Loading...
2015-515-Minutes for Meeting October 07,2015 Recorded 12/17/2015 DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ 7015.515 NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 12/1712015 03:43:01 pM V 201 -i J-c ES p'eV Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97703-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2015 Commissioners'Hearing Room -Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Alan Unger, and Tammy Baney. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; and for a portion of the meeting, Nick Lelack, Paul Blickstad, and Anthony Reguine, Community Development Department. Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 10:01 a.m. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN INPUT: none 3. PUBLIC HEARING on an Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision regarding a Conditional Use Permit for Nonfarm Dwelling in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone (Clough) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Page 1 of 7 Chair DeBone explained this is the time and place set for a hearing on county land use file number: 247-15-000035-CU (247-15-000403). Department staff will outline the hearing procedures that will be followed. Paul Blikstad, Community Development, informed the audience the Board of Commissioners will take testimony and receive written evidence concerning the applicants request for conditional use for a nonfarm dwelling on an 18.08 acre parcel in the Exclusive Farm use Zone. At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearings body will deliberate toward a decision or continue the hearing or deliberations to a certain date and time. Mr. Blikstad stated the Commissioners must disclose any conflicts of interest. No conflicts were noted. He then asked the audience if any party wished to challenge a commissioner and no challenge was voiced. At this time, Chair DeBone opened the hearing and directed staff to proceed with the staff report. Mr. Blikstad noted the applicant submitted a soils study by Sage West as completed by Roger Borine to determine areas on the property with class 7 soils. The application was referred to a public hearing due to the fact that the proposed homesite was located on irrigated ground as well as receiving opposition from neighbors. Discussion held on the proposed locations of the dwelling on the property, soils testing, and distance to gas pipe line. The policy question is this: If Conditional Use Permit application for a nonfarm dwelling meets the "generally suitable" standard for farm use test, does it also qualify as meeting the "least suitable" standard. Staff researched the least suitable standard which is not intended to be applied to nonfarm dwellings. Least suitable standard is specific to Deschutes County. The generally unsuitable standard requires the county to find that a proposed nonfarm dwelling homesite on an exclusive farm use parcel is on soils that are of poor quality and are not suitable for farm use. All of the property on the east side is class 7 soil. The hearings officer required a detailed soils data. Hearings officer rejected the application based on the county code requirement that the nonfarm dwelling be located on the least suitable land. The hearings officer said that the applicants must show that areas of the property that are not eligible for development due to county setbacks and a gas pipeline easement are not the least suitable. Roger Borine, Soil Scientist, conducted the soil survey. He collected data and reviewed prior to going to the site in order to focus in the proper area. Mr. Borine reviewed his findings and recommendations. Discussion held on soil Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Page 2 of 7 types and their relation to agricultural lands. The Commissioners expressed the benefit of having a matrix of the soils difference and criteria for review. Liz Fancher is the attorney for the applicants Dana and. Karen Clough. She presented information in the form of a policy question regarding nonfarm dwelling and the least suitable land. She believes the Clough's application should be approved. If it is determined the area is not the least suitable, must the applicants prove that parts of a parcel that are not buildable are not the least suitable in order to obtain approval of a nonfarm dwelling on land that is generally unsuitable for farm use. The hearings officer had rejected the application based on the County code requirement that the nonfarm dwelling be located on the least suitable land. Ms. Fancher's recommendation is for the Commissioners to adopt the typical approach as County policy. At this time, Chair DeBone opened the hearing for public comment. Kurt and Jennifer Bomke: Mr. Bomke commented there are conflicting statements here. He says Mr. Blikstad told him conflicting information and asked if any commissioners had physically looked at the property. Mr. Bomke stated there is a continuous record of historical irrigation on this property and asked if we are going to allow commercial real estate prices on this property. Mr. Bomke noted they have a nice group of evidence gathered as neighbors and showed a photograph of the property. He pointed out the beautiful green pasture where the Clough's want the dwelling. He commented on the property's irrigation and noted this is farm land and has been farm land. The neighbors have determined where the proper place for the Clough home should be. Commissioner Baney pointed out the Commissioners are bound by the law and asked Mr. Bomke to point out where the neighbors believe the suitable building site should be. Mrs. Bomke also joined the conversation to note the area they believe is the best location for the Clough's to build their house. The neighbors had determined the SE corner of the property is the suitable location. They reviewed letters of support submitted. Chair DeBone noted the end of time for requests to speak. Commissioner Baney asks that we leave the record open to have the opportunity to review the submitted materials from today. Ms. Fancher asked to confirm the scope of the hearing and if looking at the least suitable they will provide more evidence. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Page 3 of 7 For clarification, Nick Lelack, Community Development Department, noted this is a limited de novo hearing on the least suitability question. There are two issues here. One is the policy question on whether least suitable is the same as generally unsuitable. The issue is whether or not this is the least suitable and if the board thinks you have to place the dwelling in the SE corner if proven it is less suitable or not. Ms. Fancher commented they believe a house cannot be placed in that location and if looking at the location the neighbors determined would be the best building site, the house would need to be small, triangular in shape, and three stories tall. Paul Blikstad gave the history of the code starting in 1992. when a major process of updating the EFU zones took place and went from not suitable to least suitable standard in the code but didn't apply to nonfarm dwellings. Then noted that in 2009 somehow ended up as being the least suitable standard that included all of the conditional uses in that section of the code which inadvertently applied the least suitable standards to nonfarm dwellings. At some point in the future clarification of the code will need to be done. Discussion held on definitions of least suitable and property development. The least suitable may be the worst possible portion of the property in this case. While the hearings officer followed the code it may not have been intended. Items of concern for the Board in terms of the code are what discretion is there in interpreting the code and also in defining farming and profitability of farming and if there a requirement to invest in farming with the risk of losing money. Ms. Fancher commented on the historical condition of farming of the area and the soil levels of the properties. Commissioner Baney asked for classification of the Soils 6, 7, and 8 to be included in the record to compliment Mr. Borine's soils study. Chair DeBone noted at this time the oral hearing will be closed the written record will be kept open. Nick Lelack clarified the record will be open for a period of seven days until 5:00 p.m. next Wednesday, October 14, 2015 for any new information. Final arguments may be submitted by the applicant between October 14th and October 21st at 5:00 p.m. Deliberations will then be scheduled after that. On the question of clarification of this hearing being limited de novo. Legal Counsel Dave Doyle noted the limited de novo was on a code interpretation of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Page 4 of 7 least suitable vs generally unsuitable. Chair DeBone supports starting with limited de novo hearing and will stay within the law. At this time, Chair DeBone called for a 5-minute break at 11:41a.m. and. reconvened at 11:46 a.m. 4. CONSIDERATION of Board Signature of Documents regarding a Decision Concerning the Miller Tree Farm Appeal Anthony Reguine, Community Development Department Senior Planner, noted before the Board were a set of five land use decisions regarding the tree farm development covering five separate plats of 10 lot subdivisions. Deliberations had been held regarding issues raised by hearings officer. The hearings officers had found the applicant had met the criteria but needed additional information regarding wildlife and wildfire plans needed additional detail. The community development department created a matrix of the plans and now they have drafted land use decisions with detailed exact concerns and findings. The Board thanked Mr. Reguine for his work in developing the matrix for their review. Chair DeBone commented this can be a boiler plate for activities in that wildland urban interface. UNGER: Move approval of Board signature of Documents 2015-638, 2015- 639, 2015-640, 2015-641, and 2015-642. BANEY: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Baney requested removing Item #1 for discussion and then deferring the approval of minutes to another meeting for more time for review. 1. Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2015-050, Renaming the Personnel Department as the Human Resources Department and renaming the Personnel Manager as the Human Resources Director. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Page 5 of 7 Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator noted when recruiting for the Personnel Services Director position the title was actually changed to HR director and this Order formalizes that process. Danielle Fegley commented that the term personnel as defined as a notion of processing of paper and transactions. The department changing to human resources reflects the partnership with departments in lending additional support and adding different expertise in becoming aware of employment law, recruitment standards, and best practice standards and compliance. BANEY: Move approval of Order No. 2015-050. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. 2. Approval of Minutes: • Business Meeting of September 23, 2015 CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 3. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the amount of $38,877.47. BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. LINGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 4. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District in the amount of$619.99. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Page 6 of 7 LINGER: Move approval, subject to review. BANEY: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 5. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the amount of$537,001.28. BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. 6. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA. None were offered Being no other items brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:56 a.m. • DATED this 7/('� Day of N 2015 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Anthony 4/77ft'/(2, DeBone, Chair Alan Unger, Vice Chair ATTE T: C_A-45 Tammy aney, missioner ecording Secre ary Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Page 7 of 7 �J�ES cd� Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97703-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA —Revised* DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2015 Commissioners'Hearing Room-Administration Building- 1300 NW Wall St., Bend 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN INPUT: This is the time provided‘for 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. PUBLIC HEARING on an Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision regarding a Conditional Use Permit for a Nonfarm Dwelling in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone (Clough) —Paul Blikstad, Community Development Suggested Action: Open hearing; take testimony; close hearing; deliberate if appropriate. 4. CONSIDERATION of Board Signature of Documents regarding a Decision Concerning the Miller Tree Farm Appeal —Anthony Reguine, Community Development Suggestion Action: Move Board signature of Documents No. 2015-638, 2015- 639, 2015-640, 2015-641, and 2015-642. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Revised: 10/6/15 Page 1 of 4 CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Board Signature of Order No. 2015-050 Renaming the Personnel Department as the Human Resources Department and renaming the Personnel Manager as the Human Resources Director. 2. Approval of Minutes: • Business Meeting of September 23, 2015 CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 3. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 4. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 5. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County 6. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA To watch this meeting on line, go to: http://www.deschutes.orq/bcc/page/board-meeting-videos Please note that the video will not show up until recording begins. You can also view past meetings on video by selecting the date shown on the website calendar. 411( Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and ® activities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541)617-4747, or email ken.harms @deschutes.org. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Revised: 10/6/15 Page 2 of 4 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.) Tuesday, October 13 3:00 p.m. Department Update—Forester/Natural Resources—Allen Conference Room Wednesday, October 14 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Monday, October 19 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Tuesday, October 20 10:00 a.m. Meeting of 911 Executive Board at 911 2:00 p.m. Human Resources Update—Allen Conference Room Thursday, October 22 1:30 p.m. Department Update—Adult Parole &Probation—Unger Building, Redmond 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Sisters City Council, Sisters City Hall Monday, October 26 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Revised: 10/6/15 Page 3 of 4 Wednesday, October 28 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Monday, November 2 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Tuesday, November 3 3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of the Public Safety Coordinating Council Wednesday, November 4 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Thursday, November 5 3:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Fair Board, at Fair/Expo Conference Room Wednesday, November 11 Most County offices will be closed to observe Veterans'Day. Monday, November 16 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Tuesday, November 17 10:00 a.m. Meeting of 911 Executive Board at 911 14 Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541)617-4747, or email 011 ken.harm s(c7deschutes.orq. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Revised: 10/6/15 Page 4 of 4 U�v-rEs^ L b W ALit#1:k ❑f r' , { 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 —=I * DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2015 Commissioners'Hearing Room-Administration Building- 1300 NW Wall St., Bend 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for 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. PUBLIC HEARING on an Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision regarding a Conditional Use Permit for a Nonfarm Dwelling in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone (Clough) —Paul Blikstad, Community Development Suggested Action: Open hearing; take testimony; close hearing; deliberate if appropriate. 4. CONSIDERATION of Board Signature of Documents regarding a Decision Concerning the Miller Tree Farm Appeal —Anthony Reguine, Community Development Suggestion Action: Move Board signature of Documents No. 2015-638, 2015- 639, 2015-640, 2015-641, and 2015-642. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Revised: 10/6/15 Page 1 of 4 CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Board Signature of Order No. 2015-050 Renaming the Personnel Department as the Human Resources Department and renaming the Personnel Manager as the Human Resources Director. 2. Approval of Minutes: • Business Meeting of September 23, 2015 CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 3. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 4. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 5. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County 6. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA To watch this meeting on line, go to: http://www.deschutes.orq/bcc/page/board-meeting-videos Please note that the video will not show up until recording begins. You can also view past meetings on video by selecting the date shown on the website calendar. emiDeschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and ripactivities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541)617-4747, or email ken.harms @deschutes.org. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Revised: 10/6/15 Page 2 of 4 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. 1f you have questions regarding a meeting,please call 388-6572.) Tuesday, October 13 3:00 p.m. Department Update—Forester/Natural Resources—Allen Conference Room Wednesday, October 14 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Monday, October 19 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Tuesday, October 20 10:00 a.m. Meeting of 911 Executive Board at 911 2:00 .m. Human Resources Update—Allen Conference Room p P Thursday, October 22 1:30 p.m. Department Update—Adult Parole & Probation— Unger Building, Redmond 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Sisters City Council, Sisters City Hall Monday, October 26 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Revised: 10/6/15 Page 3 of 4 Wednesday, October 28 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Monday, November 2 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Tuesday, November 3 3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of the Public Safety Coordinating Council Wednesday, November 4 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Thursday, November 5 3:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Fair Board, at Fair/Expo Conference Room Wednesday, November 11 Most County offices will be closed to observe Veterans'Day. Monday, November 16 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Tuesday, November 17 10:00 a.m. Meeting of 911 Executive Board at 911 eig ua wsbtae programs activities. To request County this enco information rges persons in an alternate ith dia format ilities please to par call participate t(541)in all 617-4747, or email and ®® ken.harms @_deschutes.orq. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Revised: 10/6/15 Page 4 of 4 41„ N e'u� „�aoiZ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK 1(3/7)/5 Agenda Item of Interest Date Name 1 `t 13vke--? Address gt;--1 U 5s IQJ Be44 C R. ITV!) ) � l Phone #s I ` I q tte4 ` Ike E-mail address ")?-1-1< ku--r4 e v.1/1,6?-`,- cory”- In Favor Neutral/Undecided WOpposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? IyYes No z BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING --r REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest LeAs- 1- S L( I-1-0 41-6, . Date I b 7 Name 'e,f) n 1 ?DofyIK-6 Address 9-2- 05 0 r 1 C KS 0 {'1 1 d • 1 Efnd , � q1-7-01 Phone #s s``-7' / 5 0 — 3315 E-mail address j4. SoSN RQ Vl a ki a f @ I'l`l a ! I . cow/ In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No 13111,1 YL` Y)(1 of y or my o o f spe/ k . / r-i _ 1n 0 N Ln O airr1 tr kh .,_. to `" kr c nn `v c 4 M L-. Y]n U 1 . c mm t o Pk C i CC L +' _l .. W N' v v v 1 +,' 1=+n v °1` a r v v CL I'1: v C a C ✓ • y,,,•, - Jrr Ot O C 41 - C 7 R ^: C r Vl o_ O 7 L r v n w n wr�,. e., Z •? v ? ti v v bC.q ate„ r; ra v i in a 'ID v 0. cL v O v o E + r.uJ O ii C Vy y 'iii9 l v E N °:GP W* `' CO v rti U 0 +-' '_'. v C et) i`';° r. rd v O ,• 4 fir — O . C - w C Ui ' ti u ,_ a r - .. o -, o F ,.. 'T7 IX) N Yy] C p 1 d ,: 'C7 ^� p C O �.J t#, V °.6 in m n 1 P' .ra r v C vvi r. .. at ':',A..', N g s R 1 ;l0 r 'r uy*•1•s : , s r 9 C ,j' dd 1 9 jr' k4 a "'i o� y°ir, 9 it t X11 ...Y ... '0"...'14,41.0t, dii Iw 4— QJ � a �! t IU tG ._ " �Ih o ,� C 'I ig '. ' ',',g-,,,,,..„,;1,,,r4 r 7"0.' W , ' `dwin� l 1' dd a 1 I u, P 1,"�+ s. 1 ,`7"P trrw r I s>i1 uf7 N r-1 0 N c^i 0 'I k.Rs , @ a 'S:r :4 4 i,ra 4,aN t d) 4 ka+O C i 1,^a -r°o v , bA , '',!'4° ' ", To a -, a T ' o L 0. G � W rJf w r ro - 0 4j ::' .''':.tir,' 5 -c = • v 4 v C cc v r ,, ,,, a a v, 5-ID 9r E V .Yi Cu] p v v ih .P+,,•„ E , > • ni , • c v a r2 ra iii a ` ' y • ',:P, Rai ,3'. q yry 'a kN pp ys 14 ; - — ° , �1P�,,! a) ��qT� - a r-° v ( C ,- v !P'akp pit E'� -- �1 N C ._ •,,,!:&•,,I;;,•.,1. s y � rc �. L• ,4 o Of ry m�,A V i C ? o 0. C — 'D B..r' a .v „, C1, v — rt :' e `— :° C v 4' 'Of) a 4- C• t. b w - O C yyh R -o _a f0 ..• ro ,2�� c E ,, ro cti v c nA L L LA µ; 0 a 1i �: ' 1: IIIIit 4' 7+ a a '- 4 C C 5 E si„ �, }'� a F a rC7 to ,_ w v, ra 4 c;114' :r,,i^ Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM DATE: October 14, 2015 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner RE: 247-15-000035-CU (247-15-000403-A) Issue The issue before the Board of County Commissioners (Board) is whether the least suitable standard is met if, the dwelling site is determined to be on a portion of the parcel that is "generally unsuitable" for the production of farm crops and livestock or merchantable tree species, considering the terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, location and size of the tract. • Central Question: Should a finding of meeting the generally unsuitable standard also mean that the dwelling site meets the least suitable standard? The generally unsuitable standard requires the County to find that a proposed nonfarm dwelling homesite on an Exclusive Farm Use parcel is on soils that are of poor quality, and are not suitable for farm use. The least suitable standard has not been clearly defined, but Staff has found in prior conditional use permit decisions, that these two criteria are essentially the same. The Board's interpretation of these standards (least suitable and generally unsuitable) will be binding on both Staff and the County Hearings Officers for future applications. If the Board decides that there is a least suitable location, then Deschutes County can only approve a homesite in the least suitable area. Appeal The applicants, Dana and Karen Clough, applied for a Conditional Use Permit for a nonfarm dwelling on an approximately 20-acre parcel' in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-TRB) Zone. The application was denied by the County Hearings Officer.2 The applicants appealed the Hearings Officer's decision, and the Board, under Order No. 2015-042, determined that they would hear the appeal. Under section 2 of the Board's order, it states: The property is approximately 20 acres gross area,and 18.08 acres net area. 2 The Hearings Officer did find that the proposed dwelling site was on a portion of the property that was generally unsuitable for farm use. The application was denied based on the applicant not providing enough information on the southeast portion of site to demonstrate that the dwelling site was on the"least suitable"area of the property. Quality Services Performed with Pride "The appeal shall be heard limited de novo only on the issue of least suitable land, DCC 18.16.040(A)(3)." This criterion states: "That the actual site on which the use is to be located is the least suitable for the production of farm crops or livestock." Procedure The Applicants initiated this appeal "in order to resolve a conflict between the way its professional planning staff and a new land use hearings officer address the 'least suitable' requirement." The Applicants requested that "the Board hear this appeal de novo on the issues set forth in this notice of appeal only." Specifically, "the applicant asks that the issues be limited to a review of the hearings officer's new interpretation of the 'least suitable' requirement." The applicant further limited the scope of review by stating that: "none of the other issues raised in this case are new and none present questions of law that should be resolved by the Board." Record Significant amount of written materials have been submitted into the record that must be evaluated to determine if they are applicable to this specific issue on appeal. Based on Staff's review, including those submitted at the hearing before the Board, they are primarily directed at the generally unsuitable standard. The only exception appears to be a portion of the Bomke's submittals, which examines/compares the northeast and southeast areas of the applicant's property for a dwelling site. The Bomkes also gave oral testimony differentiating between the two sites. Liz Fancher submitted the attached material on soil capability classes. Additionally, staff has received an additional submittal from Jennifer Bomke, and also one from Liz Fancher for the applicants, as of today (October 14th). These additional submittals are lengthy. Question of Law (code interpretation) Regarding non-farm dwellings: How (if at all) does the "least suitable" criteria contained in DCC 18.16.040(A), Limitations on Conditional Uses, operate in context with the "generally unsuitable" criteria contained in DCC 18.16.050(G), Standards for Dwellings in EFU Zones? Analysis 1. As a matter of basic semantics, "least suitable" assumes some level of suitability for farming and also some level of unsuitability for farming whereas "generally unsuitable" assumes some level of unsuitability for farming and also some level of suitability for farming. In operation these two standards are indistinguishable. 