agri-tourism facilities in the area, "alter the stability of the land use pattern in the area." This phrase, while not defined in either the DCC or ORS 215.283(4), is a phrase that has long been used in Oregon land use law in conjunction with the siting of non-farm dwellings under ORS 215.284. The applicants agree with the Planning Director's analysis of the provision and application to the facts of this application set forth in the Findings and Decision. In addition, to the extent that the county could extrapolate and apply the criteria found in OAR 660-033- 0130(4)(c)(C), the LCDC administrative rule setting forth the test for making the determination of whether a proposed non-farm dwelling would materially alter the stability of the land use pattern in the area, the applicant meets that test as well. As required by OAR 660-033-0130(4)(c)(C), the Planning Director has prepared a table in the Findings and Decision setting out the size and predominant use of all parcels within a one mile radius of the border of the subject property. The total acreage encompassed greatly exceeds 2,000 acres. As the table indicates, 9 of the 33 parcels are less than 10 acres in size, and therefore would not qualify for use as a commercial event or activities facility under the DCC. An additional 3 parcels are in public ownership, and thus won't be used for commercial events or activities. Of the remaining parcels, 17 are used as pasture or for the production of grass hay. 4 parcels have no farm use at all, and thus would not qualify for a commercial events or activities facility. As Mr. Downs notes in his affidavit, the properties listed in the Planning Director's Findings and Decision are representative of the properties in the area in terms of parcel size, predominant use, ownership patterns etc. Mr. Downs is not aware of any pesticide application on any of the properties in the study area. While there may be some isolated spraying of herbicides, if this occurs, it is done in the spring, and not during the six Saturday evenings in the summer when the commercial events which the applicants seek would occur. Given the nature of the farm use in the study area, there is nothing to indicate that the six events which the applicants would conduct should their application be approved would in any way interfere with any of the farm uses on surrounding properties. If the use would not interfere with farm uses on the applicants property, it is far-fetched to believe that it would interfere with uses on surrounding properties. COMPLIANCE WITH ORS 215.296 Both DCC 18.16.042(C)(2)(h) and ORS 215.283(4)(c)(D) require an applicant for a commercial events or activities facility to demonstrate compliance with ORS 215.296, which provides, in material part: (1) A use allowed under ORS 215.213 (2) or (11) or 215.283 (2) or (4) may be approved only where the local governing body or its designee finds that the use will not: (a) Force a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use; or (b) Significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use. The applicants agree with the Planning Director's analysis of this provision and application to the facts of this application set forth in the Findings and Decision. There is no evidence that the applicants proposed use of their property for six commercial events on Saturday evenings during the summer will have any effect on farm practices, much less a "significant" effect, as required by the statute. Therefore, the applicants have met this criteria. COMPLIANCE WITH THE REMAINING PROVISIONS OF DCC 18.16.042 C 2 The applicants concur with the remaining provision of the Planning Director's Findings and Decision regarding compliance with all remaining requirements of this application. In conclusion, the applicants have met all of the criteria which the County requires, and urge the Board to approve their application by adopting the Planning Director's Findings and Decision as their own, with the supplemental modifications suggested in this letter. abrApplicants A 1 534 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300 • Portland, OR 97204 • (503) 497-1000 • fox (503) 223-0073 • www.friends.org yooO Southern Oregon Office • PO Box 2442 • Grants Pass, OR 97528 • (541) 474-1 155 • fax (541) 474-9389 friends Willamette Valley Office • 220 East 11th Avenue, Suite 5 • Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 520-3763 • fax (503) 575-2416 of Oregon Central Oregon Office • 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • (541) 719-8221 • fax (866) 394-3089 August 27, 2012 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 VIA EMAIL Re: LUP 12-2 Downs Application Weddings on EFU Dear Board of Commissioners, 1 am writing today to provide comments on the Kerry & Deborah Downs application to host weddings at their 40-acre hay farm in rural Deschutes County. Thank you for holding a public hearing on this first, significant application under the new code. The application appears to meet the criteria in all but two significant ways. Under SB 960 and your code, which quotes SB 960 exactly, the events must be both "related to and supportive of agriculture" and "incidental and subordinate to the farm use on the property." Neither of these criteria are met. The applicant has asserted the events are related to and supportive of agriculture because couples "WANT to have their wedding on a farm" (emphasis in the original). This does not meet the criteria. There is nothing about weddings as a category that make them in any way related to and supportive of agriculture in general or hay farms in particular. Some objective nexus with fanning is required. The applicant also states that these events are related to and supportive of agriculture because some attendees at the wedding are made aware of the fact that the farm sells hay, and subsequently purchase hay. This is an argument that, if taken to its logical end, is untenable. Essentially it means that any event that would draw people to EFU would be supportive of agriculture. If these interpretations are allowed to stand, the words "related to and supportive of agriculture" will have been virtually read out of the law. Any event including a concert, antique show, soccer match or motorcycle rally could potentially qualify if the event were going to bring people to the property, and the proponent asserted that the attendees wanted to be in a rural setting. In short this reading would essentially conclude that virtually any six events per year are allowed. The courts must assume that the legislature put those words there for some substantive reason. There must be some objective nexus between the nature of the event and agriculture taking place on the property. The application also fails to show that the proposed weddings will be "incidental and subordinate to" the farm use on the property. This measure should be made in tenxls of total income to the farm, yet, no financial information has been submitted comparing hay sales to the wedding business. Further, even if time is an appropriate measure of "incidental and subordinate to" it is inappropriate to measure only the amount of time the actual wedding takes. Marketing, booking, facilities maintenance, arranging catering, sanitation, traffic, music etc. are all significant parts of a wedding business that need to be taken into account. Without this information in the record the applicant has not shown that the proposed wedding business is truly incidental or subordinate to the farming business on the property. For these reasons this application should be denied. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please place these comments in the record for this matter, and place me on any related notice list. Best Regards Pain HarcYv StaffAttorney & Central Oregon Advocate 1000 Friends of Oregon 1000 Central Oregon Office • 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 friends (541) 719-8221 • fax (866) 394-3089 nj 0m.gon Page 2 Harry and Leslie Ketrenos 62237 Powell Butte Hwy. Bend, Or. 97701 To: Deschutes County Commissioners Subject: Public hearing LUP 12-2 Aug. 28, 2012 We don't believe the application has met the criteria set forth in Deschutes County Codes or that it was properly evaluated by the planning department. Mr. Downs application to hold events stated that holding events was supportive of agriculture due to exposing more people to his haying operating allowing possible sales. Forty acres of hay has only so much value. If the crop is sold and there is nothing left to sell to event attendees then where is the event support? Neighbors to his farm have said he usually only makes one hay cutting a year when there are typically a minimum of 2 and usually 3 cuttings per year. Neighbors have also said that the person that cuts his hay normally takes the hay. I feel it is up to the county planning department to determine if Mr. Downs is in fact actually trying to farm and make a profit from his land before issuing a permit. His farm never has a sign saying hay for sale and hay is normally not stored in his hay shed which he has used in prior years to hold events. I see no tie between his events and his agriculture activities when there is no hay to sell or even a place to store that crop when the hay barn where the crop would be stored is in use by his events. It would seem to me that if he were using events to sell his hay crop he would have an ample amount of hay for a prospective buyer to buy or at least allow a prospective buyer to look at the quality of the item he is trying to sell. Katherine Daniels from DLCD provided testimony at a county meeting that financial gain from events should not exceed 25% of the agriculture income. Winery legislation and the county ruling with regard to Faith Hope and Charity incorporated this figure. In a letter by Michael Morrissey (page 10) of the findings it is stated that wedding activities must provide supplementary income to a farm operation that earns a larger income. There is no mention of financial limitations in the permit the county is issuing to Mr. Downs. It is difficult to believe that holding 6 events would generate less income than 40 acres of hay. We would like to see the county evaluate financial statements that uphold that events are subordinate to farming activities on the land. It was our understanding that there must be direct access to the event and if not then land owners must provide consent. It appears Mr. Down's driveway crosses a strip of land owned by Central Or. Irrigation district or BLM. Thank you, Harry and Deslie Ketrenos Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2012 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided. far individuals wishing to address the Board., at the Board's discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Please complete a sign-up card (provided), and give the card to the Recording Secretary. Use the microphone and clearly state your name when the Board calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing will NOT be included in the official record of that hearing. 3. A PUBLIC HEARING on a Type 2 Limited Use Permit for Six Commercial Events and Activities (Weddings) in an Exclusive Farm Use Zone (Downs; File #LUP-12-2) - Paul Blikstad, Community Development Suggested Action: Open public hearing and take testimony. CONSENT AGENDA 4. Signature of Document No. 2012-430, a Contract for Subgrant between the Children & Families Commission and MountainStar Family Relief Nursery 5. Signature of a Letter Appointing Phyllis Lewis to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, through June 30, 2014 6. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of Mike Bonetto from the Public Health Advisory Board, and Thanking him for his Service Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 29, 2012 Page 1 of 7 7. Signature of Letters Reappointing Jack Pribnow, Anthony Rosenthal and Keith Winsor to the Public Health Advisory Board, through August 31, 2015 8. Approval of Minutes: Board Meetings of August 20 and 22, 2012 Work Sessions of August 20 and 22, 2012 CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT 9. CONSIDERATION of Signature of a Letter Appointing Bob Nelson to the Sunriver Service District Managing Board, through August 31, 2015 Suggested Action: Move Board signature of letter of appointment. CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 10. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 11. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 12. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County 13. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 29, 2012 Page 2 of 7 PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues; or other executive session items. FUTURE MEETINGS: (Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting; please call 388-6572) Monday, August 27 1:00 P.M. Administrative Work Session, and executive session under ORS 1.92.660(2) (a), employment of a public officer or employee - NOTE EARLIER TIME Wednesday, Aujaust 29 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday August 30 10:00 a.m. Joint Meeting with City of Bend Council, at the County Monday, September 3 Most County offices will be closed to observe Labor Day Wednesday, September 5 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, September 6 8:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the Sisters City Council, Sisters City Hall Wednesday, September 12 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 29, 2012 Page 3 of 7 Thursday, September 13 7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the Redmond City Council, Redmond Council Chambers Monday, September 17 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, September 20 8:30 a.m. (Tentative) Tobacco Survey Results Discussion Friday, September 21 All Day Association of Oregon Counties' District Meeting - Harney County Monday, September 24 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, September 26 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday, October 1 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Wednesday, October 3 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 29, 2012 Page 4 of 7 Thursday, October 4 8:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the Sisters City Council, Sisters City Hall Wednesday, October 10 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday, October 15 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday, October 22 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, October 24 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday, October 29 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, October 31 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday November 5 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 29, 2012 Page 5 of 7 Wednesday, November -7 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday, November 12 Most County Offices Closed to Observe Veterans' Day Holiday November 13 through_ 16 Association of Oregon Counties Conference Monday, November 19 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) November 22 & 23 Most County Offices Closed to Observe Thanksgiving (November 23 Unpaid Furlough) Monday, November 26 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, November 228 10.00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -T could include executive session(s) Monday, December 5 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 29, 2012 Page 6 of 7 Wednesday, December 7 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, December 12 1 0.00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday, December 17 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 29, 2012 Page 7 of 7