2. As a matter of basic code interpretation, whenever there is a conflict or inconsistency, the specific controls over the general. In this instance the "least suitable" criteria is associated with general limitations on conditional uses whereas the "generally unsuitable" criteria is associated with specific standards for dwellings in EFU zones. Accordingly, the "generally unsuitable" criteria controls. Findings 1. In the context of non-farm dwellings in EFU zones, the Board can make the following interpretation: compliance with the "least suitable" criteria in DCC 18.16.040(A) is established, as a matter of law, upon a finding of "generally unsuitable" in DCC 18.16.050(G); 2. In the context of non-farm dwellings in EFU zones, the Board can make the following interpretation: to the extent that there is a conflict or inconsistency between the "least suitable" criteria in DCC 18.16.040(A) and the "generally unsuitable" criteria in DCC 18.16.050(G), the "generally unsuitable" criteria controls; 3. Regarding File No. 247-15-000035-CU, the Board can affirm and adopt the Hearings Officer's findings that the applicant's identified location for the non-farm dwelling is "generally unsuitable" for farming. 44' o \ 01. \43 Information taken from the Web Soil Survey (http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm) Irrigated Capability Class Land capability classification shows, in a general way, the suitability of soils for most kinds of field crops. Crops that require special management are excluded. The soils are grouped according to their limitations for field crops, the risk of damage if they are used for crops, and the way they respond to management. The criteria used in grouping the soils do not include major and generally expensive landforming that would change slope, depth, or other characteristics of the soils, nor do they include possible but unlikely major reclamation projects. Capability classification is not a substitute for interpretations that show suitability and limitations of groups of soils for rangeland, for woodland, or for engineering purposes. In the capability system, soils are generally grouped at three levels-capability class, subclass, and unit. Only class and subclass are included in this data set. Capability classes, the broadest groups, are designated by the numbers 1 through 8. The numbers indicate progressively greater limitations and narrower choices for practical use. The classes are defined as follows: Class 1 soils have few limitations that restrict their use. Class 2 soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices. Class 3 soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require special conservation practices, or both. Class 4 soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or both. Class 5 soils are subject to little or no erosion but have other limitations, impractical to remove, that restrict their use mainly to pasture, rangeland, forestland, or wildlife habitat. Class 6 soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuitable for cultivation and that restrict their use mainly to pasture, rangeland, forestland, or wildlife habitat. Class 7 soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuitable for cultivation and that restrict their use mainly to grazing, forestland, or wildlife habitat. Class 8 soils and miscellaneous areas have limitations that preclude commercial plant production and that restrict their use to recreational purposes, wildlife habitat, watershed, or esthetic purposes. Summary by Map Unit — Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon, Parts of Deschutes, Jefferson, and Klamath Counties (OR620) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating 36A Deskamp loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes 3 58C Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes 7 File No. D-13-20 1 Irrigated Capability Subclass Land capability classification shows, in a general way, the suitability of soils for most kinds of field crops. Crops that require special management are excluded. The soils are grouped according to their limitations for field crops, the risk of damage if they are used for crops, and the way they respond to management. The criteria used in grouping the soils do not include major and generally expensive landforming that would change slope, depth, or other characteristics of the soils, nor do they include possible but unlikely major reclamation projects. Capability classification is not a substitute for interpretations that show suitability and limitations of groups of soils for rangeland, for woodland, or for engineering purposes. In the capability system, soils are generally grouped at three levels-capability class, subclass, and unit. Only class and subclass are included in this data set. Capability subclasses are soil groups within one capability class. They are designated by adding a small letter, "e," "w," "s," or "c," to the class numeral, for example, 2e. The letter "e" shows that the main hazard is the risk of erosion unless close-growing plant cover is maintained; "w" shows that water in or on the soil interferes with plant growth or cultivation (in some soils the wetness can be partly corrected by artificial drainage); "s" shows that the soil is limited mainly because it is shallow, droughty, or stony; and "c," used in only some parts of the United States, shows that the chief limitation is climate that is very cold or very dry. In class 1 there are no subclasses because the soils of this class have few limitations. Class 5 contains only the subclasses indicated by "w," "s," or "c" because the soils in class 5 are subject to little or no erosion. They have other limitations that restrict their use to pasture, rangeland, forestland, or wildlife habitat. Summary by Map Unit -- Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon, Parts of Deschutes, Jefferson, and Klamath Counties (OR620) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating 36A Deskamp loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes s 58C Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes e File No D-13-20 2 Nonirrigated Capability Class Land capability classification shows, in a general way, the suitability of soils for most kinds of field crops. Crops that require special management are excluded. The soils are grouped according to their limitations for field crops, the risk of damage if they are used for crops, and the way they respond to management. The criteria used in grouping the soils do not include major and generally expensive landforming that would change slope, depth, or other characteristics of the soils, nor do they include possible but unlikely major reclamation projects. Capability classification is not a substitute for interpretations that show suitability and limitations of groups of soils for rangeland, for woodland, or for engineering purposes. In the capability system, soils are generally grouped at three levels-capability class, subclass, and unit. Only class and subclass are included in this data set. Capability classes, the broadest groups, are designated by the numbers 1 through 8. The numbers indicate progressively greater limitations and narrower choices for practical use. The classes are defined as follows: Class 1 soils have few limitations that restrict their use. Class 2 soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices. Class 3 soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require special conservation practices, or both. Class 4 soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or both. Class 5 soils are subject to little or no erosion but have other limitations, impractical to remove, that restrict their use mainly to pasture, rangeland, forestland, or wildlife habitat. Class 6 soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuitable for cultivation and that restrict their use mainly to pasture, rangeland, forestland, or wildlife habitat. Class 7 soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuitable for cultivation and that restrict their use mainly to grazing, forestland, or wildlife habitat. Class 8 soils and miscellaneous areas have limitations that preclude commercial plant production and that restrict their use to recreational purposes, wildlife habitat, watershed, or esthetic purposes. Summary by Map Unit — Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon, Parts of Deschutes, Jefferson, and Klamath Counties (OR620) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating 36A Deskamp loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes 6 58C Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes 7 File No D-13-20 3 Nonirriqated Capability Subclass Land capability classification shows, in a general way, the suitability of soils for most kinds of field crops. Crops that require special management are excluded. The soils are grouped according to their limitations for field crops, the risk of damage if they are used for crops, and the way they respond to management. The criteria used in grouping the soils do not include major and generally expensive landforming that would change slope, depth, or other characteristics of the soils, nor do they include possible but unlikely major reclamation projects. Capability classification is not a substitute for interpretations that show suitability and limitations of groups of soils for rangeland, for woodland, or for engineering purposes. In the capability system, soils are generally grouped at three levels-capability class, subclass, and unit. Only class and subclass are included in this data set. Capability subclasses are soil groups within one capability class. They are designated by adding a small letter, "e," "w," "s," or "c," to the class numeral, for example, 2e. The letter "e" shows that the main hazard is the risk of erosion unless close-growing plant cover is maintained; "w" shows that water in or on the soil interferes with plant growth or cultivation (in some soils the wetness can be partly corrected by artificial drainage); "s" shows that the soil is limited mainly because it is shallow, droughty, or stony; and "c," used in only some parts of the United States, shows that the chief limitation is climate that is very cold or very dry. In class 1 there are no subclasses because the soils of this class have few limitations. Class 5 contains only the subclasses indicated by "w," "s," or "c" because the soils in class 5 are subject to little or no erosion. They have other limitations that restrict their use to pasture, rangeland, forestland, or wildlife habitat. Summary by Map Unit — Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon, Parts of Deschutes, Jefferson, and Klamath Counties (OR620) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating 36A Deskamp loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes s 58C Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes e File No. D-13-20 4 I October 2015 To County Commissioners; I observed more than one ton of hay being baled on the NE corner of the applicant property. This is irrigated farmland and I am in support of its continued use as irrigated EFU. I personally purchase hay from Mr. Davis on Erickson Rd. His management skills are excellent and year after year he grows and sells a reliable crop. )46/(atik bitivtletH.) These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable -utassificatiurl'in relation to the ge-neratiy unsuitaNgiteltkis merit arid-a beriefidal purpose for EFU land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. • Applicant claimed in appeal to the commissioners the SE corner was not large enough for a home site. Not the truth. SEE EXHIBIT AK • Applicant claimed that the horse operation of the adjoining property has been "shut down" since 2008. Not the truth. SEE EXHIBIT DD and BB • Applicant claimed the NE Corner could never produce more than a half ton, nor had a history of producing. Not the truth. SEE EXHIBIT AA All of these pieces of talking points are to provide support that the least suitable location has merit in Deschutes County. Least suitable is located in the SE corner: WE are in an appeal hearing because the Attorney mislead the commissioners stating that the site was not eligible to be built on. This is not the truth. It is large enough. Even in a recent Newell case the Hearings Officer has several facts to support that the entire remaining portion of the property is producing farm crops. The only factor given as a reason by the applicants in this case is that the site was mislead to be too small; given the identical soil class as the NE. The SE Corner has never produced a crop. Even in the Application the"crops produced section" it only states Hay. Has no history of irrigation. The hearings officer was right on with her decision. That the hearings officer simply said she was wanting more quantitative analysis for this area as rocks have been buried in the SE location and the entire testimony from the applicants is that the entire east side of the property does not produce hay. This is a non-resource area! The County hearing officer is upholding Goal #3! Z These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable classification in-relation to the generally urrsuit I §ii laic - - • • •- - • • rposefor EFU- land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. QUOTES FROM CODE AND ADDITIONAL REPUTABLE AGENCIES A) Mrs. Katherine Daniels quote Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development: (Exhibit A3) The county may make its own determination as to the accuracy and acceptability of the soils assessment. I note that the web soil survey shows the tested area to be irrigated and cropped, an indication of its suitability for farm use." B) 18.16.010. Purpose.A.The purpose of the Exclusive Farm Use zones is to preserve and maintain agricultural lands and to serve as a sanctuary for farm uses. B.The purposes of this zone are served by the land use restrictions set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and in DCC 18.16 and by the restrictions on private civil actions and enforcement actions set forth in ORS 30.930 through 30.947. (Ord. 95-007 §9, 1995; Ord. 92-065§3, 1992; Ord. 91-038 §§1 and 2, 1991) (Exhibit X) C) OREGON STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS &GUIDELINES GOAL#3 OAR 660-015-0000(3) To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.Agricultural lands shall be preserved and maintained for farm use, consistent with existing and future needs for agricultural products,forest and open space and with the state's agricultural land use policy expressed in ORS 215.243 and 215.700. B. IMPLEMENTATION 1. Non-farm uses permitted within farm use zones under ORS 215.213(2) and (3) and 215.283(2) and (3) should be minimized to allow for maximum agricultural productivity. (According to the testimony applicant would stop farming 10 plus acres with the home site) D) "PRIME FARM LANDS have an adequate and dependable water supply from precipitation or irrigation." (Exhibit T www.ars.usda) 3 These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable —classification in relation to the generally unuit Oti s irte a`beneficial purpose fur'CF-tJ land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. QUOTES CONT.... E) Tom Bennett's from NRCS: " it becomes the land owners decision on the potential they(the owner) would want out of the land." Mr. Clough states that he can only grow 6tons of hay on 16 Acres of High quality farmland? Irrigated farmland (pg. 69/l17Land Use Application). Including his "Westside soils". Compare this to Mr. Robinson former farmer for the property. (Exhibit B2) F) Mylen Bohle OSU EXTENSION Office: "If land can be irrigated land can be farmed" The NE site has a history of water rights. The SE corner has not had a history of irrigation. More importantly it has never been used for crops or livestock according to the applicant. G) Oregon law, as implemented by the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, places strict limits on the siting of nonfarm dwellings in EFU zones. The Oregon courts have stated that under Oregon law, nonfarm dwellings should be the exception and that approval for them should be difficult to obtain. http_//www.deschutes.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community developmen t/page/781/supplemental application_for_nonfarm dwelling_or partition, in efu zone .pdf 4/2013 (Exhibit Z) These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable —class • . '. • - - . - .- - - ' I 'italtp§itreg#4s merit and eneficial purpose for EFL` land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. H) Executive order from governor/Office Order 12-07 Even the governor of Oregon in an Executive order writes "Central Oregon's irrigated lands are high value crop lands." (Exhibit Y) Why then is the applicant allowed to build a home here when it is and has been irrigated? Curious what high valued farmland is then? A generally unsuitable site has been farmed and made profit. This is exactly why the least suitable is so important as that site would most likely not have irrigation and an opportunity to make profit. The Governor writes: "Oregon is a great place for growing food and fiber. There are, however, significant variations between different regions of the state in terms of the types of farming and forest uses that are best suited for the landscape, and in the economic returns from farming, forestry and ranching. The flat, fertile fields of the Willamette Valley differ from lands in the Rogue and Umpqua valleys and lands along Oregon's coast. High value crop areas in parts of Central Oregon irrigated from the Crooked and Deschutes Rivers differ from the high plateau wheat fields in the northern part of the state. Office of the Governor State of Oregon " I) The laws need to be upheld. Hold the line firm for keeping farmlands a "sanctuary" in Deschutes County. (Exhibit X) (CODE 18.16.010. Purpose. A. The purpose of the Exclusive Farm Use zones is to preserve and maintain agricultural lands and to serve as a sanctuary for farm uses. B. The purposes of this zone are served by the land use restrictions set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and in DCC 18.16 and by the restrictions on private civil actions and enforcement actions set forth in ORS 30.930 through 30.947. (Ord. 95- 007 §9, 1995; Ord, 92-065 §3, 1992; Ord. 91-038 §§1 and 2, 1991) J) The role of EFU is to protect farming. EFU is not in place to provide best and most suitable home sites. 5 These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable • - •• • - . • • - •- - . .it 'i 'it s-rrr- s . ._ - iv .. - tFtJ`�y land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. K) Current Land Discussions in Bend 2014 Agricultural Lands Program I Deschutes County Oregon How does Irrigated and making profit $7600 per year fit into the program? Agricultural Lands Program I Deschutes County Oregon The Community Development I:)epartment cecentlr analyr:eel the County's agr'ieultrrzal hinds program to determine if changes are needed. This analysis included community outreach with six}:public nncctings lrelcl throughout the County during the mouth of May 2014.. 'These meetings ... Supporting EFU land and the SE corner is the least suitable amongst generally unsuitable land: If these facts support generally unsuitable then we believe least suitable has incredible merit: L) Airstrip is not on the least suitable. Application denied because it is high valued farm land. County Hearings Officer Karen Green denied the application on Sept. 14, 2004. noting that it could not be shown that the airstrip would be located on the portion of the land deemed least suitable for farm crops or livestock use — a requirement under county, not state, land use rules. Dense filed the appeal 10 days later. http://www.bendbulletin.com/news/1502238-151/private-airstrip-application-sparks- debate-on-land-use APPLICANTS DENIAL OF PRIOR HORSE RAISING OPERATION 1) In a quote prepared by Karen Clough she states that in 2008 she stopped raising horses. Karen is distancing herself from her farm operation. Cloughs realize that they cannot sell half and then claim they cannot farm the remaining portion. The Cloughs ran a training and raising operation. Horses would be brought to the property, raised and resold. Customers would come and go every day down the driveway and we could see and hear lessons and training going on in the arena with clients directly in front of the McHones. In fact the McHones were so bothered by the dust and constant commotion at the stables that they would never go outside on their back yard. Sharon McHone who's back yard is adjacent to the riding arena would state that she would start at 8 and go til 9p at night with the horses and lessons. 6 These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable classification in relation to the generally unbuitfibitptitdMitis merit and a beneficial purposwfor-EFU land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. (See Exhibit DD and BB) 2) GENERALLY UNSUITABLE IS BETTER THAN LEAST SUITABLE (See Supportive letters EXHIBITS AA and GG): A)The land owner relied on Don Barbin and now their hired expert realizes that the Clough manipulated the land to get the homesite. Don asked for his letters to be removed and this should be granted. Don also states that it is farmable and the pipeline does not affect the growth. Don Barbin submitted pipeline aerials that were not considered in the HO decision but the Applicants arguments were. 3)HOME SITE IN THE SE CORNER A)The portion in the SE corner of the property where the applicants and soil scientist claim there is not room for a home site is not truthful. There is room for a home site and septic tank and drain field (10ft easement). This is the same area that the hearings officer denied the application on because as she states that this is the least suitable. The drain field does not have the same easement requirements as a home site and the minimum under state law fits into this area. The structure that is currently in this location is temporary/portable and is identical in structure(only smaller) to a barn they sold and moved off the property they previously owned. Applicants told us that the small shed would be moving with them. They are currently storing trailer and mower so they could use it for a garage. There is additional room for a non-farm dwelling next to the structure. Thus there being a structure in the existing area is not reason to overlook that it is the least suitable for a home site. Now that the soil scientist submitted data it is now affirmed that the site is suitable for a drain field and septic as well as a home site. Just because the applicants wants to build a large house and and it doesn't fit into the designated "least suitable" area they should not be granted a site of their choosing; or defer an error in judgement on the hearings officer. This site is the least suitable as there is no previous farming history or irrigation The structure could remain in place if they choose as the home site and septic and drain field would be to the south of this structure. There is room for a home site. There is more than enough room for a drain field towards the Carroll property. The Code for least suitable has been put to good use in this case as it did determine a site that would allow for continued farming. These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable classi . '• - . '• • - •- - - • u o'ttibilePtittNitkis merit and'a berreticiatpurpose torf tJ^- land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. If this is the new generally unsuitable farm ground with these facts would encourage the county to adopt a third option: 4)SOILS A)The premeditated idea to create a home site is exactly why we are here today. The data points do not add up and it is an attempt to create a least suitable location on generally suitable ground. At points in the testimony Mr. Borine would suggest that only the west side is farmable and then later contradict himself by saying "why would I test good soils found in the west side." The east side has equally good soils rating class 3. Half of the property and dividing the property North and South there are "west side" soils that this farmer has not farmed! Look closely at the map. He did not farm all of the west side lands as a good portion of the land has not been baled when they claimed they do farm it. B)"Why wouldn't a farmer farm the "good soils?" A Portion of the West side class 3 soils are irrigated by the pivot and did not produce because the pivot was turned off. C) According to DLCD "soil assessments should not solely be used by local governments when making these types of findings." (Exhibit S) D) Mr. Barbins letter dated 8/14/2015 coincides with the hearings officer and staff findings and Mr. Borine that the land has greater than 10-inch depth of soil allowing the land to be farmed. Mr. Cloughs letter that was said to be statements of the farmer was purely all wishful thinking. This letter was clearly put together by Mr. Clough and Mr. Barbin wanted the letters removed from the record. All class 7 soils have a depth of less than 10inches. This brings into question the actual classification of the soils on the proposed home site are even really and truly class 7. Also would note that class 3 soils are intermixed within the class E) The home site includes class 3 soils. With the lack of water, stripping the soil of nutrients from being hayed it is suggested that these soils are actually class 6 or better. For this reason the land is not the least suitable as it relates to the generally unsuitable because the soils are farmable. F) Also in the final arguments from the applicant "Class 7 soils are not suitable for farm use when irrigated. Raising hay on the Eastern half is clearly not These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable classification i - '• • - •- - - • I italtptitteasisTnerit bene ' U land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. profitable." Well then it clearly must not be class 7 soils. If the farmer Don Barbin cut hay this year, made a profit then the soil must be better than class 7 soils because it was farmed after being succumbed to years of drought from the applicant. Pretty amazing results. I argue that it is possible the soils are class 3 and as all of Mr. Borines literature states they are class 6 when not irrigated. Oregon Department of Land does not state that the soil test is accurate. (Exhibit A3) With 26 of the 29 soils were 10 inches deep and 11 of the 29 test pits were 17" deep to basalt. Where is it mentioned anywhere that Mr. Borine advised the applicant to improve soil content. It's clear that additional soil amendments and harrowing could have been done to improve these lands with the soil depth. Mr. Borine speaks specifically that Plantain thrives in poor shallow soils. Mr. Borine claims are on the other adjoining areas of the property that "there is no need to test these soil areas" are infested and thriving with Plantain. According to Mr. Borine "Plantain thrives in arid shallow soils like over the gas pipeline"; how is it possible that these same Plantain species are infested and have consumed the West portion where the wheel line is irrigating and has deep soils found in the West area that Mr. Borine claims. One test site in the area of recorded class 3 cannot be indicative of the entire area. OR can it? There are class 3 soils recorded by Mr. Borine in the home site that the applicant is requesting. How much land does the one good soil site rating cover? Clearly plantain will grow in any soil type. After talking with NRCS a soil scientist can create an entire line of recorded soil ratings by testing only one site. This also give much support and evidence that the other areas of the property have identical and in some cases worse scenarios because they have not been farmed at all for revenue or profit. A soil expert cannot rely on one test site for suitability and gives the hearings officer every right to make her application denial. 5)EFU FARM DEFFERRAL A) Last reported farm use for profit from the Cloughs during their ownership was "running livestock" according to the County assessor office Sept 30, 2015. The Cloughs make no mention of historical activity of the land in question when asked on their own application packet. County Tax assessor has been told that the farm practice was "running livestock." 9 These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable . •• • - •- - ty-nrrsaitti'i glas s meritarid--beneficial purpose for EFU land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. 6)HAY FOR BOARDING OPERATION A) One ton of hay feeds a horse 100days. (2000Ibs/20Ib consumed= 100 days) Interestingly you would not see any tax documents from the Cloughs for the nonfarm dwelling in question or perhaps the entire lot. They would use their hay to feed the horses in training, boarding and their own sale horses on the adjacent tax lot. At incomes of 680 per month like maybe in September of 2014 one ton of hay brings in $2,240 (Exhibit DD and Exhibit BB). The applicants state it is full of weeds, well lets remember horses are herbivores and they eat weeds, and they even eat wood. Weeds is all Perspective. What we call grass, horses call dinner. When we call clover a weed, horses call it delicious. All hay has weeds unless you are a certified "weed free" grower. Low quality hay is often used in animals that become laminitic easily. Remember more than one ton was grown on the .58 Acre home site and was baled and sold off the field in 2015. A letter from Don Barbin supports this. We Personally counted the number of bales and more than 1 ton was in baled. It is common practice to mix hay for farm animals. Ranchers offer a high nutrient hay as well as a lower energy hay for the animals to create heat in the winter months and to keep their ruminant and non-ruminant stomachs moving. This keeps stalled animals from being bored. But lets just use the Cloughs non fertilized and drought hay crop(remember according to the applicant statement they only irrigated to control dust and erosion) would be at a half ton as they claim has been the historic yield (Clough response to staff pg. 5) On Applicant horse Farm: The applicant feeds less than 101bs of cured hay because she also turns out the horses in 12-hour rotations on the south fields, which are identical fields to the North East() was asked to work for the applicant). Given the above information, then the one-half ton of hay would feed a horse 100 days. Profit of$2,240.00 Just in 3 months to applicant. (10001b/101b=100days @680/month). Given that profit can be made on a "generally unsuitable site" that is equal or greater in profit to the high value farm land on the "west side" it is incredibly clear that the position needs to be held that any land with a history of irrigation is EFU and is not eligible for a non farm dwelling. May we submit that this exact example of this 10 These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable —classification irrrelatiorr to LI-re-generatty-unsuitaNgitleAds merit and a berrefieiatpurpose-for-EFU land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. application be used for the counties future plans in the Agriculture Lands Program. As well as this case might be considered for review by COI. B) Furthermore; According to Mr. Borine Soils are class 3 when irrigated and class 6 when not irrigated; Deschutes County should consider employing a revision for class 7 soils with depths of 10 to 17 inches that are surrounded by class 3 soils. Irrigation changes the entire soil structure as proven by the hay crop this year. This knowledge is an excellent teaching for all of us. The Agriculture Lands program could benefit greatly by employing this information. And lastly "soil should not solely be used as the key defining point for a home site." (exhibit s) 7)KEEPING LEAST SUITABLE AS CODE: A) With this new information it was important to continue to make a "home dwelling difficult to obtain" (Application for nonfarm dwelling Exhibit Z) on the least suitable site so that all the truths may surface. Least suitable is not the same as generally unsuitable as shown by how quickly High Quality farmlands will produce product on any given year. This is supported by Mother Nature with the drier climates in Bend Oregon and how easily an applicant can create a negative situation by purposefully not supplying water. Not supplying water at the proposed non-farm dwelling is Incredibly easy to do and only offer water on the west side. This statement is supported by the fact the applicant has several ways to supply water to the other areas. B) The applicant had an opportunity to study the SE location further but chose not to do so. Even though it is non-resource area of the property. otherwise the tricks of temporary farm structures(which look permanent) on a "lesser preferred location" or purposely not irrigating would be endless. Remember Mr. Borine(soil specialist) made a visit in March 2008 with Mr. Clough. This entire non-farm dwelling was premeditated. I believe the least suitable has merit. C) Statements from the Applicants Lawyer "The entire east side contains class 7 soils." NOT TRUE! Class 3 soils are on the East side (Pg. 7/16 final arguments). There are class 3 soil samples in the homesite envelope. Mr. Borine maps do not coincide with each other. The recent map has included the asphalt driveway with the property line and has sites 5,4,3. Down by site 39 has full exposure of the asphalt driveway outside of the property demensions. 11 These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable classification in relation to the generally urisuithiMti i s-merit �neficial purpose-f € tY-- land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. D) Cloughs watered the entire field through and watered bad soils through 2014; The home site was also watered all throughout 2015. The water is "off" not removed from the site. The water is "in stream." Very different from not having irrigation allocation! (Exhibit MM) E) Page 26/117 where soil class 3 is found labeled for the East side; but Mrs. Fancher states that the entire east side is class 7; not true. These statements support that the SE corner is the least suitable and the least suitable has merit amongst these facts allow for a generally unsuitable designation: F) The least suitable site has generated more that $7200 a year using the pasture. Making all profit. Even according to Mrs. Clough Testimony she pastured horses on the proposed home site. The land was used for both grazing and exercising. Mrs. Clough denied running a horse operation since 2009 in her testimony. (SEE Exhibit G5, DD and BB) The fact that the field is near the road and used as pasture is absurd as a reason. Horses everywhere in Central Oregon have horses pastured along roads including 4 surrounding neighbors with animals; including(not limited to) horses, cattle and llamas pastured quietly and safely along Erickson Rd. This proposed home site has a history of making a profit and for this reason it is crucial that finding a least suitable site is important. The pasture over the home site where these horses grazed is complete with vinyl fencing and electric fence capacity. Now lets remember the horses were near the road because the neighbor dogs. No discussion that the horses were ever moved to the SE location. Furthermore stating that the non-farm dwelling is being asked to be on top of Irrigated High Valued Farm Land. And even if a horse never grazed on a piece of grass, just trotted around would you give a home site because the animal didn't eat anything? Arenas, Paddocks, Feedlots don't grow anything but are a major contributor of the income that is generated because they are a resource area. I was asked to feed her horses on the property that is now owned by Mr. Carroll and the fields with identical aerial, irrigation and forage content and she would graze them and supplement them with additional hay when they would be brought in on a rotation schedule. Mrs. Clough claimed in her written testimony that because she had to supplement the horses with hay is not the truth as to why she pulled them off. This was a chess move in the game of hiding the true use of the property. She already fed 5 up to 10 horses in this same pattern of pasture and baled hay for meals. Mrs. Clough would charge each horse over 350 to be boarded, not including fees to ride in the arena. 12 These county encourage are to encoura a the count to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable classification in relation to the gerieratiy unsuitaapsitteWs merit aroma b nieficial purpose orEFU land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. 8) FROM APPLICANT "TERRIBLE FARMING" LAND DURING TESTIMONY • Applicant Claim that no prudent farmer would farm the eastern half. (Page 6) • Mr. Boring states that the entire East portion of the property is equally unsuitable(remember this is on class 3 irrigated soil and irrigated (Page2) • Cloughs experience a prudent farmer would stop irrigating the entire East portion of the property. (This advice and recommendation given on soils that are class 3 and Irrigated) 9) NOT FARMABLE BECAUSE ITS ROCK and ALONG THE DESCHUTES RIVER (Applicant used a specific location for a reason it was not farmable. This goes against county code that specific location cannot be a reason not to farm). A) According to the Applicants lawyer the idea that a landowner cannot build because use the least suitable area is along the Deschutes River meets the current code and board hearing just held in May 2015. The applicants implied that a hearing should be held with the commissioners because "what if" A rock out cropping existed along the Deschutes River zoned EFU. This type of surface has many farm uses: • This EFU land can be used as a "sacrifice area" when grazing animals and making a profit. This allows the fertile lands to rest after heavy grazing thus being a resource use. It should be noted that the area along the Deschutes River is considerably colder making the East side of Bend superior farming land with an area already comprised with a short growing season. • The storage abilities for tractors, hay farm equipment, animal shelters are endless and are used in conjunction with farm use as resource areas. "If" the Cloughs have all Class 3 soils for farming they would have to put resource buildings on good soil as well. Fortunately those properties on the Deschutes River have an area that they can put this type of farm use without feeling disappointed about using good farm soil for storage or renting a place to store equipment because the land is just too good. By allowing this type of change in the decision it goes directly against that the soil type is only one component to receiving a home site. (Exhibit S) Just because a site has rocks on an easement goes against the code that location is not a viable reason for a CUP. Either is the location along the Deschutes. We are here today to decide least suitable as it relates generally unsuitable and now by the applicants 13 These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable ctassificatiorvin relation tultre-genaratly-urnsuittib9EPgitrenis merit arid a beneficial purpose furEFU land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. appeal for the Deschutes River we are also going to change the Code about a "location" Mrs. Fancher used a specific location to give an example for the appeal "Deschutes River." Oregon. Department of Land Conservation and Development Agricultural Soils Capability Assessment Local Governments Soils assessments provided by soils professionals can provide more detailed and valuable information on agricultural lar ratings. However, soils ratings are only one part of the definition of agricultural land. Local governments have the respc soils ratings together with other information, to determine whether land is"suitable"for farm use, "necessary"to permi farming, or intermingled as part of a"farm unit."Similarly, only local governments can ultimately determine whether sc considered for nonfarm dwellings or nonfarm land divisions are"generally unsuitable"for the production of farm crops, 'merchantable tree species. Soils assessments should not solely be used by local governments when making these types Supporting that the least suitable is a viable option: 10) ONLY FARMED TO SET UP THE NE CORNER FOR A SITE. HAS NO INTEREST IN FARMING. A) No Second or third cutting of hay was farmed in 2015 on the entire property. And No Hay was baled in the SE lower area in 2014 or 2015. The southeast portion and the area even headed towards the west from behind the temporary structure was not farmed at all in 2015 or in 2014. Bearing the fact that the southeast location is possibly the least suitable site; which is not the purposed home site. Supporting that it is imperative that the county upholds its codes because the least suitable area was the southeast portion comprising of at least 25%of the land. Also supporting why the hearings officer denied the application. If the applicant is truly interested in farming why did he not take a second and third cutting of hay? Was it just to farm as a set up for the non-farm dwelling site? All the attention has been placed on the home site. There has been no discussion that the remaining South and to the East have ever produced anything with class 3 soils. 11) FARMED IN CONJUNCTION W OTHER LAND: A) DCC 18.16.050 A parcel shall not be considered unsuitable solely because of size or location if it can reasonably be put to farm use in conjunction with other land. 14 These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable -classificati• - - '• • - ►- - ally unsuit€'iltptittli s merit-arid a beneficial purpose for EFLF........._ land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. 18.16.050(g)(2)(a). There are adjoining sites Code 18.16.050(g)(2)(a). There is more than ONE non-Exclusive Farm Use properties receiving special assessment that adjoin the applicant property that have not been sought out. The applicant only sought out one property. Thus not making the home site the least suitable. Additionally the applicants argument that EFU land along the Deschutes River should receive a home site was their key supporting appeal on the application. Thus stating that it wouldn't be fair not to give them a home site just because their soil is the least suitable in a location they can not build on. Being located on the Deschutes River with outcroppings speaks to the disqualification that location need not to be a reason for a non-farm dwelling site. Additionally owners could make property line adjustments onto lands that are farmable just to receive a dwelling at a better location near their property. Or rather pulling in a piece of a neighboring land by a lot line adjustment that has generally unsuitable soil for their home site when they have a lesser home site available on their property for which they don't prefer its location or view. A change would go against this additional county code (DCC 18.16.050) as well that based on location does not render the site unsuitable. Thus opening up a can of worms and putting a huge financial burden on the county to sift through these legal cases. These facts are only to support the generally unsuitable site and I'd like to encourage the county to give merit to the least suitable classification. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. 12) THE PIPE THAT DRIES OUT THE SOIL: A) In agriculture there is a term called "heat units" and it is a way that a farmer manages plant growth and harvesting. Heat units pertains to soil. The amount of energy the soil can obtain from the environment. High heat units are of great value all throughout the year to prevent root freeze and to stimulate growth. It is for this very reason why having the trans Canada gas line run through your irrigated property is so beneficial because any heat in the soil stimulates and increases root growth and promotes plant health and productivity. This heat also creates fertile soil by decomposition and supporting a longer life cycle of Beneficial's within the soil. (Exhibit U, and Mark Gibbs OVS, McMinnville OR) Using Heat Units to Schedule Vegetable Plantings Predict Harvest Dates and Manage C rops 'Small Farms Programs Rate Date Date DO x] Event 2011 2010 2009 Using Heat Units to 15 These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable —classification in relation to the gerierally-unsuitaWgite?WsTITerfrand-a beneficial polause-forEFU land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. Schedule Vegetable Plantings, Predict... Nick Andrews, Small Farms Program, Oregon State. Universiq & Len (.00p, Integrated Plant Protection Center,Oregon State 1.Trii .ersity Publish Date: wohcache.googleutler... Please see Mr. Steve letter regarding farming add letter here \,(i -;;3r WWW.deSChlite5.0rg P3'../by 16 These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable • • - •• ' - - •• • - •- - _ • ,'t1Ei(00 s 7rrerit_a_ t°purpc5e-#or EFtI land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. 13) FAILED TO TEST SE CORNER The applicants failed to show that the SE portion showed any suitable farming ever, or that it was being farmed this year or previous years. Because of this failure to show any suitable soil analysis according to the governing body soil samples along are not viable to show suitability. Soil samples alone cannot make the determination of unsuitability or suitability. With the Cloughs and Mr. Borine alike having both made comments that the entire eastern portion of the property be taken out of farming and haying a hearings officer made the most prudent choice in that the criterion was not met. ALSO, the area in the SE corner is not irrigated. (SEE Irrigation grid EXHIBIT ZZ) The SE Corner shows no history of farming. Even according the Applicant the only Agriculture raised is hay on the 16 acres is Hay at 6 tons (Exhibit NN). According to Mr. Robinson and Mr. Barbin substantial amounts of hay have been grown on the 16 Acres. The SE corner has always been more suitable for a home. "Staff finds that the applicant must show that it is the least suitable on the subject property. Pg. 7" of Staff Report. 14) COI/IRRIGATION A) "PRIME FARM LANDS have an adequate and dependable water supply from precipitation or irrigation. (Exhibit t www.ars.usda)" In April Cloughs waited one month to turn on the irrigation in 2015. Trying to starve the property of irrigation. This can be proved by them flooding butler market road and a lock was placed on their water flow opening as visibly seen by the opening at the road. The field still grew even though it was starved for water because the new property owner ran the Pivot. Water was turned on End of April. B) The Cloughs claim that they sold the irrigation to COI...Not the truth. The rights are still allocated to the property and location for the property in question. The landowner watered the NE corner all year long in 2015 up until he shut down the irrigation 2 weeks early in September. Thought there was not more irrigation water rights. (See Photo Exhibit YY) 17 These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable etas�ffl tie generally unsuittaiigi Otis merir and a beneficial purpose for`€FU land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. C) According to Mr. Clough a prudent farmer would stop farming the entire eastern Iocation(10 or more acres), (Remember the entire parcel is considered high value farm land according to the staff report findings pg. 5 under 1816.030)This means more that 11 additional acres would come out of farming but would also come out of irrigation. Sending it back into the canal. If granting a home site encourages 8 acres to come out of irrigation we not only lose the home site, but now more than half of the property is non producing. I pose the question.... where is COI to put all this water and how will COI handle the decrease in water volume which gives pressure to the flow?". D) With the "what if scenario of a rock cropping doesn't allow for a home site" that the applicants used to gain this appeal is allowed and then the next property pulls off water on irrigated lands and the amount in the canal declines loosing water pressure and the entire irrigation system begins to crumble. The canals would need to be made smaller to increase the pressure that is flowing to meet customer needs down stream. Even though the hearings officer claims that each site has to be independently applied for; each applicant builds on the prior. Just as with this case and the Newell property being quoted in the HO decision several times. It sets a precedence! E) Senior Planner Paul Blikstad said when he visited the applicants home site "there is an irrigation pivot that runs over this proposed home site, why am I even here?" F) The pivot supplies daily moisture to the site in question; if the Cloughs would allow it to run. We have witnessed the pivot being turned off and parked down near the wheel lines for several years prior. Please refer to the feedback mechanism offered earlier. G) Stephanie Hicks notes after the hearing that the Cloughs testified that they only irrigated to keep the dust down, not to grow crops H) A farmer does not go to the expense of putting in an irrigation pivot over unfarmable lands. This is all in attempt to recoup losses of their personal dream of owning in the applicants words "a big ranch." and way over remodeling the home that was connected to this piece of property. Proof of this was after the purchase of 22105 Erickson Rd in 2012 the applicant would state and I quote as the applicant is sitting on his bike and pointed out that "there is a home site above the pond". How would they know there was a home site? Roger Borine had visited the property prior in his letter that this was his second visit to the property for site digging specifically turned in with this application. He makes several claims outside his realm of a soil expert. How to farm hay being one of them. If he previously visited 18 These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable classification in relation to the generally unsuit 'i31Pgitte i s merit"an - •• •• - • • — land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. the site and is a soil expert and makes written claims on how to farm all throughout the testimony. It is clear that this soil expert did not give any suggestions on how to improve the soils examined; in fact he could have offered the exact opposite. These type of discussion are protected between the applicant and soil scientist in his code of ethics. Similar to what a relationship with a lawyer would be. 15) SE HOMESITE: A) The grounds that we are even hearing this appeal on from the denied case have nothing to do with the ruling the applicants are now asking for. There is a home site outside of the gas pipeline easement on land that has never been farmed for EFU purposes, that is on the east side. Mr. Borine the soil expert claims there was "not room" for a home site located in the SE corner of the property. He makes his claim not based on the soil, but rather as a homebuilder. There is room for a home site and septic, reserve area and non-farm dwelling. The applicants failed to test the area and the hearings officer identified that an entire area that does not produce agriculture was left out of site testing. In the applicants testimony it states that a 36A soil is rated class 3 soils when irrigated and soil class 6 when not irrigated. Very coincidental that Mr. Borine rating is a 7 for this soil on the home site with intermixed class 3 soils amongst the area and also contradicts the NRCS site that rated the soil class 3. (Pg. 9/140 Response to staff) If irrigated class 3 can turn into soil class 6 when not irrigated, does this mean that soil class 4 would turn into soil class 7 when not irrigated? I believe it would. The Question to ponder here is How water plays a huge role in a thriving soil!! Think about the soil class 3 all of the sudden in a drought...what happens in the soil to loose all the beneficials. Why would a non-conditional use permit ever be allowed on irrigated or previously irrigated land? There are recorded class 3 soils in the proposed home site. Ooops Too much water made it to those locations! 19 These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable —classification in re - '• • - •- - - • •ititI ti 5 ci 1purridseidrEftr- land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. 16) PIVOT and WHEEL LINE A) It should be noted that there are THREE separate main watering systems on this property and one wheel gun. TWO Of which overlap the property to the South. The water lines go back and forth. 1) Wheel line that runs from the west property line east to the pond 2) Pivot that runs from the NE overlaps slightly on the western half and ends at the SE portion of Mr. Carroll's property. 3) Wheel gun. Watered the SE land portion but to the west of the portable barn when the pivot was turned off during the growing season and summers. Trying to keep better soils there! The importance here is that the applicant can decide how to irrigate and which half of his property to create an arid environment. The applicant would ride his mountain bike every day to change the wheel line constantly, rarely engaging pivot. We have witnessed the pivot line staying parked down at the west side of the pond summer after summer. He started it up watered it one time and kept it at the pond multiples summers. I recall thinking years ago "what is he doing." We live and work from home and were able to observe this. By with holding water from the NE corner this deceived Mr. Barbin and his haying efforts and the written opinion he could offer. Water is an abiotic source and is critical to farming and when withheld a farmer is successful manipulating the farming outcome he wants to see. Perhaps the applicant even misled Mr. Borine. Mrs. Clough said daily water changes had to be made. Not the truth. The pivot moves back and forth ever needing to be toughed. 20) Exhibit B. Deschutes County Agriculture Resource Project; pages 1-7. Soil class is referred to for 7 different areas; use and irrigation are also presented on each page. a.The resource project found Class VII soils to be only found in land that had not been irrigated. b.In the report irrigated Soil achieved soil classifications 6 and lower in the Deschutes County Resource Project c.The property appealing the EFU has water rights, functioning pivot that covers the area of land requesting to be removed. d.THERE WE NO CLASS 7 SOILS FOUND EVER WHEN IRRIGATED!! 10 These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable el ass ficatiarrTrrretatturro t itfatpgiteltis nieritard land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. d. Water has been withheld for several years on the piece of land in query. Please refer back to Tom Bennett's quote at the Natural Resource management for the potential of each soil. It is what the farmer wants out of the soil. PIVOT AND WHEEL LINE CONT.... In this study in Exhibit B its very interesting that class 7 soils were never found on irrigated lands. AND YET THIS is the first example of Class 7 soils with irrigation? Mr. Borine found soils that were deeper than class VII soil depth and yet were labeled as class VII in his report. The accuracy of the soils should come into play when comparing least suitable as it pertains to generally unsuitable. The findings in this case are so conflicting but it should be considered that if truly there are lands that cannot be farmed that the suitability should stand out far and away and that is exactly why it has been pinpointed in attempt to change county code to try to fit in this land. Opponents knew of this SE portion had not been farmed and with Mr.Wymans statement that it was a lesser suitable building site and with that not all evidence was given because of fear of retaliation from the applicant. THERE WERE NEVER ANY CLASS 7 FOUND WHEN IRRIGATED! Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development" The county may make its own determination as to the accuracy and acceptability of the soils assessment.I note that the web soil survey shows the tested area to be irrigated and cropped,an indication of its suitability for farm use 2.1 These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable - '. . '. . - .-. _ ally urtsait li ife t sm ritandt berrefIcial purpose for EFU land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. ALL OF THESE ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ARE TO SUPPORT THAT A LEAST SUITABLE FARM SITE IS A WARRANTED DESIGNATION IN DESCHUTES COUNTY...... ADDITIONAL FINDINGS 17) Exhibit A3. Letter from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development dated 11/26/14. Katherine Daniels writes, "The county may make its own determination as to the accuracy and acceptability of the soils assessment. I note that the web soil survey shows the tested area to be irrigated and cropped,an indication of its suitability for farm use. 18) On February 12, 2015 a conversation with Mylen Bohle,Oregon State University Extension office,Associate Professor,Area Extension Agronomist. Quoted facts from Mr. Bohle: "If land can be irrigated land can be farmed." "Irrigated desert soil can be harvested at a rate of 5 tons grass hay per acre" "Plantain weed can be controlled with herbicide and good farm use practices would need to be met." 19)A conversation with Tom Bennett(District Conservationist) at the Natural Resource management quote: "Takes a higher degree of management to work some soil types which then becomes a land owners decision on the potential they(the owner)would want out of the land." 20) Exhibit C. Interpreting soil change and soil function. "An additional loss of grass and increase in shrubs,which causes the feedback loop to continue" 22- These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable —classification in relation to the gen ratly-unsuiti i tit 1 s merit"ariic a'beneficial purpose for EFtY land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. 21) Exhibit D. Work to lower Ash content in forage. Haying fields removes dirt from the acreage and is baled into each flake of hay. Further stripping the soil of essential organic material/dirt.Article also points out that additional dirt is removed when hay is rained on from splatter,which has happened to this field. Thus the need to replenish the soil with water and additional nutrients. Refer back to Mylen Boyle quote of 10,000 pounds (5tons) of hay per year on irrigated desert soil. University of Wisconsin observed 4% of baled forage samples were dirt. On an annual basis 400 pounds of dirt(organic material) is removed from the top of soil per acre. Over 7 to 10 years that is 2 or more inches of organic material. 22) Page 7 of Roger Borine included in the application Analysis points out that on the proposed land for removal there is; a. "No organic material;which reduces soil fertility and water capabilities." b. Rogers statement further supports the fact that the landowner withheld water, removed any organic material of origin and would not replace organic matter and Beneficial's in this location post harvesting the hay and grazing. c. Land owner would only water and fertilize with highly visible large trucks from breweries in the other portions of the property currently identified as soil class 3 in the lower section. d) Applicant grass growing licant claims that"biomass is not indicative that rass is rowin over the home site." Biomass defined as an organic material made from plants and animals. Soil expert claims there is no organic material. So I ask which is it? Ahh its Grass? Or is it. Did Mr. Borine fail to report the organic material available in the soil to tip the soil to class 7? (Exhibit UU) www.repreverenewables.com/about-biomass.html Many people know that organic materials--also known as biomass--can be used to produce compost and mulch. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XXYWzMA4m2OJ:www.calrecycie,ca.gov/org anics/conversion/+&cd=17&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us (Exhibit TT) Z3 These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable classification In relation to the generallyrwrsuit iiiiigit1litisirarlt d a beneficial purpose forte land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. Exhibit E. US Land Use and Soil Classification: THIS IS A LIMITATION CHART...NOT WHATS POSSIBLE a. Only class VIII (8) soils preclude their ability for commercial farming. All other classes of soil have the ability to perform. b.All 8 Soil class types listed by the NCRS have limitation. c.Four out of the 7 suitable classes have SEVERE Limitations. Class 3 "severe limitations" Class 4"very severe limitations" Class 6 "severe limitations" Class 7 "very severe limitations" d.Soil Class 3 has severe limitations and yet is farmed and baled every year on this property. e.Page 3 "Prime Farmland has an adequate and dependable water source from either precipitation or irrigation. f. Soil class VII is mainly restricted to grazing and the owners of the property were even unsuccessful at grazing according to their testimony. g. Ironically a class 3 soils adjoins a class 7 soil at the same elevation on this property. Both of these soils have severe limitations. And yet the adjoining soil receives a class 3. Furthermore supporting the lack of water and the stripping of organic material/soil; purposefully not returning organic material. 23) Exhibit F. USDA/NRC: Five Questions non-operator landowners should ask farmers about soil health. a. Page 1 "Do you build organic material in the soil?Organic matter may be the most important indicator of farms productivity. " Current land owners are aware of this practice.Cloughs only apply nutrients and water in all areas of the land except for the area receiving class 3 soils on the East and the area to the NE of the pond. hi These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable classi - - . '• • - generally urrsuittaWlit 1itiis mgr . - •- - ' •r •• • �1- land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. 24) Exhibit G. USDA/NRC: Soil health management. a. "Soil works for you if you work the soil. Soil will not work for you if you abuse it." 25) Comparables: Exhibit H,I,J, K,L,M,N; Year after year from Google Earth proving the farmability and revenue generating abilities of the property. 22070 Erickson Rd, Bend OR. 30 yards away to the North of the purposed site lives Joe and Linda Warlein. Since 1999 Warlein has maintain an emerald green pasture and graze 2 heifers with calf on the side in the spring and bring in a seasonal bull. Joe will bale his green field every year along with having cattle graze it. Their property is 10 Acres. 62690 Erickson Rd: This property is south of 22075 and 22079 Erickson. Bauchmans also have trans Canada gas pipe running through their property. They successfully cut and bale and sell their field every year. Make note of the emerald green surface above the trans Canada gas line. Additionally Refer to Exhibit M for pipeline map. 62075 Erickson Rd. The neighbor directly across (Lee Davis) has 20 Acres and receives 3 cuttings of hay each year. Make note of the emerald green fields.Even comparing them to the acreage at 22075 may prove a lack of capable farming. 62777 Erickson Rd Receive two cuttings of hay every year on their field Exhibit N showing Borines map with pipeline. 25 • These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable classification in relation to the general uittiE ti is s merit and a •- - ' •• •• • •-- land.land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. 26)APPLICANT TRUTH ABOUT ADJACENT PROPERTY: Value received off the land Page 13/16 in owners findings: Two Horses have been boarded and pastured on the land in discussion for several consecutive years into 2014. Land owner makes reference to the use of the land for grazing. Receiving an annual revenue minimum of$7600($300/month per horse). The horses would utilize the pasture as described in the land owners document claiming unsuitable. The actual seen utilization of the piece of property is at$7600 per year minimum. This does not take into account the additional 15 or more acres used for hay production. The hay income is completely a separate income from the$7600. They make no mention of livestock in their application. The argument that a home is needed to care for the horses is not valid by the Cloughs own testiment. They moved out of the neighboring home in 2014 and left their horses for more than 7 months without living there. They continued to have paid horses boarded and trained as well as their own. The new home owner rarely there because traveling on business 27) Don Barbin hayed this upper field in question and received more tharq 1 ton of hay. Hay was sold to people feeding horses. All the testimony provided by applicants mentions Y2 ton of hay creates and environment where is cannot be farmed. Both Clough and Borine noted that because of water this property experienced plant growth. This supports the neighborhood testimony that the Cloughs did not water this upper area. The pivot would stay parked year after year. 28)Clearly once Don hayed this field and had results he realized that Cloughs had been manipulating the field to not produce; such prompting Don to remove his testimony. Don had several conversations with the Cloughs that if they watered and fertilized the field would produce. Cloughs refused to take his advice. 29)Cloughs now claim that they fertilized in the July testimony as the Hearings officer points out that it has been noticed that they had not fertilized. Certainly the fertilizer company would be out of business if they experienced results such as these throughout the class 3 and 7 soils. I'm sure now they would claim that the class 3 soils they didn't fertilize because the soil was good enough. Certainly there Zb These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable classification in relation to the-generally unsuititiaPgitt8 s - - • . .-...- •t •• - • I land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. would be an improvement on the class 3 soils. So if they claim they fertilized the class 7 with no results it is amazing how the lawn over the pipeline stays green on sites 4 and 3 of their property as well as neighbors and has to be mowed 1 to 2 times per week. The property is and has been irrigated by a pivot. A home site cannot be located in the purposed area as the pivot rolls over the land. Certainly this would be very expensive to change the irrigation; something the Cloughs bring up over and over how costly this area is for them to farm. The truth is they spent zero money and time farming this land. Changing the property to keep the current land to the south of the proposed home site would prove to be extremely costly. The pivot is shared by the neighbor and cannot be sold. 30)Clough chose not to utilize their property. 31)Cloughs claim that they would conduct farm activities when the neighbors are not home because they are at work. This is simply not the truth as the neighbors who testified are comprised of retired individuals and folks that work from the home office. 32)The current class 3 soils are also infested with Plantain. This can be managed with an herbicide. The Cloughs choose not to do so on all of their property. 33)Roger Borine has a biased approach as he is looking to load his pipeline for future income. All of Cloughs supportive testimony is from individual who they have paid. 34)The letters that the Clough said Mr. Barbin signed in 2015 were addressed to "whom it may concern." Letters included 3 pages and each page ended way above the margin leaving room for the letters to be altered after signature. 35) Janet Hogan Letter. Janet did not work continuously partime for the Cloughs until after they moved and the growing season was at the tail end. She worked for them for a few days in the Fall one time several years ago.The Cloughs were on vacation so how could she have witnessed any farm work. Janet had never a reason to drive by the Cloughs property to witness any farming practices. And anytime that Janet worked for them was when they were out of town. How could she ever had witnessed them farming?Janet does not mention the site in question at all and the farming practices there. 36) All the amenities for Janet are in the opposite direction. In her letter she does not speak to the areas watered.This is because all that anyone ever saw irrigated was with the wheel line; no where near the home site or area in question; which needs to be noted is irrigated by a continuous pivot. 27 These facts are to encourage the county to give merit and include in the code that the least suitable elasslfivation in ly unsuitki i gi$@ s rpurpossfar-EFiJ'"'. land. The SE Corner is the least suitable based on water, crop history and soil. 37) Exhibit 0 The proposed non-productive part can be used by a productive part of the property. 38) Cloughs claim that daily movement of the water is required.Well yes that is true because when they lived on site they only ran the wheel line. This is not the truth. There is an automatic pivot that runs back and forth each day and a farmer does not need to visit the property daily. Does your water system really take Daily movement? Oh yes it would take daily movement because you only ever used the wheel line to water the west side of the property. 39)Most of America drives to work or to meet customers. Would you ask the county to grant a building site for a home because you wouldn't want to drive to work and g g Y it is an inconvenience. This reasonin g is so unrealistic and many farmers drive to their"jobsites"to work as they have multiple farming properties around central Oregon.Just as construction workers drive to multiple job sites each day. Again the Cloughs left their horses unattended overnight and day. Their rationale that farming and raising livestock offsite is disproved by their own absence in 2014 and 2015. There is no need for a permanent residence. 40)There are no wild dogs running around off leash on other peoples property. This is not a designated dog park and folks do not have dogs doing this. Two low strands of electric fence keep the dogs out. There is already existing vinyl and electrical fence that can accommodate this. Cloughs purchased the property as a whole 40acres and operated it as such. They knew they were buying EFU only property. The Property could be sold to several of the properties and farmed it with the stated code. INTERFERENCE WITH OTHER FARM USES NOT ALLOWED UNDER CODE 41)The adjoining property is in farm use. The applicant only makes note of conversations with the property to the south. Cattle and horses are raised on this site. Lessons are given to children and adults. The proposed home site is located in close proximity to a riding arena, used also for cattle training and diet pen. Even with irrigation; the dust and nose and manure would pose a problem for the home. Also the home being in close proximity to the arena noise created from the home,smoke from chimney and daily activities of doors closing and commotion of small children would create a hazard for the exercise and training and diet pen. This would create lots of accidents.The proposed home site would alter the farming done on this property; especially for children learning to work with animals. Would have to discontinue current farm use. 28 1 wdy�Ir�.CLASS VIII SOILS BADLANDS Page 1,:-" 5 l l L a nd I, Capability Ma Classi fication. C,, II LB ASS VIII are for wildlife and waershe .recreati , �r r 1b u," ; , :"ia , ', r'a " A,4 ' " 8 V� , @''''''''','',..::';'4.'''''','''','''''''"'":"'I' + r Iri!9l m " fl 4�L , w" l4 ! ' ti'�Pej: m" nta�' .zn uu Ise. (3r »w,�� � w� ry,�a I I '�j"a}�,�a ,u �, , tl„w �!;au a I � a G 5„� r ry, k � �”"� � �'"{ 1 � w " ,,y� , ' u ,fir 'I t � Iww �fl4r r, II Ali: cr Ir °I � 4 Yw � `� ^'rI XW " urI s r1, mb v� : ry I� u, r'I.`��y ' ,� �" u,1,,,'',1°;,';,1,,""} �r �� X14 � r"I III ,.,,',„ ,, ,.. ',I''',..',, ' , 'w"..104‘,..",„',,,,,,,,,,,N y • 'wAU � ' , G5 4 Ika . "...' vn e'�"�r. y'I Y ae�' Sri-r CLASS VII SOILS According to Mr.Borine. Considered generally unsuitable farm land in Deschutes County 2015 i' �! w �, ' ' '' ' ' ' ',;'''''''; ,',',','',',,,,,,::.'''''.:' ''''''„:..:!'::',:,,''','H',,', ".,'':'.., :''.:,,,:/:,•,}'1":,:;',-.1''',,,'''',,,'','''''',,','',1,,,!:',„4::;!,,,;!,,,Irit,:;,;1'''',4,1,113,,4,',,,,iitlir,,I,,, 'u ,,p r ''".ul r 1IPi 1 l.',a ,f,,,,- n r " A. „�.. :'^.a�dfl ^:n :;..� ..: d ,. , it ,i' Pww6 kfl:;li, 1r ice! ........� w.: C..) a I— .. PJ w C3 cir , ( difficuk_ 5.1oss of sui;a=sm-tl.an==zaint-sasi hinvarivirbial levering may expose.-.. -_,zei=sata 17ster meta xtaLarealficalp Bake into 1 . -ThIs 15 —c7173.-.T. ---1 I t, i-- He, suastie sad,sce lea,-- a fl_Water-cre= •.-sonee$art dasmagoi by seaman due to erosion. Maatees=of opes deans and txmle becomes s palm end their inpacsa.Ls redaced as sedrunnuccgmuinles. 7.ffitilies Loan as a asibrof sail loss_This kind of sail damage awes / manned yedds.incetased sofitment damage.and physical cffificulfies in iirteme between the gaffers_ The Steepness of dope,lea.of slope,and slope of slat=(convex or r concave)aR influence away the soil and water losses from a ftdd_ Go-A:sdlo\--'0, '' ' j Steepness of slope is mended an sal maps.length and shape of slopes Wel"ICCarded Ciat Mil IMPS IKWJever.they ase often chanacterisfic of certain buds of soil.and their effects on use and intmagenient am be weals- ----rAykA,6 00 Y-- ated as a pan of the mapping unit. Where available..ream&dawn tans ci soil loss peruse per year under given levels of management MEC used an*ping sails to ififfaentiate 2----t between capability classes. 17 Ipef /AY . bp r i mes, Sep+ 1 0 . \t.,\--Ifeir *OW Soil Depth Effective depth includes the total depth of the soil profile favorable for LA SC rout development.In some soils this includes the 0 horizar;in a few only the A Warn is included.Where the effect ot deptii is the limiting fartnr, the followiag ranges a commonly used:Class I,36'Ma=or mom,class 50d 1)-e-R61 ; IL 2 0-3 6 i n c h e s;c l a s s H I,1 0-2 0 inches;a n d W,less than 10 inches_ These ranger in Nil depth between claws vary from one section of the country to another deporting on the climate.In arid and se 'wand arcas, irrigated sale in chiral am 60°risme inciag in&Pau What Other WI- C 1 a S ,'..'i 1 ‘.....- favorable factors occur in combination with depth,the capability decreases_ 5 Previous Erosion —.11-- 2, On some kinds of soil pieriOus arnica reduces crop yields and die choice - of crops materially;on others die cffixt is lot weat_lhe effect of past erosion limits the use of soils(1)where subsoil characterittics are unfavor- able,or(2)where soil nenerial favorable for pleat gerividi is shallow to ---- -,TR 10 bedtock ar nunerial similarta bedrock-hi some soils.therefixe,the degree of erosion influences the capability grouping. • 17 1 3 D r ' eS r Available Moisture-1101am Capadty , Water.hokfing capacity is an impala quallry of soil_Soils that have limited moistmelolding eaMicity sec Maly lobe ilmaglity mid have resat Hoke- TO V:, con also kj . tions in kinds and amounts of crops dud can be grow they fertility and other management psublems_The mugs in water-holding capacity ford=mils in the capability dames vary to shunted deg=with Ct„tS tt.C1C;1 Dr (,) -(7' SD 1 I . the amotmt and chshilnitios of effective pecipitation dtuing the growing VI 'l i., t e season.Within' a capability class,the tame in available mobtate-bokling capacity vatic&ftom one dinesic legion to sandier. GIOSSary linpoi itho 0 1--.' AtY , - @ 'boy ru s0k.s As .,.. vly:yS,i) Vp -! r - SI.-kv1Ci , Sage West,LLC Roger Benno,CPSS,CPSC,PWS Soils,Wetlands,Wilddte Habitat (541)810.2457 May 16,2015 Stephanie Hicks,Hearings Officer Deschutes County CDD Planning Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend,OR 97701 Re: Clough Nonfarm Dwelling Application,File 247-15-000035-CU The purpose for my October 17,2014 soils investigation for the Clough property was to inventory and locate a site for a nonfarm dwelling that is situated on this parcel that is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock or merchantable tree species per ORS 215.284(2)(b) and Deschutes County Code(DCC)18.16.050(G)-Standards for Dwellings in the EFU Zones-Nonfarm dwelling. The development area and the entire area identified as Class 7 soils are both generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock or merchantable tree species. My professional opinion that the site is generally unsuitable for the production of crops and livestock or for growing of merchantable tree species is based on factors addressed in the NRCS Land Capability Classification system(LCC). This information is derived from Agriculture Handbook No.210,Land- Capability Classification,SCS,1961. This is the reference document that provides detailed information for the LCC system. LCC is specifically referenced in Goal 3,Agricultural Lands for statewide planning. A "Guide for Placing Soils in Capability Classes in Ord"dated June 1977 was developed and adopted by USDA-Soil"Cgnservation Service and-approved nationally was used for placing soils in a LCC. The following statements from Ag Handbook 210 explain how the LCC system relates to the suitability of land to produce crops and livestock: - "The capability classification is an interpretive classification based on the effects of combinations of climate and permanent soil characteristics on risks of soil damage,limitation in use,productive capacity, and soil management requirements. Slope,soil texture,soil depth,effects of past erosion,permeability, water-holding capacity,type of clay minerals,and many other similar features are considered permanent soil qualities and characteristics." — "Land Limited in Use-Generally Not Suited to Cultivation: Class VI—Soils in class VI have severe limitations that make them generally unsuitable to cultivation and limit their use largely to pasture or range, woodland,or wildlife food and cover. Class VII-Soils in class VII have very severe limitations that make them unsuited to cultivation and that restrict their use largely to grazing,woodland,or wildlife. Class ViII-Soils and landforms in class VIII have limitations that preclude their use for commercial plant production and-restrict their use to recreation,wildlife or water supply or to esthetic purposes." — "The range site is a range of soils with a potential for producing the same kinds and amounts of native forage_ The range site for rangeland is comparable to the capability unit for cultivated land." — "With a good basic table of yields and practices the soil can be placed in any number of suitability groups. Commar ,:fve groups—unsuited,fairly suited,moderately suited, well suited and very well suited—are sufficient." -- "Criteria for Placing Soils in Capability Classes:Arid and Semiarid,Stony, Wet,Saline-Sodic,and Overflow Soils;Climatic Limitations, Wetness limitations, Toxic Salts,Slope and Hazard of Erosion,Soil Depth, Previous Erosion,Available Moisture Holding Capacity." 64770 Melinda Court rborine(aabendbroadband.com Bend,OR 97701 .11.1111F Applicant provided false data to have a hearing with the commissioners. This is evidence by her appeal and the evidence brought up at the hearing that there is not another home site in the SE corner. (Appeal Application,statement of Issues, C) Least Suitable and Generally Unsuitable All of the evidence is relied upon by the neighbors to bring forward. I ask that we remain to have a rating scale with three classes for farmland. I Believe it has merit. 1) Suitable 2) generally unsuitable 3) least suitable Generally Unsuitable narrows done the findings to locate the least suitable. Because farming is not an exact science and either is a soil analysis it takes all the current code checkpoints to bring about the truth. Exact science would be: 1) Current,history of Irrigation and irrigable I've personally spoken with 3 planners.All of who are very informative,kind individuals.The county has limited knowledge on farming and how a farmer can create a low hay yield purposely. This is important as the county relies heavily on neighbors to bring truthful evidence forward and basic knowledge of agriculture. County relies on neighbors to make contact with previous property owners for who they do not know for historical farming statistics. Least suitable assists in bringing about all the facts. Deschutes county and all of Oregon are very proud of their farmland and the future goal is to preserve as much as possible that are and could contribute to society. EFU land needs to be kept for farmers and ranchers; a farmer would prudently place a home where it would have the least impact on farming for profit and still have a beautiful home. Whether it's a small farm that supports farmers markets,grows 144 tons of alfalfa on 18 acres in a year or a large Driscoll farm that sells to Costco,all sizes matter. Least Suitable • Has a history of no irrigation rights • Is not irrigable • Has room for a home and drain field (Exhibit A) • Home site meets state minimum for dwelling. • Has no history of being cropped • Could have beautiful rock that the owner would love to build on along the Deschutes River. • Would allow for maximum farming • Would not interfere with neighboring pivot system for which a pond and pivot are shared. • Would not result in substantial additional irrigated acres being removed to satisfy home site. Currently Generally Unsuitable • Established and long history of irrigation • Has history of being farmed successfully • Has been used for profit by all owners • Has had horses over graze on it contributing soil loss • Received baled grass hay and 8ton/acre alfalfa hay crop year after year. • Has EFU tax document claiming"running livestock" on all 18 acres from 2005 with current owners Newell Application 2015.The least suitable has been used for years and has worked successfully for Deschutes County. Recent cases such as the Newell property is an example of where the least suitable criteria was satisfied. Mrs. Fancher was the presiding attorney. Mrs. Fancher was already aware of this criteria when she took the dough application. Airstrip is not on the least suitable so it is denied because of high valued farmland: Least suitable criteria supports farm land. County Hearings Officer Karen Green denied the application on Sept. 14, 2004. noting that it could not be shown that the airstrip would be located on the portion of the land deemed least suitable for farm crops or livestock use-a requirement under county,not state,land use rules. Dense filed the appeal 10 days later. Still denied. http://www.bendbulletin.com/news/1502238-151/private-airstrip-application-sparks- debate-on-land-use (Exhibit B) To are least suitable we have to discuss generally unsuitable: Soil Depth can easily be fluffed to greater depths. Just like whipped cream. The NE corner has had equipment and pivot wheels running over it for years. Compaction- Compaction. Soil Depth is Subjective. (Exhibit L&E) Soil Scientist: Oregon.gov says "Soils assessments should not be exclusively relied upon by local governments when making these types of findings."www_oregon.g_ov. (Exhibit G) Code of Ethics for Mr. Borine code of ethics (included in applicants response) shall protect to the fullest extent possible the interest of his or her employer or client. (Exhibit D) Mr.Borine falsely reported that there was not a home site in the SE corner of the applicant property. This has proven not to be the truth, Written in Mr. Borine recent letter dated Sept 10, 2015 he makes reference to using Capability Classification Handbook 210.This source is sited below. (Exhibit E) 7/8/15(Exhibit Q) Mr. Borine makes note that ample plant growth occurred in the NE corner because of"spring rains this year" in 2015; and then followed by a drought. And yet he failed to reclassify these soils to a V or VI. According to the Land Capability Classification page 18; "suitable soils for range but not for common cultivated crops may be placed in 2 capability classes V and VI if they are capable of returning inputs from such mana:ement .ractices as seedin: fertilizer or irri:atin: and in class VII if the are not. Mr. Borine revisited the site on September 10 to provide additional data and yet with the vegetation on the ground (shown in pictures from August) and the applicant had knowledge that more than one ton of hay was grown in the in the NE corner 2015 and 1/2ton on .58 acre home site in 2014; Mr. Borine did not update his classification. Mr. Borine also had previous knowledge that the applicant grew hay in previous years (included in the applicant testimony); a cultivation practice worthy of a Class V or VI classification. Exhibit Q Page 17(capability class Exhibit E) - Class VII: satisfactory growth of useful vegetation impossible, except possibly for some of the most salt tolerant forms,such as some Atriplexes that have limited use for grazing. Mr. Borine testimony at the hearing he states "the evaporation rate occurs at 1/4 per day". A pivot replaces moisture every 18-24 hours. Take the 17" soil or 10" soil: at a 1/4 evaporation per day; in 4 days the soil looses One inch of moisture. On a soil depth of 10'inches with a holding capacity of the conservative 1 inch (rather than 1.5 or 2 inches) there is adequate water for plants. Pivot cycles within every 18-24 hours. This is why irrigation is a highly regarded abiotic resource. The soil in the NE corner always has water available for plants! (Page 7 Exhibit E)"Presence of stones; soluble salts or exchangeable sodium, or both or hazard of overflow are not considered permanent limitations" Class VI soil (page 11): have continuing limitations (plural, multiple)that cannot be corrected such as (1) steep slope (2) severe erosion hazard, (3) effects of past erosion (4) stoniness (5) shallow rooting zone (6) excessive wetness (7) low moisture capability (8) salinity or sodium (9) severe climate. Because of one or more of these limitations these soils are not generally suited to cultivate crops. But they can be used for pasture,range,woodland, or wildlife or a combination of these. Does Class VI resemble the soils Mr. Borine is talking about in the NE corner? Class VII Not suitable for cultivated crops. Mr. Borine was aware that crops were cultivated. Testimony that the applicant sold hay is evidence by a signed letter from his buyer. The hay quality can be improved with a simple management practice of"harvest timing"which reduces lignification when cutting prior to the crop going to seed. Lignification makes the hay less palatable,increases toughness and by passing the optimal harvest date and letting the hay dry in the field (moisture content close to zero) all the tasty nutrients have disappeared. Also by drying the hay(as the applicants did) the weight of the bales decreases. Optimal tonnage and quality has to do with farm management skills. Most of the emphasis has been placed on the soil in this hearing. And Mrs. Fancher said in the hearing that her own farmers testimony is not credible. 3 WHAT INFLUENCES SUITABILTY: The Least and Generally Unsuitable. A Balance between all components is essential. • Farming for profit history • Irrigation • Soil Facts • Prior Collective farming practices • EFU tax document allowing farm deferral. Farm deferral program does not require profits year by year to remain in program. • County Planer collaborating with OSU Agriculture professionals and Irrigation districts to become educated. Planners know how to question soil assessments but have no general knowledge of other factors affecting farming. FARMING HISTORY:Which has kept the ALL the current land in EFU and farm deferral. Letters from neighbors stating the lands condition. 2005 EFU tax document claims "Raising/Running livestock"SE corner has no farming history,least suitable. IRRIGATION: I am aware that all irrigation districts have recently urged the county to protect not only irrigated land but the "irrigable" lands as well. Irrigation is the key limiting factor. Abiotic Source. Your property must be within the service area of irrigation districts. Soils can be amended and have compost delivered for improvements on a half-acre or acre. "Without Irrigation crops could never be grown:" Irrigable land is highly valued among the farming community. • Estimates vary, but about 70 percent of all the world's freshwater withdrawals go towards irrigation uses. Large-scale farming could not provide food for the world's large populations without the irrigation of crop fields by water gotten from rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and wells. Without irrigation, crops could never be grown. Reference USGS Water Science School. (Exhibit G) • By 2050, the global water demand of agriculture is estimated to increase by a further 19% due to irrigational needs. Reference Global Agriculture (Exhibit H) Deschutes County can be apart of the World farming community with its Irrigated farmland: Preparedness for standard supply; and supportive for when fires and drought reduces the supply. Article: As wildfires rage in West, ranchers lose cattle, rangeland Sept 14,2015 2015 Fire with the wildfire in Eastern Oregon... "Soda Fire" burning hay storages with Millions of dollars. Rangelands will be closed for up to two years. 1.6 million acres burned. Large swaths dedicated to cattle grazing. 600 tons of donated hay has been hauled in to replenish losses. (Exhibit I) Article: Fire destroys large haystacks north of Prineville Oct 12,2015 Nearly 2,500 tons of hay were destroyed in a costly fire early Monday north of Prineville that likely was sparked by spontaneous combustion, officials said. At roughly $230 a ton, the losses total nearly $575,000. (Exhibit J) • Every Irrigated acre counts. Every bale of hay matters. Demand for hay to feed cattle provides essential food for society. • Mylen Boyle OSU Agronomist recent newsletter "drought may continue into 2016." Encouraging farmers to plant and irrigate accordingly. • Reduced crops for second and third cuttings 2016 • Irrigated lands are so incredibly valuable. How can Deschutes County stay involved in producing essential crops....Preserve EFU land & Maximize IRRIGATION-IRRIGATION!! EVERY Piece of Irrigated farmland matters: With 21 young adults raising steers in Deschutes County for auction August. These kids median price per cow is $4500. Steer would eat approximately 2.5 tons during the year totaling 50 tons of hay. 50 tons is well within expected yields for 16 irrigated acres. These cows generated$ 114115.22 for the economy.These hay yields would not be possible without irrigation. Would not be possible without irrigated hay fields. Cattle rely on baled hay for growth. Irrigation Matters. Country Natural Beef Statistic: Country Natural Beef supplies beef to the world. Grass fed, grain finished with zero antibiotics and zero hormones. 33 Country Natural Beef Cows feed 220 people per year at a consumption rate of 60 pounds per person. This high end beef is found at Newport Market in Bend Oregon and Whole Food Stores. Every Irrigated Acre matters. Every bale of hay makes a difference. Every cow.Again a small Newport Market and small farms matter. Compared to the Whole Foods giant. Both contributing to diversity in society.A Country Natural New York steak sells for$25.99 per pound and Whole Foods Market. SOIL FACTS: Please see land capability classification document sited by soil scientist (Exhibit E) 1. SOIL CLASS IS VERY SUBJECTIVE. Because there are many soils,there are many individual interpretations (Page 4) 2. A Ratio of output to input is criteria used to determine class. (Page10) 3. Presence of stones not considered permanent limitations (Page 7) 4. Capability classes are subject to change as new information of soils and behavior become available. (Page 8A) 5. Class IV soils subject to decrease in growth in drought/lack of irrigation (Page 10) 6. Class V is a marsh(Page 11) 7. Class VI is used for common crops with limitations (Page 11) 8. Class VII has irrigation pivot and Splus tons/acre crop history, currently considered not farmable in Deschutes County. One or more limitations can not be improved (Page 11) 9. Class VIII beach or rock outcro s sins. Pare 12 '1' H �ra i 4111 .it ■ !W "gyp , d ?"'e" n �__ �.r�� i4A °a nV .. :• . 11. Soil depth Page 18. Class I; 36 inches or more Class II; 20-36 inches Class III; 10-20 inches Class IV; less than 10 inches 12. Deep Soil:Whether its true soil or not is 40 inches or more. (Exhibit E Page 19) . )With the above bullet point 10 from page 14 Why then did the soils produce an above 1 ton hay crop irrigation improvement? Why is there green forage growing as seen in the pictures included in the document? Remember the applicant flooded Butler Market road by not turning on his irrigation to balance out the spring rains. Even Mr. Borine states that the increase in spring rain helped the hay field in 2015(a drought year). True Class VII soils are not to improve with irrigation; the Soils in the NE corner improved! The Soils in the NE corner are superior to the SE corner because the NE corner saw an improvement with irrigation in 2015. NE corner is irrigated. This improvement shown in the NE corner transitions the soil class to a 5 or 6. SE corner could not be farmed currently because of trees and vinyl fence that dissects it in half. (Exhibit E Page 14) "A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself." — Franklin D. Roosevelt Soil needs moisture for remodeling and creating organic material with the creates the cation exchange for fertilizer to be successful. In Central Oregon it is incredibly easy to withhold water because mother nature does not deliver sufficient precipitation. Because of this lack of water suitable soil can be turned into an unsuitable soil. Farmers in the 6 Willamette Valley are constantly having soil remodeling taking place with all the moisture they receive. Moisture brings about organic material which creates an improved cation exchange for fertilizer and organic material increases water-holding capabilities. Water has been withheld purposefully from the generally unsuitable site until this year when a new owner irrigated. (Exhibit K) IRRIGATION AND SOIL AND READILY AVAILABLE PLANT NUTRIENTS • Organic matter is the remains of plants and animals • Moisture allows the organic material to be turned into hummus which the process allows nutrients to be used by plants • Organic material increases the water holding capacity of soil • Organic material has high cation exchange capacity and improves nutrient retention ORGANIC MATTER AND WATER CAN TREMENDOUSLY IMPROVE THIS SOIL! SOIL CAN EASILY BE FLUFFED WITH TILLING TO A DEPTH THAT IS GREATER THAN 17 INCHES. THE DEPTH IS VERY SUBJECTIVE IN SOIL CLASS. (Exhibit L) Soil depth is negatively influenced by: • overgrazing • negative bio-feed back system, • cutting and baling hay short(increase bale weight but also picks up organic material which leaves zero for the soil to create a healthy diverse environment) • soil samples within the wheel line tracks reduces depth by compaction. • Haying is extremely tough on the soil. The scrapping of the cutter and the baler along the soil and trucks and trailers driving onto the soil to pick up hay bales compacts the soil. • The area where the horses grazed is class 7 and on the other side of the fence line is where the class 3 deeper soils begin. All 3 of these items; 1)overgrazing 2)cutting and baling hay short/trucks and trailers 3)removal of water creates a negative biofeedback. Organic material can easily be stripped over a decade of improper management.This property has had a combination of all 3. Ever seen what horses can do to pasture land? Their heavy bodies combined with the wheel line track can compact and erode the soil easily. 7 Exhibit M. Deschutes County Agriculture Resource Project; pages 1-7. Soil class is referred to for 7 different areas; use and irrigation are also presented on each page. a.The resource project found Class VII soils to be only found in land that had not been irrigated. b. In the report irrigated Soil achieved soil classifications 6 and lower in the Deschutes County Resource Project c.The property appealing the EFU has water rights,functioning pivot that covers the area of land requesting to be removed. d.THERE WE NO CLASS 7 SOILS FOUND EVER WHEN IRRIGATED!! US Land Use and Soil Classification: THIS IS A LIMITATION CHART CONFIRMED BY THE NCRS...NOT WHATS POSSIBLE ......Soil analysis plays a portion of the farming success.Additional factors influence productivity a.Only class VIII (8) soils preclude their ability for commercial farming. All other classes of soil have the ability to perform. b.All 8 Soil class types listed by the NCRS have limitation. c. Four out of the 7 suitable classes have SEVERE Limitations. Class 3 "severe limitations" Class 4"very severe limitations" Class 6 "severe limitations" Class 7"very severe limitations" d. Soil Class 3 has severe limitations and yet is farmed and baled every year on this property. 8 The SE corner on the Applicants property is the least suitable: j Would not interfere with irrigation systems. Owner has 2 major irrigation systems and by putting the home in the SE Corner the EFU property could continue to be watered by the pivot and farmed. The pond and Pivot on the property are shared with the neighboring farm. The applicant has stated that a prudent farmer would not farm the east side. (The farmer would farm and water it if it kept the land in farm deferral) The majority of the land would remain in farm use. The soils are superior in the NE corner as they have been irrigated and have shown an improvement in crop output(Exhibit E page 14) Putting a home on the current generally unsuitable site would remove about 8 acres of irrigation according to the applicant statements that the prudent farmer would stop farming. (Fancier Final Arguments) Crops could resume being raised for profit on the entire West and East side soils composed predominately of class 3 soils. No history of crop production in the SE corner The Soils in the NE corner are superior to the SE corner because the NE corner saw an improvement with irrigation in 2015. NE corner is irrigated. This improvement shown in the NE corner transitions the soil class to a 5 or 6. SE corner could not be fanned currently because of trees and vinyl fence that dissects it in half. (Exhibit E Page 14 land Capability Classification) Least Suitable: No history of irrigation No crop history Class VII soils Room for a home site Currently Generally Unsuitable Improved class VII soils to either a V or VI Crop History from previous owner Crop production from recent farmer Neighborhood letters supporting farm use for profit MISC. Expected Alfalfa hay yield is 8tons/Acre under good management practices. See Article Alfalfa Production in Central Oregon Exhibit N Principles of falfa g Class Ill Soils are Included in the home site Envelope. Exhibit 0 Attempted to draw out the irrigation systems.Also LCC is labeled for East side. Exhibit P At the hearing I used Mr. Borine map to describe a home site. I noticed his scale was off and that soil sites were on the asphalt driveway area. I made a drawing of a home site to scale. Exhibit A 9 u ppl�� pwl�d r a ll r a 'ti�� Ali r u it ,9 pi �It 7t it a ilea r, 4TtiPIw ';' 14 iu:,,aP.psSyi a Ir,rwara.yh ql�r l,�sx�{�I a��7lura '� In Po L y� Gl r G%. vn -'' �Nu „u„ rw`. .« `� „ C G �,°� � TGI d dpiiy"°rP �,..r .te' 9 hii rwrtPY ry� ;r ii Id,%'llllri r Sx a it h q N'1 1 ` IaF a II.I :EI�q Nti , r phi fq.i r 'u I IualwS ���18au�I� `� h4 °�� � �'• '�„dam r;� n„« 7 ,.mm ,. J' +”`d ....P� ht wi is 4 111'.x, 1 .......... Class VII SOIL. Currently considered generally unsuitable in Deschutes County. Has irrigation and a prior history of farming for profit. Irrigating pivot is over the proposed home site shown here in 2015. Considered class VII. Class VIII are rock out cliffs, sandy beaches, badlands and mine tailings. 1U Class VII: Irrigating Pivot is over the proposed home site. This is considered generally unsuitable farmland in Deschutes County 2015. Class VII soils. 11 CLASS VIII SOILS BAD LANDS Page 15 Land Capability Classification. CLASS VIII are for recreation,wildlife and watershed. : c , M I;N IN' hpM,i�'W III Illµ r, v c 'it 9 Ir110 IIU � ' b q � rod+ ON� rnGd '111��9iNNllla A �� r,.. � I u ~M" 6 V 1 NaR aY' a".:il JrN 4 w.M� ..m , CLASS VII SOILS In Deschutes County from Mr Borme• Generally unsuitable Soil. I � I= y I 9) ki f71 Q'l�l l 4 N I)� �N�r puX''l M�� �4 4 'I11$Ity Fill Miv "''"' Ir jlr"w GI'fa N ,,,i4„,..,... „4,4,4: tl 4 n 'I +aam chl� lu III ,' Wr,,.5��),",r y ,, a �4,9 , �'. , a I l.9liw H a mn ua (rl INlu�gll� P M ��, 'I ? .rwmr 12 CLASS VIII SANDY BEACHES Page 15 Land Capability Classification. CLASS VIII soils have limitations that• t cannot be corrected. ha- ■'.., .1- , '',,, ,, A - , ' "A ,,,," , ako,, ,,,,a.i p p,„,T,a,■,a 0,I a,vex 4,"a a,,,a7,„„,,, A610.A A A Al( A A A IA AIA,AA AA A, ,A, ‘4,17A7A*'A''A A AA"4"t'A A A,,,,,LIAAA AAP'A A A',,.■',4,41 .'.,..%°,A,54'■11k , "."" "rd., ','",'$'■,',,, t 411.'' ,,v1g,,,,,„1,44,,,,,,i,11:.,,, A '," '"4-'■ ■,,‘",,,,"Z ',,,'Al`''''''0 e■ ' 41'''''v rt.. A A A A'A A AA,,A AAA,,,,A.A Ail l'AITAA,A A l'AVA,1:14tA,A\AA ir"A4',1 r■'";AA.til 1,,,,44,, Al,i;■■■,,,',,,r1,,1,"„47,.'„.,,,...1t1fs.,1,,,,; kkk, fe;:*AMAI,,,,AA'A,,,'fAA,,.AI 1.AAA' AAA,1,,A ',t AAA%A AAA,A ' AAA A 'At rAA,AA A,,pr,,,i', A A AA AA,AA A A ., ,,,, LAAAAAAa A A irVt ,AArTAA MAAA A A AA 4., ,5,,A AA A . A '' "A° °■"''''''.",..,.""tr,^1.■,',.%'°^4,',,t, ,6, r.,,41h,2"'4'",',,',/7-f, ''''' 7 vr, i., ,, ,( ,,,,4,,,A,,,,,k,,,,,,,,,,' ry ,, ' ' , ' C V i '.....' 4. ",1,,1,,,r,A'',A, A,A IA .A,AA ,A A%1:A,A,A AA r`li• .z,i ,"°,11,,, 2 ,R.4,„,,..,,,,, 1,„,, .,,,, ,,e,:,,,L,o,,,.,,,,,,,,, A A,„,,,,4,, A, „ ,,, ,, ''' A.4htil ,,"."- l',-,..■,14-4,.e.,, 1.0v, ,.'7,,,,,A,111,1k, ,,,, , ''',,,"'",',, ,■ ■ , , ^, ■,.,'Iv,e:,,,,,,t4 ',N,Jt,,, ..,,,,,,,:t4,,,,,,,,, Al i4..,ry ry cots hrnyneL LEAST SUITABLE IS BENEFICIAL CRITERIA IN THE CO,,UN,„ T,.s Y R A..T I:iN.,.1:!GSYS, TitlirEM. 1o7 e sit e pictured. This is considered Generally unsuitable in Deschutes Co un 015.. 7 ,,,,i, r 1 ( (..\._.t..,(___,, _,k 11,-1( \/ t I-e t ci G w i(-) {-,-i 1 i(7_, '- - 1, ' 1 -1- (' 1 t'l I 1 '1-..') v\t1/4( h Ct(k',"-e-_,, I (:- 1 ‘- itl ) 1 ' 13 --)t,,,,,--,-,- 1 ) c (--, „ t 4t) -0,i(e., ._ \--j ef c I p'f--,€<-”, ck t ., J ;,,T - } ,... I\- I . L k. V ' ( Y t?(k, 1 '-,,' k' L"\Ck11-1(:?11.\Ck- i LC.0 VII Rated Class VII Soils and is considered generally unsuitable DESCHUTES COUNTY GENERALLY UNSUITABLE DESIGNATION 2015. Have we lost sight of what class VII soils are? See Land Classification Capability Article page 11. 14 wl rl a ai ' ry '1 g aSIWCw d6w 9 iii in w 40410 I i III. i e'd q9h r T'Pr'ay!7' "" ar„„�� nla�s ��`p ��Y i a Considered generally unsuitable in Deschutes County 2015. Includes what the applicant and soil scientist claims is "unfarmable"east side soils and Mr.Borine has this area labeled as 7 (Exhibit P). Notice the pivot is stopped mid rotation and the wheel line runs week after week. I r �qa Fr I �i G• , u m:i r dote qp East side categorized by Applicant as unfarmable by applicants. Pivot on right. This is their own photo from the RMLS system from 2008 . Current owner claims a prudent farmer would stop farming the entire east side. SUITABLE FARMING LAND/ Erickson Road '14*WAIRIITti:":W44j4A"' 14' ,ll I ��IY waw I �n 011 00v ' PTATO a 'Parr,IY dl art �Ip"wW �lYl� e e & 1 "YCF P \T, ,dtti eYa" 'N *wr,r; p n,m„w; gr, ' tl A %"'; �c In M ;i i1 I , y I II 1 I I r , ^ I I r a it i I I I I. 1 I 4n,1 V I Yflf! V,I'rc � I v v Neighbor directly west across street yields 80 to 90 ton on 16 acres of grass hay for profit. 5 to 5.5 tons/Acre. This is Generally Suitable farmland. (photo date 10/15). According to the application Cloughs claim all they could produce was 6tons on the 8 west side (total irrigated is 16) acres of class III west side soils. Their yield is .75tons/acre. Final thoughts: Many letters in the community have attempted to speak on half of this application. With only reaching a 750ft distance this does not include many notices to land owners on acreage. Many of the folks writing did not know the legal wording they needed to say,but all tried to help the county learn about this property. That is has been farmed successfully. There was incredible passion for this piece of property to remain in irrigated farm use from neighbors. They witnessed Ron Robinson hay yields and knew what the land was capable of. Many families have taken time to present information. Many came to the first hearing. I would encourage the county to review the letters and consider the effort of neighbors; some older, some young who have lived here a long time,to bring about the truth. I believe least suitable has a positive impact on the future of Deschutes County. Commissioner Work Session Ideas: • Connecting the EFiJ tax assessment with the application. Increase audits on EFU land. Clark County Washington for example has a computerized EFU audit system. • Property Review by Irrigation District 16 Commissioner Tony DeBone asked the question: Have you commercially farmed?YES I answered; cattle. I also own 35 year old Vineyard. Refurbished,farmed and sold grapes to Rex Hill and McMennamins for their Pinot Noir and Red Blend Wines. I understand the business planning and prudent decisions needed for successful farming and labor. I have a Bachelor of Science from Colorado State University Whether large or small scale; every farm contributes to society just as the small boutique- clothing store in downtown bend like Desperado; to the large Nordstrom's stores of the Willamette valley,both businesses play an active positive part in a diverse society 17 • ! . • : t , , , • : , , ! , ,,, . . ; . , , ,• • „ , , , •.' ' i . , •: . ' ■ ^ ,. . , • , ■• , • , . ' • , , ■ (07(t, ; & 4: . , ,, ; ■ : • 1 " edi.dt W a - -- ! ......,..............,.m...,...,, ', : , 1 ,, • . ■ ', ', ! , 1. , '. .. I .'. •' , '. ■ , ' • , . ,-, - .. - , , , ' 1 ' 1 ' - fib--*--.41 - , . - ... „ ... . .. ... •' ' . . ,. „ •' -■ • ': ' Q 1 i , • . . i . i : • ,1. , ,, 1 i 1 t. . . i • • t • . : 4. 4- . t •. , •, , . • • - " • - • • t • i g , . , : , . , , • •• • e•4 • ! ! : , ; ; • I I ' 1 : ! . ! • • ; ! , h • I • : • . 1 I ! ! 1, 1 I 1 • • I I . ! ; .. I •!I ! I ; •,,, I • I 1 I i ; , , . , 1 •• 1 ; ; • •'i!. •!!,,•---4-, 1 -, • ', 'i •• .,,, , • , i , . , , ; 1 . , . .._ • • 1•• • . , , - • ., .., • : • • , „ , ;;;' ", 1 1 z :' ; . , : , • , 3 , • : , • i.i. • pc) • • ; • 0,1 ,, ; . . . . , • . ' ' • ' ; ' • • - i i .1, '''''',...-„,,,,1 i '. • 4 , ' I••1 1 ;., ,-,,,,„,„,,, „ , , i • . , , • . , 1 , , ', ■ ,, ; i : . . • I i .',--k-, - i - .4... .! , . , 1 , ,. • ,, i , --.....,i ,, 1 , , .. - , : . ,.. . .., ;. I.. i - • ''Lt ' 1. , 1 I t 1 it ---i -, ' 4- i ,-.• i 1 „ ----..i,, • 1 : ; : , ; ,,,..„ -, ,-, , ."----,...,L 1 1.„ • , 1 , • • , I ', I i i • , • 1 , . ' f i,,,-; 4.,- 1; - ;-;;,- --', : r -; ,..;,-,,"•• • 1 ;' ,' I ,..-1,—, , : , •-•••••„, „ „ ; ,, - , 1 1. • , , , • , --4.--„_.„,, , : , , , i ' 1 ' . , : , , , , , •••-- ,''''; . :1:144-- 4 -- ••■ 1 " -tt ' -1-• t ,,, •i- T i ; i- t ! •t t . . 'IA'' •ii 1,_-.1''1 1 i i 1 ' , t . 1 ' ,„75;■i,',. 1 , , :,,,,,,,,,. '' t , "h,... t •4 , I i ,.. !, i ! „l, t 1 I ...,, •„, 9 i , , •• 4 ,. A,- 1 --t- I- t --- i ".; -4' H i, i t :. 1 , ' 1 , 1. '.., i .• ..,::6 i i•l, '•';i-- 1 , • , . ! ' ■ , I „1 .7 7., 7177 , 1 . •.'t ' 7 • 1•••••••'47.-...„1 -t: 1 1 .i'''''' ■ ''''''•ii..71",,,,,,,, r t. 1 ; ' ' '• ' ' 1 I ! ■ b•I" ,r.,„ ; I 1 .3'• .t. I t ' ..j. 1 ' ' 1 ' i; '''''':!..,,,,.' ; 1..t.:• • ';''' . t ; t T ' .!, i i it I, , , , .• t., I i 1 1 -,,,, • ; t - 1 Of-- ••••• 1-1"--1' 1 I i • !. , ! ' , . I . '.! . ; ; ! I I, i•---- „ ; I ° i 4 4. [ 4i -; '''''',. •.• l• -1 it 1 1 ,• 1 ! °''\ * 1 ; ; ' ; i ; 1; 4 1 , 1. ' . ! ' 1 1 .1 .. „..NL.-i. • -;:i-- -: .1 '• il- 1 ; , , • ; :; • 1 1 -„,..! -.4,.,. cl. . J •i it i t Jr',...‘., .. • ..1 . , .., ; . rt- 6 .- ._, t _ $_ ,,,,:3_,,..„ ' .,,.,,_ • , t -::, - -0: ; --1 --;” ; - : : 1 :::' . .; ; : : • ; • : • ; - • : • : i ; , • • , -.I •`.• , i F i ' 1' '.. "i -I— ' '''' „,, ,,,,,,,,,,..,s,,,,,, i....- i- 1 i 1 ' , -4. , ' i '. -- ., i... --+ 1 • I . ', ■ , • i ', 4: „, : . I ; t” • . i , ; • ; , ; , I 1 • 'I 1, , .• I ; , , 1 ; , ,. , • 7,1:-•-• i• -1. , , , ; ; H , 1 , .: i ; ; , , i,;.;,. i I E E I • . . ! ; . ..... ....... ,, I, , • .1 .1.. :.• ' I , .,,•^., , , ,..., -- i e7 ■C) t33 p› , ';', ( i .•,,t) io : , ; ; ; ■ I , I-,,,, 1 ; 1, 4., ; : • , . i , ■ F , . , " .4,.' 1 1 ' ' 1:), i ,,1•‘' , 1 i .1. -1 • , i , 1, 0 i...' '‘.'.„,', itit„. . .,. l, • • •,,:,,.: -, ,, ,. --- . -.., . 7 t ; 7 i , , ,,,,,.. i 1 i '.;..,„,,, i ' " - • , Zkx''k,•i• ", .t.'..,.• ,' I i I ! : , t:".".i. i ; ; ;:tr' Ft t i t i , 1 i 1, kit • i ,,,,,,,,--m-- • - 4 '1 , t, i i 1 • I tC) : '..- . I• , i • . -i 1 , I . - '•,,• -,C1' ; .;. 1 ■ ;i ! 1 ! i •• , ' . . ... '. • I 1. .. . 1 1. A. ! '.! 1 , I i,.,, i 1 , ■ ' i ■ ' ., '. " 0, , , I , i 1 , , I' • • 1 ' ' t , • ! ' I • 4 I •" , , I :, • " , 't•r, •:.1 L 1 ; , I ' 1 - .• t i ! . ! . .64 ! i 1 ,,,F,ttt 1 I t !.. i• • i ; . ', ',.., '. i 1 . , ',‘; .i...-.. .. .''-t'',•,','1'..".- ''" : ■ I „ I i i , t ,, L t. --t,...,..?---7 • t i i i 1 . .1. F , . , . . , ; ! 't •-tf t: ' , ': ', t ., t i ; t L.. 1 {_... i 1 1 ' i ' I ! �. i._ r... . I I■ ' 4- ! ._. ! ' I t 11 -1 1 1 i 1 I. f L 1 1. ...' 1_ i 1 , ;.._ 1 1 I. ' • u ' ;. 1 I 11 1 ( 1 {• E i I I I 1 I,. . ...1. _� { L - � L _..__I 1 i 1 T 1... 1 . .I....I {_.._ L • '_ 1 } I i. i 1 I t I•i. 1 ._... } I --- 1 I I I .... -i. . j T _ I 1 � i L T _ {r. i f I i.1 � f I r I I I I 1 1. _...' I � T .. ..W _� i. 9 _., ... i L.. f ..._, I 1..... !. t I..- 1 r ' I _._ r f {, 1 1 I I 1 I I t .. I �.. r...._III r f I �rr_ I l T_. r I I I_ _ } 1 I , i _ , t f I I I I I ,Ii I } I r r � I • � L i I f I i i I , :l 1 it „„ ....I ' . , ,..r ., 1 I 1 1,,„ , , , , , , , i , , .t. ), I , , 7_ , , _,_ , ., , , , , I I 1 ! i i I I I i j i I '. L i L ... i.. f 1 1 I { . 1• r I 1 . I { I 'Y .. , y..._..- ;. ... 1 _ _ 1. i. __ , 1. . ( 1 I I I. { I. .. i IT: r-- I I I , I i I I j. is ; 1 1 1. f._ I • L 1 ■ + I I ' I 1 IjII 1 ( i. • 1 fN j . I rt--....I i ....-1 j I i .-}- a .. ....... .. i 1 l i.. / 1. 1 .. ..... 1......... I.. 1 1 4.... 1 v1 ' , i ... ' 1 }. ...._ , I 13 h•�m I I 1 . I I , 7-3 -0 c c co co Lr) CC V) ■INJ W bID o 1 CD , V) C ■••• - 2 1 1 • . ID 2 W Z ■ Qui) milei 1 U... 2 1 •• •• o u,cn 1 23 c� c, Q i (/) Po U'1 u- w T U E (I) , w I--- �(.„) o� o Z L..... 0, Li- O O u in w C- 0 UO 1 Z = J 0 C c6 p N O L COQ U Cr) C CU � C ..Co U 1 Q (Z) Qa cu L C Oj O p cn L v N 0 v - '+; v 7 p V) (1) -/ V 4--1 C �Esi 4a p a N ai O cn QQ n v CL) ral 4., O O c -L n U © U C • cn p 1 EE —c. , ...... 02 n3 :54 CD r-I cn cn $+a C U O C CU, O +, W 4-' 0 § v) v7 d Rf � O p •—L ' I Q U °; — CU a) L O L Q L O ° .v '' C O ro a) � . Q: v CO a .? - C � U (13 CU C O O V Ur Q a of O a co C ro v �• v C O › p cv c • C C CD © > C N N L r-i v k�D•a -. CJ 4.- N 00 LE .2 cu i-) 5 (7 O c r-I I— c/) _0 co L v1 ;ft �.6j1 CU CID v -0" v -C O — _ 4_J a) CU V a) C C �a1 .+-+ c 0 co }' aJ O (L) C N CD sue,. V cn cu O t. ... 0 0 v U -0 - cu , V) a) a1 v `- ' QJ cQ _c -.. }, - C p � t 0 v Tfu +-+ � _0 O_ CU D C 0 t�0 � � C .- 70 fliflC • o — 2 cu cu O • -....,.. Q a) N _C Q L a) C v nU I-- m s- -0 F- c6 a. z3 co — W Q •2 o cu CO a1 l Q E n� cu — ��„ 02 C W -0 > a CD CD CU v) Q3 . aJ p ..5 . ._ 1 U ' � c I- - v :1 -- a3 U •(' , °J L.' > C 0 ° c 2 ' --42 ' E to �� ; a U_C � i -0 � z N a 1- O C a1 VJ co Z a) = CT- a + 2 (J7 CD C H5 ° = H = c2 Ito r r= _ [ �� 1�+-. - yl r Ayr L. �e Is • . ?' t -sit` 4 J _ _ - - .: 4 t t RR { • 9 V .. _ ice ti 6r� Lfl n v v Q) ° 1.- .N w ..CCv; � � o� t o CO ', v) U..i Q w v v) p w w —I z CO v) U .r1 ° cu u v rO w w m Q) U 0 � v � p = LPL -j vi cn .Q +, L 1- 0Z00 — Co � o I— zQ � Il{ •O O •— O c O wL1. < V)Q , LA ~ Q � U s — a-+ E - = W a — = s— s._. I ' w C o c° Cl3 a-� �. = ww .s� w 0_p I'-'- HY4- _ = v f-- � w • -C o mo ° o z cn cis a.., +a — w ; o C o v � Wz (.9w �, p 1:1) p mp CCer v) w w w w N N v 0 O O 0 U-1 cn w v 'S w O v c }, -E o o- - a F-- O O kR O — C v o v, XoCw = fig! to 0_ O c13 ate-) w Q .v _c s._ o2 dl-- 1 . I ~ Ov _0 v cn cn I= I 'g'! w{} PjjII' 1 In a) a) .� 4 , -� 4— ..co O 5 . L V1 t6 -0 -I--+ 0_ cu 0 cn L Q as tab 0 o aJ C 1 m ro Q, a) J .0> CD v V) 3 as -o � +, c, o +7,c ago E) E t' rl Q) Q a) as , V +-+ U v z O ;!r . .,..�. c -I----W -- 0. E a gyp. L. as ++., — o s_v c0 ° O 0 crow " O V) 4-0 CO • _ �/V P6p'. n� i O p 0. .w cn � CC3 � � as ___. 0 O C � L- C� 'oz� as o .) o a. a_ a.) cp ,n p s- V) Vn t13 C (J) 1 �° Q O co to o 1- a) I VI 2 Q ' .v � CU o C C a 4- CU n3 Q v 0 C a) o E L- as C &) v Z V) — 0 C!) -V L o C r cn Cl) 0 ncs a� a, cu °. c°n co U ° as u 'v, H -v, 1, ,'q�f .' ,..g,,,,■14,„, ...--- ,,,, • '.:. ...:.„,,.4 ,. * --, Ng, . X, ,.„")..... -4''''''' 4-.- ,^'-'• .,- .... -t r •- -- a..,... -J- o"' 4■W •■ 41,J O. ' '1...„11."';:ft°' " ti„■ ' ' rn ' I E _,., ...0 - ▪a.) ce • . ...,...,,,,s , . ..,, .,,, I - 0 .. I , .',.,.. a 4, — 4- I .„.0 ..,t.',.,, in, •.- ,.., iii .,,, ' ,. ''.'.i!: , . E..`°. c VI ... = = ..c ..v 0 .ru' , ,. , . ., . cil . . . • . , . . .. . , ' • ' 0 •■■ -10 . , L) cr 0 4.) en , ■Il 4a .■ 1 •MO . 1 0 01. 4-P IV w (i") Q.) Co = (1.) > c s.... C L.. (n (I) id) CD ....W D -C3 4-) •••••-„ da. ‘...." 0 = cu V) ttO (T5 _ (I-) .. 0 = _ •mC° ... . 4 1 co ,,, 4-r, o 0 — cc) 0 0 txt:".) (i) w p.., ..c ' = s_ •- (. 0 ,/-) c ---' i•r) - 4-0 .— 7:5 ,1 (I') 4-bro _ 4-, tr) s_ c 4-1 CD -I—L' C n — cc. - ---....„ - „ v) = (13 .... •_ ,,,,, co (./) 4.,-) E a) cu 'CI-) 0 v) = (I) (1) •— Z F-- U Li.) O a) O 0 '!{ b v) { CAA N U O _C O >-• CO 0 Q.) O 2 dJ I i N (D Q) • +-, -C Q _C aJ -O N — CD - N 22 - 1 CO co v a) O > i N 3 C N Q +� c6 CaA v) _ O cu c6 4-.' CO (1)a--+ °? V) r DJ "— C •L 4 v nn O Q) +., — _C c C E O Z3 a) ..0 a }' 8 ;, co 1 � p a) - Cu a) co -- a) c �ro �' c °) - -� +, o v C o U a) o = _c 0 u � 0 = O c6 U c O = — O O tan C n E 4-' ,, O (.1) � W +-? " U 0 U) (U a) = O Q) O Z7 J Q) L C - co O CO i.. CU a ., ' v R5 a'cu Z O .1-3 ' O U) O C m N �) Cl) U O jJ 0 " tM' gib }'. CO• bp C = : -= c O co - 7 Z3 c `a..� n t}; L O V 4- C 7. 0 t~- L {.C.a O vi cu Qa N a) c V O_ s. i CD fa L CO , ca c6 .= �- r --e) 2}i L "� L ca al-al 0 O a) gg. ti cn CL t1,1 4% +-1 t/) V CO =ea o v ` s oa u U VI c� O Ora ai E o P. .— H Q. c5 C -0 o a ,.., fil 'W -� ;'"'' C it V ca Qa 13 O N ca Ov 1ti CD O = 0. OI O . 5 O cn u7 ,,9 4 ti c cr.) a) v ej ca E L- Q co U 0 - $+''> O ±, a>J9k : 125 CU C _a -E a) O O c { g- `� O a) O — 0 co cu 0 U Q., , v) o in U > C O > a-) (Z.• >, E v 4- CO.-) 4_, 4.- #ri I'i aJ o. -1.-,r Q1 a) E ID © � 0 ! — O O O.' 2 cui Cl a) CD O c O a tic O L O a) N CO U C 2k c Ca U J O O CU CO a) a c -c v • .-_ U c a 4--+ a) co co O c6 U a) en . .. .. co co +a N .+ cn v) O W a) CU CU a) O a) a) a) CO E b D > }° � - Q Q C?. - 831:- f� Z OC O U O O O L L " S c (S. O 0- L1,. d . �I iil! 1 iy y { ••••••••••,,,,,,•„„„„.„.„....„„......,,,,,,,,.„,,,,,,„„.,„:. .8l : t. ti „ $!" w r wa.^ it• r'1 d "�� ;�,« rqd}N*N"Yra+ '��1# r.: '�+dk4µu i.. ...............„.,uw...., IT 6r+;..`� i6i��''; "'N° 11 P •" , ""' $ 1r tir rd • a a� ,� s P N"1N �� rep r, # ¢r •ide 91 .....•Nj{i i! +i° y)e•I� idly} 16 i, I' it d JPNC ,M ,, Ii P la • ; Iii i$IYtN d N i°. � i + i st t _ ueB Nfa s ny uaw�aBluiuBgeuwa,l r�-s "k i Y'u 91 4iNr w ;l,w9rNplNk{N':• • NdN(N� $i+lNldii C. ^q `!I v P pN1 t X111 ..t 1 si i#+'iMWNYM9 Ui a „�g ,:r^ x.r:Ma! a .».u.{ ar7# 7+iii••• wd N1 Na' ', p7w�•f•�''. o-7 .. x.F WMr 8 llWdNh'' "IR M '... ... NAM.. •p' °wN`; o-r°i m• `B6 AB+en N! wjNd{!6 u7• 4 iPiicBg a „+,^ �$P i$hi3+ N1 a+M .'1 P• au 79 ", Hw... r ,; i,FI,r , I. � d a N��" Y .Y 7 i�d wjP' ' 9° 4� v, ','111:1411114111 I illi yL , , < lilil`11 ill, 1,0111`i itii, 01.111'lip Ca — J L '' 11,11 (A") CD a) F— — aJ v C tit ti it i P Vii; L1.J O cu [6 1 a,o V1 L , D 4- LJ N +-+ !{i,i el CL 4-3 I kr lip, I $ QJ 0 ,, 0,,? U �' -- 0_ U � f l j!' Lj L + {ii U , I, QJ C6 O O ; -1-, 4_, c QJ 0_ i rig' r „_. _ co co I it!, idhli, 411 iid Z OJ f i 4 , D N qA ��" un _I < __I C 'A L 0111111 Pyx,a)L -i +-i Q Q. xi� 0 — G L- }' Q {I,? L mj` L cu QJ c Z Q aA Q ii"?; +., 7- O ,s C Q z C co 11 li i 10 a `_ I{,(13 O a) L = , uj < U v E ii0"11 1.1,1 L1J co O +_' CO E Z V CO c+'n O C13 0 .0- cu cu }' U H Q 7 = Z 0 OTC , {4 P I !ai$' fliiii 11 + tiii! I 11.111 1 iii r c73 plitiliii, 0 r+;! C C ,',1O11',11 0 4 ) 9? r Lori a) li, , N ;14 10,, •Z3 4- v l l'h CU O > h,v k :p. CD ° I 1'1j il B N $..." ii U 0... _c: s-: ...C: 1111 1i , I I i r 0 O 11 v o illifir I, L >. lala Li) lit j a il 1111+11 ro C 4 +._ v x 0 .r hli+l' ' '7:3 v v >, r1 v Co G�7>1' v a c 110 11 PI E c ° d 1/I i li c 1 E+� v ' 1 0 o Co' o H U �— O 4-' L V) R3 -0 x,} 14 co (75 0 I- V _C C -(D Mi 1?,', +-, U ;1, L ._ C lit I ,i,,i,),,,1011'111,110.1111; ,;' l LA n3 CD U Cl.)LI- a) (11 �a ° V O SX v m < z ° v.) o- O ;; Diu, Si) I(1 0 Pill 47 ci) d 0 0 4 44 4.1 t-1 .M M O 0 0 0) 4) 4 4 4) 0 •1-1 .0 0 C)) U CI) 0 rd 4 0 0 ..I,i -H •r1 .,r.„i Ij CJ 0 0 ca G7 o 'b 0 0 ID 0 0 O H .LC ►-i U t t ”, Iii g O C] in 0 tn 0 O +-°I 0 4-,1 •r„i 0 ,.J4 •01 k rd vI 0 .0 40 1:s4 > r 4 Crt 0 ,0 C7 �. 0 4 4 rsi oi, 0 ;0 qj 0 rd 0 4) 4 in co in 4) I--i P14 rri 0 0 rC1 it 11,) t G I 4'�7"� C0 0 r w” 0 Y 0 0 0 0 a .■ illi 01 CO 00 In >1 1 r-4 M -H 47 L N N r ; 0 IA izi > 4 I I 1 1 1-7 0 U •-1 0 i 0 0 It) 0 r4 M P 1101 rjl k .1-1 i 14 rt'1 a) '0 0 ' r~ 4) "b (1) rta 0 01 N24 4L7 0 0 -Hi •r.1 0 0 111 0 al 4340011210 .., 0 .111 O 0 IA CO CI 0 I M..i 0 0 4 - M > 0 ,.I •r i Inti i.) CD 0 0 IM vl 4-1 W '22 Goa ..0 •1 .1 r-^1 0 W al to o 40 c g) I1 m rb 0 La4 0 1 Gf 0 0 13) 1,4 0 4 0 W 44 'r-I '-ri 4 ml 41 m1 0d 0 ►J M m d\ `"r.1 \}�n1 f�1\ ` s• \p;°\ d� \Q: `M� \ a \\\ ° \\\ \ \P,M\:.M\ w "" 0,' N\'N Hw M .• 1h • N a " Pi:"\ \ ' i 111 \ '•••"'!'":"•'•••'.",;.'••':•;•••••••••••":':'tuP " � ; W{\• M M � 1 � p1 M w V\" \ tP h, NN " w N m 4 ^ '' rN ,p r\vm��:, KK w ` \" \ P q ;r) `\ F pi y p \�d\y•\N " M•m �^, \ r `N N \, � u\ \,P�,1M�, \ ��\ �t,wp,a y \ w,„ � 1`�Nv „ \�\w\hNw\ ` '\ p `\ \ N � ,, \ pP 1 a 'M d N MN\� " M': p\ r ". r�!"\aN' l \�• ,, v o�A\h P.',.'pug ua p 1N A p ' PrN:: N" ll, ,N"""+'•e\ v 'yuM 1;', • G\\�.,). \"� r r. ,P 4•" ...SO4.....4. tA"',. ,. ;,w 1 � " !f "H"m�q,1 m„ " ., aY \,N, N\` e � , ” pr\,NP� q ds,. w n, '��;:: @E Ml w• ,, "p p .. •, " � , ' \ r :::•:•.,',,..,'•'• ° m N\ N ,,,y q m \0 ,r uw ` ."'"r p p L w N, M w m :� N\\r�\� .• ,, � ~u w ,••••:•••••„••••,•:••••. , N� \ i% m � A� \ rMm r ps y M" ,•, ;, w\h\,m °,,W e; •• •N\ w w !• w ,.' \\•* \ \ 1111 1111\\ p"h Aw �✓,r *w N �, ,:,,,,.,..,,,m,;,,,,,,,,....,••;,:•••••,•••••\\ 11\\ \ \ • " P " -0 \ad \ ',‘,..;.k•'•••••''• m,of• (� 1v plvv AvAv \ v NvA �N e w•v G�� v v � vu q'\v'!,'� `ow� � d�w N, v `pw �•• " N iiit\ \ a,h„N\” '•\ :`P j. "" vy �•y `•` �\ HM • wa �" P �" a t � � my• ,\ \\ �\ :N\\ M\ w P �\v\ a• \ \ •\�\\ p S;P �,dNr Ni 1� P Y\1\� , w N� �u rP\\ u� h w w p \wm r \r� y r ,� r� rnr ``fir r r \� ` \,�\� 4tl\\•\ r � p\1 \ • �\�d\p�rN'M �p„k„:;,:•••••••••••••••••0.„•„„:„...;;0:,,,,• \ � �\ `\, \' \ A G•• • p \ \\N P ° f UN��w r\ 11\a ` �1 �1\ t,•\ p,\1 \\ \\ \ V v "•'••••�� � � \ � Y\ \ \\1 � �" \��,�i R'",1� � �` •,,,,:',",",",,;,•••':" �\ 1\r�a\� \\ \h � v \ � "\rN \`\ \ \N t�� \ V �\' �r \i�\ � a \ \\" 1 r ,ux�w ••••.'",""..„:,„•••••••••••„( � n\ •• i''''fi4L1'4‘.,V,,\A,,l'',',,,,IR'• 1\\\‘'1..,\,,,\,',!•'‘f,'\N' Nay ,� P,,•• \ '\111 11..•\\\\\r\y1 \ \� '�'• • \�P P p� a \ 1 ' ', 4 i 444\ ' 4,,,,, o i+ \\ vM tl A �' PMv , \\. E �u \ \\\I\ \,4,,,‘,‘' M af,U4 kt; \P, ',,\\,� \ \ r ,,,,;;`,\ W h \\app\ ,' \ \„;, \ \ \\ alp\\ \\\\ , \\ kry „ \ \A, �v+�w�\AVv�vA \\ �� ” vs a v ,A t,,i4"4"4\4,\,4\' 't*m\t,,, ' '' '' ' 4,1,', T; 14,°, ,„1,',,',, \ '0 t\' ,„r , \�\\ ,„1,%\r\\,",,v,„„� aMt\P \\ d \\ \fit Mr�w \,""k1%;,;"\0\ \�0\" \rpj d\\t\\\q\\ " \\\ q p\ f\k rl\ \v""\v\\\\`\i"\\t�tr)\\\ih\\\ ^ "0',,,,, '� V0 , r\ + , 0 A w \ tl\p\\ \ 7,\m \`\\(\\,\ \ \r , \\�\\+ku 1n t \ p n\ "'a M"\\\ \\"t;4\1"�`4\ a\\1,,,;k,;"`", ^w, vp\\C\\\, \ G\"\\\f`\ \\\ \a ^�V, v\' a\\ \N � \; \ uf \gc\\ ",+\ ,\, \\ W n � O ',,,!, ,,,,,'''li,i).'„k,..‘,‘,,,„'''','',J,,'4,,\,\,\,\\‘4,,'‘,,',',), \itt\t„,;44,,,,,,,,,,Ai.,,',,'4."',.\„'\'‘,,,‘, ' � w hM " ry 0 \h 1,'\t,ItioP4 \G \\\\ Ma \\ \" \\ \ \\ \\N\W \ \"w'i,,,,A s `p^h ,,wq ' ; „\ " i4,,\ \ \a,,\ `p,\\\"\p,„,,„,„' 1 \a ��0\\v"V \\ v \ \v ;,,” \ ` \ \0"\'N\av 1�\\`F'1 \\ (,‘1,t,\\\\ mat,\, , 1 1 ` n ' \\�`\\\+ \ ,1 ,1 ,0';','A', , ��,`\ \ \ 1 , \ \\ tl ` \vP`YMMh \'\�,, ^�0 v 4‘k, `\:\+\,,,'°;i:,i,,tt\:4 ?,:1,;‘k)\,'t,p'4,:,,N''\�(\ 0i \ \\\gy\p\ \� \ ,,,,\ ,,,„tl\ \ 0 �” mai , , p\d a „‘„,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,„„,,,,,„,,,,,,„„ ,,,\ ,'W','0,4,,,r',",,,k \,\,,,,\\,‘\%,,,',,,,,''',,,`,`',"\ ',` ' p V\\\ 1 `, 1 ,:') \a \, et d � .\(v` \ �1\ p\ \ , �" N0 i\ir '4,\00,0,‘,i,:,'4',„'",40,, ,';;''';:',‘w',N44k0":'''t!.,,,"t„`,;,', ''',,,';'i6,\,',''',',‘,''` '''.1,40' ,,,, � tl ,"v ;,�v\ YS� " p \ BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY O . I 2015 , Applicants: Dana and Karen Clough Submitted by: Liz Fancher 644 NW Broadway Street Bend, OR 97701 541-385-3067 (telephone) lizZlizfancher.com Case File No.: 247-15-000035-CU/247-15-000403-A Matter: Nonfarm Dwelling in EFU-TRB Subzone APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO BOMKE DOCUMENT "UPDATED 10/6/15" Scope of Appeal The scope of review on appeal of this application is limited by order of the Board of Commissioners to the issue of whether the home site found to be "generally production of farm crops and livestock" by the hearings officer that is located lin the aNE corner of the Cloughs' property is also the "least suitable." This was the only issue appealed Cloughs and the only one that is before the Board for decision. All other issues are settled.the copy of the Board's order is attached as Exhibit A of this response. The Cloughs have confined their responses to issues that might be linked to the issue of whether the area selected for the nonfarm dwelling is the "least suitable" but wish the Board to know that they would, if it were proper, would be able to present a strong response to the arguments presented by opponents about the alleged suitability of the nonagricultural Class VII soils found in the NE corner of their property for the production of farm crops and livestock. Appeal Does Not Claim Entire SE Area is Not Buildable Bomkes claim that "WE are in an appeal hearing because the Attorney mislead (sic) he commissioners stating that the site was not eligible to be built on." This is not true) The appeal written by the applicant's attorney says "[Ole hearings officer faulted soil scientist Roger Borine for failing to study nonagricultural soils in parts of the property that are off-limits to nonfarm development in the same level of detail he studied other soils —in this case land subject to nonfarm dwelling setbacks (100') and land that is occupied by a gas pipeline and Page I 1 —Post-Hearing Evidence/Clough burdened by a pipeline easement _to find the worst of the worst soils."' It does not say that the entire SE part of the Cloughs' property is off-limits to development. Size of Potential Nonfarm Dwelling Area in SE Part of Property The vast majority of the SE part of the subject property is off limits to development of a nonfarm dwelling and associated structures because of setbacks and the gas pipeline. There is a very small triangular area in the SE corner of the Cloughs' property that might be the site of a very unusual, most likely unmarketable, nonfarm dwelling. The Cloughs, with the assistance of the gas pipeline company, recently determined the size and location of this area. The east boundary of the gas pipeline was located and staked by a Transcanada (gas pipeline company) employee. The property has been surveyed by Glenn Eastman in the past and survey markers are still in place to allow the Cloughs to accurately locate the east and south boundaries. They located those lines then used a 100' tape measure, concrete spikes and a string line to determine a point 100' from the boundaries. The triangle that the Bomkes' claim is a suitable home site is a right angle triangle that is approximately 46' wide at the widest point (south end) and is approximately 100' long. The other side of the triangle is approximately 117' long. Two photographs from Google Earth are attached to show the approximate location and size of the triangle, Exhibits B and C. The triangle was prepared by the Cloughs using the scaling tool provided by Google Earth. The triangle contains an area of about 2300 square feet. The shape of the area does not match home shapes which are generally rectangular or square and is too small for a typical house and garage due to the narrow width in the north part of the triangle.2 A copy of an e-mail from Chet Antonsen, an experienced, major residential developer, confirms this fact. The e-mail is Exhibit D of this response. Bomkes' Claims re Size of SE Area Available for Development The Bomkes' estimated buildable area in the SE corner of the Cloughs' property is not accurate for two reasons: (1) it includes areas that are subject to setbacks—the smallest of which is 25' — no building may occur in setbacks; and (2) the estimate is based on a document that cannot be reliably scaled and that does not precisely locate setbacks and property lines. The "building envelope" is calculated based on an estimated distance of parts of the east and south property lines (shown as A and B). The calculations do not exclude areas subject to the 1 I added a dash to this quotation for clarity. 2 Cars and trucks are rectangular so a garage cannot be located in the north part of triangle which will be too narrow to fit the vehicle. Page 12—Post-Hearing Evidence/Clough 25' yard setback that applies to agricultural structures in the EFU-TRB subzone. DCC 18.16.070(B) and (C). The vast majority of the so-called building envelope, also, is not available for development of a nonfarm dwelling and related nonfarm structures. DCC 18.16.070. The Bomkes used an aerial photograph from Mr. Borine's soils survey that is not sufficiently accurate to be used to determine the size of the area of the Cloughs' property that is not burdened by easements and setbacks. The photograph was provided for illustrative purposes only and to show the approximate location of soil mapping units— not to depict the precise location of setbacks and easements. A survey would be needed to provide that type of information. The setback line to the east boundary is not shown at the full 100' width required by the County code, as can be seen by comparison to the width of the pipeline easement that is 100' wide and this setback area. Claim that SE Part of Property Was Filled is Disproven by Wyman's Testimony The Bomkes and the hearings officer's decision claim that testimony was offered at the hearing that the SE part of the Clough property was filled with rocks. They are not correct. The testimony about the rock fill was offered by Richard Wyman.3 Mr. Wyman confused the hearings officer and others by first saying that the SE corner was the least suitable but then by presenting evidence and a different claim that the northwest part of the Cloughs' property is the least suitable due to fill done there. The evidence provided by Mr. Wyman was that rocks were cleared from the property to the south of the subject property and moved to the northwest corner of the subject property. Mr. Wyman said: "He [Ron Robinson] dug a big pit in the northwest corner. Erickson Road—before Dickey Road was there, Erickson Road used to come and there was a big sweeping turn. When Ron [Robinson] bought it[the subject property and adjoining parcel to the south]in the early eighties that turn was still there. He took that road out and made a square corner * * * and dug a huge pit down there and buried all the rocks [from] up where his house was built[on the property to the south of the subject property] and so that's [the area in the NW corner] all fill. I don't know what kind of soil's there now but it's not the original soil. So I'm just proposing that[the northwest corner] could be the least suitable area because it's not original soil. . ." pp. 56-57, Transcript of May 25, 2015 hearing conducted by Hearings Officer Stephanie Hicks. Irrigation Water Rights in NE Part of Property 3 The hearings officer misspells Mr. Wyman's last name as "Weinman." Page l 3 —Post-Hearing Evidence/Clough The area that is shown on COID irrigation water rights map as .58 acres of irrigation water rights "off" have been transferred off the Cloughs' property and sold to Central Oregon Irrigation District. This fact has been confirmed by Leslie Clark at COID. A copy of the quitclaim deed for this .58 acre area is included as Exhibit E of this document. The water rights have not been leased "in stream" as claimed by the Bornkes. Claim of$7600 of Income from Northeast Corner This evidence does not support the argument that the NE part of the property is more suitable for farm use than the SE corner (in nonfarm dwelling setback) for a number of reasons and is, also, irrelevant because the income was not derived from the production of farm crops or livestock—the only income that is legally considered in the generally and least suitable analyses. This income is related to the use of the SE part of the Cloughs' property; not to the NE corner. The facilities where horses can be boarded are located in SE corner of the property (see Exhibits B and C); not in the NE corner of the property where an extremely poor quality, unprofitable hay crop has been grown and harvested (no recent horse pasture use). The hearings officer has conclusively determined that the NE corner is generally unsuitable for farm use. The hearings officer found there was no evidence that activities occurring in the NE corner ever made or could ever make a profit, See, page 23 of Hearings Officer's Decision. That finding is not open for review in this appeal. The income from horse lessons and boarding is also not relevant in determining whether land is the "least suitable" for the production of farm crops and livestock because the activities from which income was derived are not the production of farm crops or livestock. Oregon case law explains, in interpreting those terms in state law, that the term "production of farm crops and livestock" is narrower than the term "farm use" or "agricultural use." It relates to growing crops or raising animals on the forage or feed produced by the property and does not include other farm uses. Williams v. Jackson County, 55 Or LUBA 223 (2007)(the fact that land can and has been used for farm buildings does not make it suitable for the production of farm crops or livestock); Griffin v.Jackson County, 48 Or LUBA 1 (2004)(the stabling and training of equines, while it may be a farm use, is not the production of farm crops or livestock and does not prevent approval of a nonfarm dwelling). Claim of Profitable Farm Use in NE Corner This issue was decided against the opponents and is not open for review in this appeal. Mr. Barbin claims to have successfully farmed the Cloughs' property. In fact, he only harvested hay from the property. He did not do any other farm work. The value of the hay harvested was so low that the Cloughs allowed Mr. Barbin to keep the hay in return for harvesting it. This makes it completely clear that the Coughs did not make a profit from the hay crop as they incurred Page 14—Post-Hearing Evidence/Clough costs for taxes, irrigation, fertilizer and other farm related expenses. Growing hay on Class VII soils is simply not profitable. The NRCS agrees with this assessment as they do not consider the soil suitable for the production of crops. A hay yield of only one ton per acre (actually, only one half a ton per acre) —the "profitable" yield claimed by the Bomkes for the NE corner—one ton per acre is too low a yield to be profitable and does not make this area in any way suitable and, therefore, more suitable for farm use than the SE part of the Cloughs' property. This fact is confirmed by the fact that even the higher yielding west field did not yield a profit as the cost of harvesting it, alone, was equal to the approximate value of the hay grown there. It is also confirmed by the fact that Mr. Barbin was given the hay on the Clough property in return for harvesting it but left some of the hay harvested in the NE part of the property. Hay from this part of the property is so poor that it is not suitable for feeding goats. Claim that Cloughs Manipulated Land in NE Corner The Cloughs did nothing to "manipulate" the soils in the NE corner of the property to achieve a lower yield. They did not scrape off layers of soils. They did not import poor soil. The soils found in the NE corner are as they were found by the Cloughs when they purchased the property and soil scientist Roger Borine has shown that those soils are Class VII soils that are not suitable, per the NRCS, for the production of crops. This is the same type of soil as is found in the SE corner of the property, as determined by Mr. Borine. Bomkes' Claims re Class Ill Soils Rating for Entire NE Corner of Property The Bomkes clearly do not understand Mr. Borine's evidence and make claims about it that are not correct— most of which we have not rebutted as they relate to the issue of general suitability. The Bomkes have not, like Mr. Borine, been approved by the State of Oregon as competent to perform agricultural soils assessments and have not conducted an assessment of the soils on the Clough's property. Mr. Borine is one of only four persons in Oregon approved by the Department of Land Conservation and Development to determine whether or not soils are agricultural soils. See, Exhibit F. The Bomkes' claims regarding soils should be disregarded by the Board due to Bomke's lack of expertise in soils science. Bomkes' Claim re Eastside Soils Mr. Borine properly rated and mapped the entire east part of the Clough property as Class VII soil. The area contains small contrasting inclusions of Class III soil in a few test pits but the rating of the entire area is based on a review of all of the test pits (the vast majority being Class Page I 5—Post-Hearing Evidence/Clough VII) and is Class VII —as determined by Mr. Borine using accepted soils analysis methods. Contrasting inclusions do not determine the overall soils rating for an area --the primary soil found in the area dictates the capability of the area. Mr. Borine has been found, in many prior cases, to be a reliable and capable soil scientist. Findings to that effect from the Newell decision issued by Hearings Officer Karen Green are included as Exhibit G of this document. His report in this case was not biased. In fact, it was reviewed by DLCD and not audited for accuracy. Mr. Borine has an excellent reputation for being fair and honest in his soils assessments. The Bomkes' claim that Mr. Borine is trying to cultivate more work are completely off-target. Mr. Borine is semi-retired and has more work than he can fit in his busy schedule. Nonfarm Dwelling Approved on Generally Unsuitable Soils that Are Not Worst of the Worst I have included an example of a Deschutes County nonfarm dwelling approval that might not have been approved if the applicant had been required to locate the dwelling on the least suitable of soils that are not generally suitable for the production of farm crops and livestock as Exhibit H of this document. Maps showing the contour lines (at 100' intervals) and soil mapping units for the property are Exhibits I and J. A map that shows the proposed location of the nonfarm dwelling (on Parcel 2) is included as Exhibit K. In this case, the nonfarm dwelling was approved on Class VI soils (63C mapping unit) on top of a steep hill. State law presumes that Class VI soils are suitable and those soils are clearly more suitable for farm use (assuming they are suitable at all) than the rest of the soils on the property—all of which are generally unsuitable for farm use. The soils on the rest of the property are found on a steep hillside that is unlikely to be a feasible or appropriate location for a home and related improvements. The soils mapping units indicate slopes of 30 to 50% for the hillside. The soils mapping units are 101E and 106E soils. The 101E soils are Redcliff(VI)-Lickskillet (VII)-Rock outcrop (VIII) complex, 30% to 50% south slopes. The 106 E soils are Redcliff(VI)-Lickskillet (VII) complex, 30 to 50 percent north slopes. Respectfully submitted this 14th day of October, 2015. dilliry Liz Fancher,att °re or Cloughs Pagel 6—Post-Hearing Evidence/Clough REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE.THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Order Accepting Review of Hearings Officer's * Decision in File No.247-15-000035-CU (247-I5- * ORDER NO. 2015-042 000403-A). WHEREAS, Dana and Karen Clough appealed the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's decision on application no. 247-15-000035-CU; and WHEREAS, Section 22.32.027 of the Deschutes County Code allows the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board") discretion on whether to hear appeals of Hearings Officer's decisions; and WHEREAS, the Board has given due consideration as to whether to review this application on appeal; now therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY ORDERS as follows: Section 1, The Board will hear the appeal application 247-15-000035-CU (247-I5-000403-A) pursuant to Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code and other applicable provisions of the County land use ordinances. Section 2. The appeal shall be heard limited de novo only on the issue of least suitable land, DCC 18.16.040(A)(I)(3). Section 3. Staff shall set a hearing date and cause notice to he given to all persons or parties entitled to notice pursuant to DCC 22.24.030 and DCC 22.32.030, Dated this 1/-°of 4 w6 ,1015 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ANTHONY DEBONE, Chair C ALAN I LAGER, Vice Chair ATTEST: (6114A-1--•' Recording Secretary TAMMY BANEY, of missioner PAGE 1 OF I -ORDER NO.2015-042 EXHIBIT A •...,. , • , ••...: t,,,'. .7 . '... -.. :. -.. 0... .r.,. . .. ,,,....;, •••••••• •,,. :•••,-....?....... .• '..•••...'".'••••:.••'...... •• '••, ....••:%.•••••,•••:•.-:"....•••••':::•,-;-;',.•..'•-•'•::: .......• ...•:', ,..• ••'.. '.•'•••''1•• •■;:•••:-''.::'':::',: .! ' 04 T-1.:• "" , . • -.-..:. . „,.•. •,.,. .•.., .., .......,.. • , .. . , , ,. ' ,H"•::4-• •••• ' ••••,le. i t.:......• ':•... •%.•...• •...'11••••••• .•.,".. . .%••:•,. •- • - • - ••• •••••••••••••••.;•:.•••,,... 1• •.. . ;,•:.•:•11:+...,1:.:•.:••:••"• "•'•(4,001) ..• •:. • : •' •‘'2...':•'•,.....'..i;'''.,• ,••i••••:•••::i!:•1:,....',••:' .:•:.•• • ••:•••• ••-•.::c...s.., ' S.'••/I. ....• .::••••,•....•••1; •-„.•:••:.-:•;:••••••'.,„.:•••,::.....,,•.:•:••-•,.;4144 .•••••••••••%.".11••••••• , ••••• "•••'r.., 'ff,t••:•••••lib''..• 1. •'•••••'• .•'. • '•:• rn• r.;..i•i.:t.....?..../jEtS; . '.• .:r ..::::"::•• • ••••••lli2•••••::•':'!'........;.,..:•••0 t•4i.!:.•'-.:"...•••• . :•:•;.+:,...."..••.' •.:.'"..•••....:..•••-•••:•••:‘..4.‘r.'•:::',...:. :•i:.•*••••••7•;:••••::•••••::::::••••?: ..'•.•#:.'-•.'.:.<:•.-':•,• •••••••' ::i ."•4..,4;••• ::• 4..1:•.' •• ' ".•...:.'••';. :.;!...; ••;•:,....: ,..,••.. ...,;"*..'.. ••13.7...;•.; .•••1::i',:::•;••::::::*:::::.:.;•'•"... ... ..:. •...:•• t•:.:'Z .."........;•..,.....:7:::-•.:.....if:".•,.....:::::::: .....!;•;:.:i;;......•••••‘..• :•••:7":.•••••.'.:... .E.:;i:'....,»:•'.•••:.. :'......,i•I':;;•.;''':::;::'....;:::::-':•; ••-•,lit;::::t;.:''...4,,,'..:;;.::•. ,..til•;••••!.... ...;%.ri.•:::'••••":'•1 ''.•:ilii:1;7.1ii::::::: •.• , .:,. .... .:•;•°°;"'. 45•::•... •••■'''• :.:.:•',:".: '-:.''. .793 .46'.::::••••• •• .,....‘ :;••••••'. • '...,.:,:....:.......,..•••••:.!%•••:::•71:'4.7.••!,7-. ,;.•:...7.i.::::f••••,;.•-•••::lr....:'--- •••:•••;..‘...2.•!....7-7!...;•11;;;;;kir •il!!''••••• •:';:47"'........•-•••'.:f.'4' i.,: ':-I..ii:it t••••••,,:i......:!.....••••].:•••;:.::::.......i4 •4..1; •'. •••••,.,.;,..7... .,, d,..,„..,..- ..,14,...4.!I•: ••.7.......- .•. Y..z.••••,,„•.,..•".•... •' .:,..•:••;..•; ...."117, • . • ...,v:••.•.!..,..; .••••-, .,.:.. •?•.,•!'•...1t,1;;;;;;;I:°..44..4,1.4:•-;''' ,....4:,4egro""11-41!."'-' .14::.....1, -* 11 •'17,;,.„.•;:l:::••••.••: •••,.• -.• .. ••••••••::" ... „,... tf:i•j1•'.:il:••:;•:".i,. ;•';'•••.••A'.. ..••••• • •,.;••r'..1`••''••:.... •••••• • ::,.....••••?..:',....,••••••:.:•3•••••::„...•:'••:: ..;,4!,';::::'•;••;1::::47,:••••:''''''..poriri. 7".' 1.. • ',..•'•!.'k 1..,••••'••1‘t:• , .;•••:•••!• - . • •• :.iii-v......5-..;;:::;;:•••f•::, . ,,i••.,,••..J..'••••,..„',..-,.......•••"•:•••...A.;:••','•••'. ••:..•.: :•,::,..:,•:::::::•g..;•:::::•;.::::::•;•,••:.•••,;... .. ..,:::::,.;;40...::•.•,:t::::...:•,::,,,.,,i,:,,,,,, --• „, .. .• ...• ..- • :4, cu.: . . f; ...1*.f...1•;..•;_. - ... ,• .74%;41k4:•,;:,',"•!-•.:•.•.•, ..-e' .:•,:?-",":"...*:.'.•••`••'••••••••••.,....--...: •• . .• ••••••-••••••:..7.•••::::":..:.••-•, 4••-•-''' ••••. '.....g.....::).......y:?-.•:.,.:•:,',..:,.1 . .••••• - ......N.i,:• ....• •.. -•••• ,•- :••••.•••• :.•:... ••••••:::•...."•'•:'. • • •.... .4‘ .....,...,, • ••• ..• co2.: . ':'4.,''..'.••• . , , • ...:. ..,„ .. .,.,.,,,.„..,:, . .,•4•••••••:•:',j,•,••••••;.,:,:. '. !. •''..• ••••. ....1„..:',..f'. .• • ......•..,....t:. ...!!.,. ...,..••••• . • ••••••••••••:.:,, .,•••••:.k.,..,:.!.........,i,,,.:.' • 'It••••.`,.•41;1•:11..••••;,.,;:•., ;..:-..."., ........... •• • ••••,....!:.•i..,...."•,....,••••••:,••:„.:,. ''...„..: .rf.. '..:•••••,"..*••14k::::::::'1•■•••..r•••••:•••••:".....••;•,.:.'••'14.. •.. :•'.::•••,..:•••••.;•••7.. ' :•••-•••• .. -••• 5)-••'• -• :••••.',.....:••,..:."!..16f4.,, ••''.'".•••,:1:,.....!...'.' ' • •••••• -• ••• ...•",., r7.7,4;!;:: - .•;. t'!"•:...'',••••••••:::::"Alli: ",:....;•, .' ...• - .. '‘' • ••• •:.• N1'..' ....;::::.:,.::::::::::.i..'::::.::::,••.?...•:;:•,••••••• •...•••:••••••••••••. •• • • • , ,- . ... -•• • •. • ...." •••••••:.,.,u1....,,,'.....':4-I .•• 1 •• •:. .' • ‘ ' "• tel•...•-..,••••'.••••••••:!5:••••*. , • '1'^ifoit ..., e.•,.•••#,•::: 3. ..40••,••••r•••-, .:•.......'• liiiIii4":: ::::::;:•:::::•:::::::11%••!;:•:••.• .• •:',...,•.......•• •.`•'•i•••:•••••:.•.%'••••'•••••1•' .."• .:. :.•'•', • ...•• 'ILI'.+4.;;;;•::::':%•••%*;.. - i . • •04.14 ,.:1:,.:„..,./1..•••••••••;••,••-•.:••••• • . ...c..... ..••....:..._.In •••:...-.;,„...f.•,,:••;.:::•":',,,;"::•.; ,.,:,„:.,,•'•••••......",-,•;',.;.•...7.:,,-...,.i.,,..'.. ...'‘, ,:•."•%:,?,1 . .••••,.•••••••••..C:.;.:1•:;.E..;;I:".:•••1".' • ••• • , • . • . .. .. ,,,•;, ;. •:.:,....7.•••:.: . ..... , r.:.c, .- •',. •„ • • ,,:•."-T.'..',,•''.'er'.,.•,,,,•••* .,it,....„.: ..t,•• •••:•.•••• ,. .• .• ...171;•..2 ..••:::„, ,'•,,. .•: •••• ! .. 4.. :•,.... ....... :,. •,..• •;,.."J..!..;::'::::til•-.... . , . • ••••••• •:••°•• • '6.; '....,' •:.- '•••.,•'..":„.,:'."‘70,!;...,•AP',i'..•,.2;:••.... .,..,: :-..' • &,.....01...:::::::'.:.±7 . • .,‘,,.-'...:..ILlik. '''' • . t•i' .::.•:...... '''''':•' l'i.::.11...•:...:•••...::::::,,,:i.;:;',,,,‘A.: •:...:1:.:1‘.::::::::1:1'.c..‘.':C'::::;::.-•.::71:ii;;••••:.::1!,,..'l• ''c'.:::'::''.......'i'4":'?. i• ,-,•... ..:;•''.::,''••1‘. „, . . ...r1I.4k..i" ....*:.:"... ..• •'''..1.:::::..,,• ..'' • ..• .16....'...:;•';.:-,•ii.RF' ...• • •'• .. "'"N,••••,•••....,.:.••••lik,.:•••••.•:.*:,:..;•Aii.t.a.:.:•,,.#.,. .• ..41.t...,„ 1 , 2.• . . ‘..‘ ':. -•'? ! t".'... '7 ‘. '''.:• :.•:',:;:" •.•• • . . .V -iii ' '.. • 4 6' '''''• • 36t..,64i. •• .*•,:',.:,?•:•4•:'...M!•'•••••••1`...:14.4•.:,*;"•••••,•••:•'"••••.' •.:••.;...7'4., ' t: $ ••• ',•., •• . ••., ::::;;‘:.':., :.:,:i.3.,,,,•..1":,16■6 71,?...:Ate::::,::• :,::•:,:::";•...,..:,..,..•:,.''4 : •CC1...:::F4:•.•"?••;".4.,•/'••• '• ' • • l'.;;;;:::*,-?.."••:•;',•;.. :•*••'••'••••' ';ii4:1.',:i1.4.-•••;:: .•.1"....:::•:\••••••!::%•• •r•'•:••:#11:• •• ' $•'•••'•• 1 '.. ...• ..: •..' •.'•••••:i.,"•,,Ejr4 14••,•i•••;:?.:••••e"rtril:•4t:•;••:6••,•,:i". ..:4.,,,l.:•••.••,,,••::••„:••..0•• •••'.46)::..,..6 .•••••,,..,11•:,,` „ ' 1 • • i•Ii•Y:"F::••■•:•'••;z,;• •-•••':"•••4':••• •:•'•1:t*:*'•,,::•'•:•:•••°'•:••••:•••:•••'•-••:' •A ' ". ........... ... ..,.. ,lb.. v..5!...:•54k.•••••••••,4'...:.•.....,•••,..:•'IV'-..•:••-0•.:-•r•Ait:;I..' ' •‘. ''''''• f • .. - •;••••i::::1•••••::::•50 "...:••:011-..• ..4. A•roft...54,.0'........::::„...• ..• •Ati....i.:.•. . .44 i.•'.'.:')•=1,.:•••;••••,.w•74.::.•e_ •• A. vi'A. i...iii......0„ .,,••••••.•,•4...,„,:„:„;;Ite.,,?:.A...,,.•••Ati...•:..,..::..-:...CLE . •„..,..r..,,, ,....,..„.,i .... :••• :: '• : ::.,•,:.'i,';'!. ::!••e.i.:.1,,.. ..::'••.' ••::•,:::*:.,••::;;:.•:4•• •••;::•W:4.:1";E:V.-,:.,-..!4......,:..;•A.••••••7••• ;::''!.7 ' • • • '''.. A,t 1 .',.'•,2* •...:'...-.. ••UI, • , . •::::=,..,',„,,,D:•••;,3w•;:ti':iiikerp:::14.4-.:, ••••• :••••:;;;,,v,N".. .., • • ft. ' • •-••:iii.,"•••••,,%-#".k,',1::::A4'..e•:••,..e.•••,,i•Uk,*".;.e...,.:,•,&*•:::::!...:• •-..go.-4..• • . * ..• . .• .• • • . •"•:.:i".•••?'•••:.:::••••:•••*1 ,:$::'::a•;••••:• •••••',CL.::.:•:4:.,:k.'?:•'=:.•"•l'.•••••:•2:: :.ri: ,' .... : •••; * , ••• .' - • "' •••::e,f:;:::::itt'::•••••5. ,•‘•‘• • :',,.$1::'•C),:::!:g••••::::::i44,:••• ::''..f;:'-••••,.., . ••• • -• 1 ,..... .......;,., .. .. .:•••:::•-:::„.'•:,,.;:zi:::;!ei,..t:•::111;'''•:•T‘•::M•g"':$:'.'::;s: ''... 4".•• ",.,,• •,, '', . •••' •• -,::::::::;i:40=••••••:••:•-•44:.::2-•;:?,,....",..7.,:::::::::::u.- .:::.;,•:ii,•:::••::::::••••: . $ •,•, t •• . . t,...• • . ..,.. . ••••••••'‘•••' , • ' • • • •.,,..4.;,. . • . ••-. ••• • • .. ......, •: • t- .. .._•*-,..i..' -•;.i,:••••:•.:,:z. ....- • • •••„...:. • !"!-:.‘.„,..., , • • ,01■''' •::. r!'"'":. • • • ,..4-.- -''1M:-.'"" '''''''''f.„.'„-,.., •? •-•,:f.,.'..i•=.:•'.."--..~.' •. ••`:. ••:',..r: .......* ''. , • '7•` it?) , t r.,,„..,,,,:....,., .., . .„.4„ ,...,, ?,.: :........., . „ . . • ._ ..,....•,.:::„.7 en.:-.:7: . ... .;--,,;°.;,:•..:,..• •: .• • !" -t•• , ,ot..10:4 .. .,•••••.''.,-,.,,..' . ..,• ..`,••,)::.'..;••:''.•-••■:■-!.-•, ..:.,!.,..,,.,,, • , ,'•.., `;:_,.. ,,,;„?.. ..........,•. ..'-;:;•4•:i...,"‘15...,:..„;- . •, .„•,/ ,,•,,,:■• .•, ,..e: . ,., .,:...s..:,. .. t , . Ili'....:...;,.'.,,. ,... :.;.;...,.1...;,;,;,......,. ,,.,.,, ,,....,7,,,..,.,., '. ,‘:„.._,.‘.:.,'.l.,:i,.,....4.,.,,,,.,.,..;,:.............:,..,...'......',:.'.,.:,...,'..:....,...,........:.:,.,...........,...",,,,,...:,,,.. .:...:.,....'.:.:,::.',.....A....,..::.•.;,.....:i.....",,..., i.....::i...::.....;...::::"........:":....:',.‘7.,...:•.:.....:'.'.,,..„.17..-,.,...'.:,....1,......*.l:Z:.t,..i:11!.i...,..'.....::...:. it.::;,.':iit::::::... '..*''''..,..:.‘:...::.-....'•;;.:.„..,.....7......,..,...7......'''.....'.'.,.:'::,,....:.,.,.,.....‘'..-...,...,.:.;.i.,.4.si...:::•,::.,......1:.:.•#.;..........:.::...:::::: ?,....:: ..,,:r:.:...'........'..f.......:.:..,...'.;....:,... ..1•'...........‘4., ,'...i1:.:7...'10-1-'.". .-;;7:.....:'............ ......'',_,..,*:•‘.....,..'.....1'..:...''''.......:*e'...‘'..,:•;;:''''.•;:1:...'.:..'.....:1.:•.!...,:...:".....:....''.''..........E:•..13::':.;':.:::.:':....:::'..:'".1. . ' • , .„ : ' ...,`..,r,c,,e'•".'' '•.,.•; ••,....• ...•.,•,••• 4.4.0:::,41,0 -, Act:..'- ' -•••••••• 4,,,, ...0. 4..,•7.......,::::;17,1.;,...;-• :, •- . . • . -...- ''....7"ro,,,t•-! . .••. . , .,„ '•4• • •• '. • • •::•••••!•••0••••;4".•• .'•... l'Off.iiii‘ik•••:.• • r.••::',:: •,:••. ,t4 l',44K.,444,••••:•■:•,iii,:•,•,..,•.... , : ' I '• •• • •■ • * ' ''''''',':;:*:..,4.:;:gii.Z.:i...::::::.:. . , •■• •., .4.1,•,' .., ,„.... .,..:40i:•.:•:•g.,:...,, ••4 `" ..1%••;,,,,(0,4; •••. . •- :•.:•,'",•-,...41. .,,,_,•,,,...,•::• - • - .,.*....! ,. .., .•%:',i,..!;•,.,..i.,•:••••,•••,,-. ti•... ...3....•••,:.'C... 4•."...1...:4•M•t4.;:::•1.•'•,!...i. :1:...,'. . .• • '" ,7',•,.. .,.., • ••••••••'...•..10....;•••*•. . .,•T.,.;,'.:-. •••-,..t,"•,,,,• •• •••••n A'• ' \, ..-0-1..1.:,..'i.v,„•'•.:'••- .• • Al....4.•„4.,,,,,,,,,,,..,„F....i.,.1it... 74;;•00rF;•:W:::::;•"•',:;.:•.••'•'•••!':".•;••;'•': •,.•'.. ....1. -fW'" •'"'"'" -i, Aiii .[•,,,i, •••• .--f,'.1'. •--''•-•-•1••:2.4;it•.;5•::::'7'•4 f • ,t., • •• 1 ••••••,,•■•■,.,;••.••• •/-•:•.•7•. I-1 . .. ,_ - ■-"-:..1••' te"''-'-....-,t,:,•,.-"..'"•••••' • , ..• . ••••• • '.....7•'...‘ik" .r.•;•:'- •`". •%•.••,-• -. •••""3:•''!"11•!•4:•. k. ..,..''... ' •••• "............•s-;•.''''''',::•..,:ii•::•;::::,...." •'''• .i' •,,,,"‘':* t ,...., #!:••;'' ....„*-44,....-*,..,•47:'.e.,,. i ....,:: ........ • ......,. .....:.....:.... ,... ..:-• ".......- ,••:.... , ..••.. •,:z:-....:...,.......,.'....::al...z:,...i...4..,:„;•.:...i::::::1,..:,..:,;1.;;:...0.-.'.:;,,,.:•••,::••,:.:... .. - - ,- , , •• - ...„,:,.„•:: -. .,:;,..1.7.......,.....„ ••-:7::.-.:•... ,...: ,..ic,::,4•:.. 4 - ...i. ....'••::••:::.••'•••••:•" "..•:•'••••'::::.:."••: •• --.:. .-•...•....:.:•••1...;......::4‘.V.::.:::;.•••••:::„.,4ellii:::::::::„,...:,.. * • ..!!!:r.'‘,. ' '.. ..,, ,,,, 1•••••!:::::::.',:.•;:••••:•••:.:••:•:..••••••••• .•••• .'••••••''•••• • . ...:•...:;.... .:••..'ir.......'N.1! ,.fi",..i:j`..;....,:n•iti:::k!!!!t".;,,:::ZI!.5*.\'•••: ....;:.••'; .•• . , L '7. '''''''''''.04"\'',■1';''.''':•; ..•"..,." :."2:- :.. ..‘.' ...,...•••„.':' ." • .•••••••.•,:,:i.".;•;',14 f .: i.. -',..,••'''!•.'„,''',1 f.••••:!;.....•..;:::•••••••••:'.'••••••.:•••••••••: • •••••.:••••••••,. ...•• :S:... .... ...• •: li:•?•;41i,)::49.•:3:::•:::.:'0:". ..• .• • ::••f'•.,' •,• •• ,wa•'•• ... . ‘ .1 k • '' , ..... " • •••••." •.•:•:'••••••:•"... -.liltz' :•••,,,.••••...:,.. ':-..-•.:-.-... . • z: `,, I ' 'N:,1 • • ' •••• • .•:......••••••••:. •••••••••••,. ..I.• •... • .: • . . . ,:.7 ).. •.".!:;::',...'••.••::::::::•':::'.'... ••.:.•••"'•::.:...••• • .•,• '''Cl.''•••'•,•.:''••'•!•':').4•V:t•'..!.V.R.:::;•••'.:.•:•.•:i,,•.. ••;...•....•:•,. ,.'.. • • ... ... .. ... . .......... . m. • .43,6,.....•i:...•.• P•,,, •.,.•- ....,...:...,,.... .•i y,:."..•;'r..• ,.•....,.••,Art••:41:".::::14,:ki;:iitt4,••.: ::•i!•••.7;:;„..••••':,.•..,;.•••;•,••:i••.•.:•;.. ....zi::::y..1 r,,,,.:, ..,. ,... A • '.':• , ':'„..\.1,!•4•.„..,•••''.•1:Iiii•,•'.•:,...:Fi.:;:■••„.,.',•:.:::::t%:• ••. ? • • . A i,c.'..'. ;:44:#14E,...,.:::Ei::;!::;.'••:: .:!..0 t l'.:,. ,1':1...:::.:„,.:.., .:'•4k.i..::litlic•?:":4::Z.::.••''...:k...... : '1 i ktikt:•. ...-....::...•... '. , ., .•!,',!,,f.i..;.:!‘..1:.:',.;::.,..„1::::•:•;•••i''N '•••;,.•r•,;:,.••:•,!:.;•:I L••••••::• '-'a':.•:•.'•"':••••,...1.•:•..:'..,,'•r-....•.:.?!.;.!!'..f••.••...,::.,...•...••• •••',,.••••..:•,.......1f.:,,i,,,,,••::::.,.....:4:•-•• ,,,......-.::•,'.:,:,:::,.:;:,:t;..,114,„•:18i:::...R:::::iiii,:•,:... •••••••,-;:;:,„,-.,•,•,„•i;°•••;:.:,:iT••••.''..,•,::,••••• - • •, 7-7..., ••••••:.,',-,';:.t.;•,••;::::!•;•••::;,:.•• . ,•,..;•••.:•:, • ' ...,... . ,_, ..,:•?•:"•••••....... "::,i•,:41• ;•• • ,..:.••••• - •.:•••••••:..•,•'., ' ;, ..,„. ':.-0.E..,:::::::...t.i.,•,,..:::,24 .J..::::,•.:.,':.:tw ...:.?!..t. ....i....,,i•,.. .,•••:::. .,':...:.•,.......,..,......:•••••••••,....;-:,,•::,,i,,:::v,,,•••• • ••:.,,,,,..!.••-•:.•,,..;.;•...,e,...":4.:,:•,-.. ,.... L... •.:, : .4 ...... -.N.i....:..i..4.A:::*.....z..;..f.„... :;::::itu ••• „ ..)..o.. .... • . . ::. :,•• ,...•,, • • . ...,.,,,-;,; ,„..! -,:.....„,S....;•.. •••••:••• . ".:-...,:.:-•,,:•.11%,,,..„.::,,:,,,,,. ••••••:. ...-- • .., • .•• . ••",. :, •",.......4:4:::::ft:•;,••;;;,•• ••04: .... . ,..,•:. • ... :„..•:„.... ' .1:::;;;::•;:::•••:'t'c'll.i.;.,•..ii14,' !..•V::•"••,••••-. , ••••'.•••••• i''''''•::'•'••• .,.•••4:7;:ilro:'„•,' .....'.••••,'•:.••:',:•,V4.i:::•:.••-I.:v.,:. .:•.: :•:;• . ;•••':',....': • '••.....••''.',..i.:: •••••::,•::::•••••••:::::::;:•.'...','•:::::::::.:4 .:•••• .:-. •.•:•• •..„... •'•• - .•: :...:' . .wititH,, „..., '.4....,:•:•••,:„,°:;4,•:!.`:••iti':::::•':4: .47.--.. .. •••••• •...:..4:411.4-,•,,,,, •_iA....... .......:...ii:•,4:,;;;;:::.:•„,:iii;,...:.*:,..,:::::7,..oi:„::!••.:::::;.:.:;..:::::,...,...4...,:•••:.:::!..;•...:..,....i..,...••••:::.;:;::::..„........:•:.. ....,..T.,:,..,.... ........"...:,......„.:,...........;: .*.il...iii...:..k...,.,...!:':•:..::.;,:. .. ... ',........;....:. . ."...:.''.... .,';;17..-a;. .. ......„..,. :,...:.„........2,•'• .'.....!. f'••••' ••,.,•••••,...ii‘•:•':••••••••'•:::••:•::.:•., '••••••••,., 1:".."•.•.,.........;..:......,.::i:i..,::::::::".;.:::,,",••••••,i.;:i.:1:•:......,••Y,...;:l...•.....,„,,,,:••.X.:::•,:,..::::;,..,...Fititt„..,...;.k.:::;.:.:,••••' . 41:f. 1•4•4::,•••• 14-1•iii,,,,,,,,,.. •••••••:•:C:;:;••4.•%7•••••':.;‘,..46.':•••••••••••••'1.4611';'•• . •••'.•'. • ••'•'•••:•.•••••;:••••:•••.•'4;........ •••:::;::...-..•iiiP:•°14:::'•••••••:'.4.....;'•:C. .. ••A.k..1..1:;:tii9$.4.' • .4:•••'••1 • ••••' • "••••••;•,"::::••'•"•••-•••4:4ugh•••••••••'1,P•'••••• •4:::'!..4:Ift"*".••••••••„••••• • •.. ' '4...s....':'',.;.•''''''.V62.14‘ei • . • ••.:= 4"...i•V....".••f.:i•••••• ::E•::::It':•:.••...••••••'',:.:•:•..]:::4.•• ••' , • •• \.,‘\V. ••••••,:•;';:t;.■•"....,.• ••'•••;!;;::,•• • '••l••••'••••'N:i4•••'..:•••"r•••;:!•;:tii1144. 4i'''•••••::":•::.*::•1:•?'•!.•••••••' 4 • g.:t...'...• ',.. .'•• 4 6:',...; L •,,V; . •• .....•••T ••'::,'...•'i.,:i•-••:6••....".•••••-.:!.•••••:.:::,••.•.::•1.:''i: ..„4:!,::::,:4`.*:...:' . •' -•'-';' .S''),'-',',:...• • ,',1:11,0:1f..ti:•!....„..,.... I.'......"..... ... .. • .. ;:;::.::::::::.:,::: :7.....:....•:'•*,..i.:.•';''7`.''.••'•"..:•:::.::!.::;:'::::::::'K..:::;•;::::'%:',4.• '::..... ..4....,4....',"....*,t-.:........:•,......... ..•••°;-. ....''''.:•1.:•.''' •!..:,•••::';.'.......•‘7.--.q.?. ...:.,:',':::::::::.:::::..;•;:i.:E:4:::::::':••': ' • -:•••••Aiiii: t..1? Akt\::::::: ::1'74)::7lii:,,,,-.. ....-- .. .. ...„..,.....„.......... .:,„ - -•••••••••••• • • • - .,„ .,.. . . ..,....,...,...,,o.:11.,.....,-....... - .. .. .....i.-•!:...:i.':;i:''.7...?!...:,':14. ..." •.-.......:.-.4-.."4"..'''41-''".....-. ....----- ' '......•::::::i * i''....,•,...••••••••. :.,.'.i,.;0:::,,••;,.:........•:;,........,:........, .,-....,....• . 1::::;...-iii:i.:,,,N..;. !-.:,47.-. ...:,0•..::.ti.:4;:elq:::,:::P.,,':•.:,......,,,,,,,,,...t.. .. ...:........f..t55,,,,•••,::::,,,,,.. ..- •,„:„ .-,,,,..:•,••:,....„...: .„:.t....i.,•,...,...... ....,....,..„:.....;,,..,.....,,... ., • i.,,,,t..1:,... .....:, - •.:11:::0:1*:::a::!.:*i'-',-.:'::':';"41::-':.:::':. 4..-' .. • - *1::•::::::"....- ' -. • -...4'.•:•'°::'..•::'•':::"•:: • EXHIBIT B ,:•;;;;;#. •• ••••,.. _•• ...." 46••••••".- .:. • • ••-. :••••••'4• 1 7"4.•• t•'.;L•••••••••:• ..'"'••••:•••••'•• ••'•••• -1 A '4'•••••C'- • '4!.••'•••••••••' •... •,,N :: • ..:....: : .,,•:„..:.4,...„. '6:4g',4•4••••..,••,:A.i"••'••-•'4°6'4... •' --•'' • ":"•••' •1""••' •'••••'•ki.:.k.,.."C;:r.•ii.;•,-,.....;.,•::.. •., ...- _ _, p r + Y ; . Y *• ;N r/ 1 J ,,., k ta�.: 8P yr `•`'. y „. 1,:b`p%:•, ., , i a ''4'.1-• v 1 1 . �, ' -• .1 r,%y " , .l/`�. 'fin �r� , •r:'[✓'�t[ .i;x ..a:"^"'.,:r. •4., i j•. R� r • • }'y�l•%/.�� 'ifnc'•+Ix✓p' � .•r:�.tr'fA' `'�+'G'-'.r v1 y/✓/ /... �w • W., f, %; �ti„�C- .`;yr': �m � w. � �y:rx "\G; p�” �a ,fir M::�SF'� y � �i�'r fi... .;S'yl':.." •:1,E.,,4 s -' p r. ' '''''''f'V a - ':2•'s,F' .G 'ff.`s; �• I -- 7.• ;:5 i:; .,* '�`r,.,,t�r.;,u;'. :$,: .1'.."•'7'''''.--.'•:- .."• .fir' .fi + '.,' �:.:•r -.,,t. .. Y � ,w .;.:,;',;...,-•''''.,- .r',e+rr^. ,';',;;;;,;:••,..--,S--rP, .,� - Kip• .. r X ,` y nt'.•,.4•40.3.',".....- 'vr,•. -s-. p`..�. ',f .,ti;:... ..•'' �i 2�y ,.r 8z. � b%.' fix- q k; '.fir :f��' 91 r h. a W p� oa`'<..r y yf.,, "> z, y: f',; \\ \Pk Yry \,qp.\I h, .; 'ii..:r r�.r. f `r� •`r .q r` "' %i .'..✓; w»x &m " \ °r 1', B,M� ,', , `, r'?rr:r r � ..•4 a ,csy/�y' '%fad°: " '° r:w' F;*' � \ d\`�N �� .rrl'' ,, ��^ii.� `is/r % i"�y,i ��• .*: '�.j 6/fr r , ' ��r,,.[� \p\�\\ 1l np��r�� 4,',hP\ ��i c y � � � lyr..'✓�', " .. ,t. � /'.�:%.''ti,"�/f.'u�f i e,NF��� :1��A\N1W\� \ L - ��.. :�bf,`��r 7 �i ••• ' ,F t/''r �i /% r F:r%fF,/ 'fl&%".'•' u' x✓Y F )�1 •1., sr >•' ✓�'�,��Iy Fgr,':•riir � "'xr �' %' /.,• ... d ./� »`Ay . i .°9+s. 3 °' !y. 'i ce :F%/ ; I' ��`�'i�r��'/.r � y.lap. �/3iy>i'°•q;r"�;�;,.((; ,i. •fi,• P\�\'�:�'���/'% °�•{:ri,,rrf'/ir• ''f` r`�l,. I�q ..s: ,,", 1,.: y.y 66rF• %,'/•, �1\V' ``3 /s„Ci 4�'/ ° r`\�\ y` r r .� ,� .� Y fir r ;, `yS C r< ,"4%.''',.tir •/i'•L” g Liz Fancher From: Chet Antonsen [chet©sgs-development.com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 12:55 PM To: Dana Clough Subject: RE: Erickson Rd Property Description Dana and Karen„ Thank you for sharing you`'experiences with me regarding 1g 'your pending CUP application for your property at 2207.3 Erickson road I vi5it :? the site yesterday and i0 etied the tf an ;le you p.)1Ce Of. It appears to be' ;fir p rox. 100'on the east. hue, 47 on the south Hue, and 117' on the west/north line. This results in a square footage of 7300 -. While this would possibly How for a home to be built, it is so irregular as to he impractical. My opinion is that a prospective purchaser of this type of property would be expecting a more conventional homesite. Chet Antonsen, SIG Development, 11C. 5P3..720...8701 From: Dana Clough [mailto:dana.clo:,.tgh_ gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 6:13 PM To: cheb.� . To: �i:sn5-dsV..,o,,.r, Subject: Erickson Rd Property Description Chet, The parcel description. Address: 22075 Erickson Rd. 97701 Map 17-13-30 Tax lot 200 We sincerely appreciate your time to visit the property etc. Dana & Karen Clough. Dana's Cell 541 771 2870 Karen's Cell 541 771 2890 1 EXHIBIT D RECORDING COVER SHEET(Please print or type) This cover sheet was prepared by the person presenting the instrument for recording.The information on this sheet is a DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS reflection of the attached instrument and was added for the NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK 2014.075i purpose of meeting first page recording requirements in the State of Oregon,and does NOT affect the instrument. ORS 205.234 111111111111111111111011111111 III 1�111 $68.00 AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: ORS 205.234(1)(c) 0 0 Y140040e4S e CENTRAL OREGON IRRIGATION DISTRICT 06/Dae/2014 09'31'49 Am _...__........ D-D Cntzzl Stns1 IN 105s 5W LAKE COURT $20.00 $11.00 $21.00 $10.00 $6.00 REDMOND, OR 97756 1. TITLES(S) OF THE TRANSACTION(S) ORS 205.234(1)(a) QUITCLAIM DEED 2. DIRECT PARTY(IES) / GRANTOR(S) NAME(S) &ADDRESS(ES) ORS 205.234(1)(b) DANA E.&KAREN E.CLOUGH, HUSBAND AND WIFE 3. INDIRECT PARTY(IES) / GRANTEE(S) NAME(S) &ADDRESS(ES) ORS 205.234(1)(b) CENTRAL OREGON IRRIGATION DISTRICT 4. TRUE and ACTUAL CONSIDERATION 5. SEND TAX STATEMENTS TO: ORS 205.234(1)(e) Amount in dollars or other value/property ORS 205.234(1)(d) NO CHANGE 580.00 I I Other Value [1 Other Property Other value/property is Whop or Part[ of the consideration 6. SATISFACTION of ORDER or WARRANT 7.The amount of the monetary obligation Check one if applicable: ORS 205.234(1)(f) imposed by the order or warrant:ORS 205.234(1)(f) n FULL PARTIAL S. If this instrument is being Re-Recorded, complete the following statement: ORS 205.244(2) Re-recorded at the request of CENTRAL OREGON IRRIGATION DISTRICT to correct ATTACH WATER RIGHT MAP IDENTIFYING LOCATION OF QUITCLAIMED WATER previously recorded in Book/Volume 2014 and Page 13456 , or as Fee Number EXHIBI l' E t3mxni OREGON� DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK 1014'i�4 IRRicArlovDisnr r, 3112.11,11i11 I IIIIIIIIIII oo After Recording return to: 05/01/2014 09:30:39 Afl Central Oregon Irrigation District b-b Col.■1 Stroll BN loss Lake Coact Redmond,nd Oft 91756 $10.00 $11.00 $21.00 $10.00 $6.00 $20.00 MAIL TAX STATEMENT TO: NO CHANGE QUITCLAIM DEED (WATER CONVEYANCE AGREEMENT) FOR TRANSFER OF INTEREST IN A WATER RIGHT Grantor,Dana E.&Karen E.Clough.husband and wife,the rightful owner of real property referenced herein,releases and quitclaims to Central Oregon Irrigation District(CND),Grantee,all rights,title and interest in water rights appurtenant the land described as: The North half(N1/2)of Government lot 1,Section 30,Township 17 South,Range 13 East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County,Oregon. V EXCEPT the Northerly and Westerly 30 feet dedicated to the Public for roadway and utilities by instrument recorded August 23, 1982 in Book 361,Page 79,Deschutes county Deed Records. ("Subject Land"), and commonly known as: 17-13-30 00 00200. Grantor further releases claim and responsibility for all of the primary and supplemental water rights appurtenant to the Subject Land,being 0.58 acres,more or less,of water rights issued on Certificates in the name of Central Oregon Irrigation District and to any other irrigation water rights that are specifically appurtenant to the Subject Land. By entry of this deed,Grantor hereby notifies any subsequent purchaser of the Subject Land that Grantor,as owner of the Subject Land,approved the transfer(including a change in the place and type of use and point of diversion)of the water rights referenced herein that are appurtenant to the Subject Land;that the interest in the water rights appurtenant to the Subject Land may not be conveyed in subsequent real estate transactions of the Subject Land;and that upon completion of a transfer,by election of COTD,the Subject Land will have 16.82 acres of appurtenant water right remaining. Furthermore,upon signing of this agreement,Grantor shall no longer be liable for any district assessment or charges pertaining to the described 0.58 acres of water rights. This agreement is binding upon the heirs,executors,administrators,successors,and permitted assigns of the parties to this agreement. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITLE SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007, SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17, CHAPTER 855, OREGON LAWS 2009, AND SECTIONS 2 TO 7, CHAPTER 8, OREGON LAWS 2010. THIS INSTRUMENT DOES NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR. ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY THAT THE UNIT OF LAND BEING TRANSFERRED IS A LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED LOT OR PARCEL, AS DEFINED IN ORS 92.010 OR 215.010, TO VERIFY THE APPROVED USES OF THE LOT OR PARCEL,TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES,AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930, AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007, SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17, CHAPTER 855, OREGON LAWS 2009, AND SECTIONS 2 TO 7, CHAPTER 8, OREGON LAWS 2010. Page 1 of 2 03 . � - Consideration for this Quitclaim is$580.00 DATED this o?3 day of / j r/ ,2014. Grantor �r D. _. • Ai.... A A Karen . Clough State of Oregon ) )ss. County of Deschutes ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on #4 pr1 by Dana E.Clough and Karen E.Clough. �'�•,., OFFICIAL STAMP • '> N KELSEY JOSI � OTA NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO,479073 Notary Pu lic for Oregon �RL MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 16,2017 Grantee: �, 49 Date Carroll D.Penhollow,President,Central Oregon Irrigation District State of Oregon ) ss. County of Deschutes ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on iqp f 1 • O I I-4 by Carroll D.Penhollow as President for Central Oregon Irrigation District. OFFICIAL STAMP r LESLIE ANN CLARK ( N' -Y PUBLIC-OREGON ^ ��— C L��..ti.ei 1■7:,"` COM ION NO. S236$i, Notary Publ. for Oregon pry OO ON 21' ' JANUARY IS,2: ©Central Oregon Irrigation District 2014 OFFICIAL STAMP Page Z of 2 LESLIE ANN CLARK NOTARY pLIBLIC-ORtGON COMMISSION NO 923699 MY COINM ONE IES MANUARY 15,201E � I DESCHUTES COUNTY SEC.30 T17S R13E SCALE - 1" = 400' N j NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 24 19 /r�1' 4T-01Ir. 11M 2200 . 1- Ii/ 16.82 ac. 'OFF' 0.58 AC. Ail F I JOC.A4' r 1.75 ac. EXISTING WATER RIGHTS 16.11 'OFF'LANDS 1. CENTRAL OREGON r QUITCLAIM DEED FOR WATER RIGHTS TRANSFER ' 1 �>,�l QUITCLAIM MAP r NAME: DANA & KAREN CLOUGH RRIGA 0�hSTRKT TAXLOT#: 200 0.58 ACRES 'QC' ., DATE:06-02-14 FILE:I:STRANSFERIWRTRgNS141171330_NWNW QC • Rebuttal: CUP APPLICATION — Least Suitable for Farm Use — Applicant - Dana & Karen Clough- We appealed the CUP denial by hearings officer Stephanie Hicks because she identified only one issue —the least suitable for farm use issue —that merited denial and because she provided a road map that told us what was needed to resolve the issue -- information about the quality of the soils in the SE part of our property. We request that the board of commissioners consider only that issue in their decision. We also appealed the hearings officer's decision because it is inconsistent with the County's prior nonfarm dwelling decisions. Those decisions say that any area that is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops or livestock is the least suitable land on the subject property. In those cases, the County did not require applicants to place their homes on the lands that were the worst of lands that are generally unsuitable. We ask that our application be held to that standard; not to the new one applied by Ms. Hicks. If you decide that it is necessary to show that the nonfarm development will occur on the worst of the generally unsuitable part of our property, we offer the following information: We chose the home site location in the North East area on the blister ridge vs. the South East area because in a meeting with Paul Blikstad we were told that because of setbacks from the neighboring properties and gas pipe line easements, there was not enough room for a home in the South East area. (See attached drawing). Roger Borine has confirmed that the correct soils designation of the east part of our property is soil class VII and that all test pits in the proposed nonfarm development area are Class VII or VIII when irrigated. The very small area in the SE part of our property also contains Class VII soil —whether or not it is irrigated. These areas are essentially the same except that the northeast area is of sufficient size for the nonfarm dwelling and related development. We have owned parcel 200 at 22075 Erickson Rd., Bend OR for over 11 years. Don Barbin has harvested hay for us the past three years only. He does not know our previous farming practices, nor dd our adjoining neighbors who have lived adjacent for 2.5 years (Bomke) and 1 year (Carroll). When we purchased the property in 2004 we were raising horses in the northeast part of the property. The NE pasture would only support one horse over a year and additional hay was necessary because the blister ridge produced very little grass and tended to grow weeds. The SE area was a part of this use. In 2008 we discontinued raising horses and began harvesting in the NE area. We found that the soil in the East portion of the property (determined unsuitable by soil scientist Roger Borine) is shallow and rocky. It dried out quickly and grew very short grass, producing about 1/2 ton / acre. We strongly feel that most of the Bomkes' testimony should not have been allowed and should not be considered because most did not pertain to the "Least Suitable." Also, much of the information provided was incorrect. The Bomkes are hobby farmers with two cows, chickens and 4 to 5 horses for their kids' 4H projects and their recreation. Mr. Bomke has a full-time job in the clothing business. Also, the letters and communications from Don Barbin after the initial hearing contain false and conflicting information. Thank you for your time, review and consideration. Dana & Karen Clough 63080 Stenkamp Rd. / )./it/LZ-t, /6//3/5 Bend, Oregon 97701 RESPONSE TO AUGUST 17, 2015 LETTER FROM DON BARBIN The issue raised by Mr. Barbin in his letter of August 17 is unrelated to the issue raised by the Cloughs in their appeal. The Cloughs won on the "generally unsuitable" issue raised by Mr. Barbin. The appeal has been confined to the issue whether the area to be developed by the Cloughs is the least suitable for the production of farm crops or livestock If Mr. Barbin's evidence is considered relevant, the Cloughs provide the following response: (1) Certified soil scientist Roger Borine found that the soils on the east side of the ( ) g property are Class VII nonagricultural soils. (2) The NRCS classifies Class VII soils as unsuitable for the production of crops. (3) Mr. Borine, who has decades of experience in soils work and many years as a hay farmer, found that the Class VII soils on the Cloughs' property are generally unsuitable for farm use. (4) Mr. Borine's professional opinion supports the earlier information provided by Mr. Barbin that these soils are poor and produce a low yield of hay. Mr. Borine showed that the shallow depth and rocks intermixed with the soil prevent the soils from holding sufficient water to support adequate plant growth to produce a commercial crop of hay. (5) Evidence in the record shows that the Cloughs fertilized the fields on the eastern part of their property through 2014-the years for which hay yields were provided. (6) Evidence in the record shows that the Cloughs did not use beer waste water on the eastern part of the property but used commercial fertilizer. This fact may have misled some neighbors into believing that the east part of the property has not been fertilized. (7) The Coughs discontinued active farming of the home site area in 2015 due to its low crop production. (8) Mr. Barbin harvests the Cloughs' hay and is not responsible for fertilizing the fields and has no first-hand knowledge of their use of fertilizer. (9) Evidence in the record is that the eastern field yields 1/2 ton per acre. (10) Evidence in the record from custom farmer Judd Weirbach is that fields that yields of 1/2 ton per acre such as those achieved on the Cloughs' property cause significant farm losses. 1 I €, e (11) Evidence in the record shows that in 2015 Mr. Barbin harvested the hay on the Cloughs' property in return for being allowed to keep and sell the hay- proof that income from raising hay on the entire property is not sufficient to cover the costs of raising hay. As settled by the Oregon Supreme Court in Wetherell v. Douglas County, farm use must be conducted with an intent to earn a profit in money to be considered farm use. (12) Mr. Barbin appears to be acting on behalf of a neighbor/opponent as he submitted notes of conversations written by an opponent that were prepared long before the time Mr. Barbin changed his testimony. RESPONSE TO OCTOBER 6, 2017 (SIC) LETTER FROM DON BARBIN The vast majority of Mr. Barbin's letter relates to an issue that has been settled: whether the NE corner of the Cloughs' property is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops or livestock. The only evidence that is not an attack on the settled issue that the NE part of the Cloughs' property is generally unsuitable is Mr. Barbin's new argument that the SE corner of the Cloughs' property is the least suitable because it has not been farmed. This claim is untrue as this part of the property has developed with a horse corral and a part of the area is developed with a farm field. The area has also been shown by Roger Borine to be similar to the area in the NE part of the Cloughs' property where the nonfarm dwelling is proposed. Mr. Barbin's recent letter is not credible as Mr. Barbin has told a number of stories that have been proven to be false. After the land use hearing and before a decision was issued, Mr. Barbin contacted the hearings officer ex parte and told her that he had omitted important information from his letters regarding fertilizer. The hearings officer advised the parties of the fact she had been contacted by a witness for the Cloughs, without naming Mr. Barbin. The Cloughs contacted Mr. Barbin who denied contacting the hearings officer. The Cloughs continued to press Mr. Barbin after the hearings officer advised the parties that Mr. Barbin had made the contact. Mr. Barbin then said that he had been called by Paul Blikstad but had not called the hearings officer. Mr. Blikstad told me that he had not called Mr. Barbin. Later, Mr. Barbin admitted to the Cloughs that he had spoken with the hearings officer but claimed that she called him. Mr. Barbin has also changed the information he has provided about the letters he filed with the County. When he contacted the hearings officer, he told her that "his testimony" was untruthful because he omitted information from the letter. See, June 24, 2015 e-mail from Stephanie Hicks to Karen Green and Paul Blikstad. In his August 19, 2015 letter to the Board Mr. Barbin said that he signed both letters filed with the County. He now is claiming that he did not sign the May 2015 letter claiming the applicant transposed his signature. He is also claiming that the applicant changed the content of the letter—something he never claimed before yesterday. 2IP ,., gE Hearings Officer Hicks was aware that Mr. Barbin was asked to withdraw one of his letters (unidentified) and knew he had raised concerns that the area in question was not fertilized. She determined that the whether or not the NE area of the property had been fertilized did not affect her opinion that the area was generally unsuitable for farm use. Submitted this 7th day of October, 2015. Liz Fancher, Attorney for Appellants 644 NW Broadway Street Bend, OR 97701 541-385-3067 (telephone) liz @lizfancher.corn 3I Pa �:, e Sage West, LLC Roger Borine,CPSS,CPSC,Pws Soils, Wetlands, Wildlife Habitat (541)610-2457 September 10,2015 To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Re: 247-15-000035-CU (247-15-000403-A) I completed the Agricultural Soils Suitability Assessment for Nonfarm Dwelling report dated October 14,2014 for Dan and Karen Clough for the CUP application. My October 14,2014 report showed that the entire east part of the Cloughs' property is properly mapped as LCC 7. The Hearings Officer found, however,that the report did not provide sufficient information to allow her to eliminate the possibility that the southeast part of the property,rather than the building site shown in my soils report,was the"least suitable"for the production of farm crops and livestock. As a result, I conducted additional soils testing in the southeast part of the Cloughs'property. Attached is a map showing data points(1-38)that were included in the original October 2014 Soils Report followed by data points(39-60) recently collected in the southeast corner of the LCC 7 area to further confirm the original findings. Soil data points in the entire area shown as LCC 7 confirmed the fact that LCC 7 is the correct designation of the area. The south part of the area is not LCC 8. The entire area mapped LCC 7 by my report is the least suitable for the production of farm crops and livestock. The soil in the only buildable area of the site is LCC 7(northeast corner)and is similar to the soil found in the southeast area. The northeast area has been determined by the Hearings Officer to be generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock. It is also a part of an area,the area identified as LCC 7 that is the least suitable part of the property for the production of farm crops and livestock. My regards, Roger Borine,CPSS,CPSC,PWS 64770 Melinda Court rborine(a7bendbroadband.corn Bend, OR 97701 Sage West, LLC Roger Borine,CPSS,CPSC,Pws Soils, Wetlands, Wildlife Habitat (541)610-2457 Data Point Locations T17S R13E Sec 30 Tax Lot 200 Deschutes Cty,OR 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 37 13 14 15 16 17 18 P9 4 36 26 25 24 23 22 21 in wif, Required Setbacks 3 27 28 29 30 31 37 13 56 5T 34 47 48 7 ti µ 35 45 I ` 55 58 44' 53 54 43 I 38 52 59 42 I _ 39 40 51 50 41 Underground gas pipeline and easement 64770 Melinda Court rborine(a)bendbroadband.corn Bend, OR 97701 Sage West, LLC Roger Borine,cPSS,cPSC,Pws Soils, Wetlands, Wildlife Habitat (541)610-2457 Table 2: Soil Data and Interpretations Plot#PI Soil Data Plot# Depth Bedrock Color Texture Observation Series LCC NRCS Agree with Remarks (inches) Method Map NRCS Map Unit Unit 1 0-2 10YR 3/2 LS Shovel Gosney 7 36A No 2-17 10YR 3/3 LS 17 Basalt 2 0-15 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 36A No 15 Basalt 3 0-9 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Unnamed 7 36A No Very Shallow 9 Basalt 4 0-7 10YR 3/ LS _ Shovel Unnamed 7 36A No Very Shallow 7 Basalt 5 0-4 10YR 3/2 LS Shovel Deskamp 3 36A Yes 4-30 10YR 3/3 LS mm 30 Basalt 6 0-4 10YR 3/2 LS Shovel Deskamp 3 i 36A Yes 4-22 10YR 3/3 LS 22 Basalt 7 0-16 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 36A No 16 Basalt 8 0-14 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 36A No 14 mm Basalt 9 0-10 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 36A No 10 Basalt _ 10 0-15 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 36A No —15 Basalt 11 0-16 10YR 3/3 LS _Shovel Gosney 7 36A No 16 Basalt 12 0-17 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 36A No 17 Basalt 13 0-4 10YR 3/2 LS Shovel Gosney 7 36A No 4-20 10YR 3/3 LS 20 Basalt 14 0-15 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 36A No 15 Basalt LS 15 0-15 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 36A No 15 Basalt 16 0-15 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 36A No 15 Basalt 17 0-14 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 36A No 14 Basalt 18 0-18 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 36A No 18 Basalt _ 19 0-17 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 36A No 17 Basalt 20 0-10 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 36A No 10 Basalt 21 0-7 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Unnamed 7 36A No Very Shallow 7 Basalt mm 64770 Melinda Court rborine@bendbroadband.corn Bend, OR 97701 Sage West, LLC Roger Borine,cPSS,cPSC,Pws Soils, Wetlands, Wildlife Habitat (541)610-2457 Table 2(cont'd): Soil Data and Interpretations Plot Soil Data Plot# Depth Bedrock - Color Texture Observation Series LCC NRCS Agree with Remarks. (Inches) Method Map NRCS Map Unit Unit 22 0-2 10YR 3/2 LS Shovel Gosney 7 _36A No 2-19 10YR 3/3 LS 19 Basalt _ _ 23 0-17 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 36A No 17 Basalt 24 0-15 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 36A No 15 Basalt 25 0-12 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 36A No 12 Basalt _ _ 26 0-3 10YR 3/2 LS Shovel Deskamp 3 36A Yes 3-23 10YR 3/3 LS _ 23 Basalt _ 27 0-4 10YR 3/2 LS Shovel Deskamp 3 36A Yes 4-27 10YR 3/3 LS 27 Basalt 28 0-3 10YR 3/2 LS Shovel Deskamp 3 36A Yes 3-21 10YR 3/3 LS 21 Basalt 29 0-17 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 36A No 17 Basalt _ 30 0-16 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 36A No 16 Basalt _ 31 0-18 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 36A No 18 Basalt _ -4 32 0-2 10YR 3/2 L5 Shovel Deskamp 3 mm 36A Yes 2-22 10YR 3/3 LS 22 Basalt 33 0-17 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 36A No 17 Basalt 34 0-16 10YR 3/2 LS Shovel Gosney 7 36A No 16 Basalt _ 35 0-2 10YR 3/2 LS Shovel/auger Deskamp 3 36A Yes 2-24 10YR 3/3 LS 24 Basalt 36 0-3 10YR 3/2 LS Shovel/auger Deskamp 3 36A Yes 3-26 10YR 3/3 LS 26 Basalt 37 0-3 10YR 3/2 LS Shovel/auger Deskamp 3 36A Yes 3-27 10YR 3/3 LS 27 Basalt 38 0-3 10YR 3/2 LS Shovel/auger Deskamp 3 36A Yes 3-28 10YR 3/3 LS 28 Basalt 64770 Melinda Court rborinebendbroadband.com Bend, OR 97701 Sage West, LLC Roger Borine,cPSS,cPSC,PwS Soils, Wetlands, Wildlife Habitat (541)610-2457 Table 2(cont'd): Soil Data and Interpretations Plot Soil Data Plot# Depth Bedrock Color Texture Observation Series LCC NRCS, ,Agree with Remarks (inches) Method Map NRCS Map Unit Unit 39 0-21 10YR 3/2 LS Shovel Deskamp 3 58C Yes 21 Basalt 40 Disposal area for organic material such as lawn clipping,trimmings,etc 41 0-10 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 58C Yes 10 Basalt 42 0-15 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 58C Yes 15 Basalt 43 0-15 10YR 3/3 VGR-L Shovel Gosney 7 _ 58C Yes 15 Basalt 44 0-15 10YR 3/3 _VGR-L Shovel Gosney 7 36A Yes 1 15 Basalt 45 0-6 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel - 7 36A - Yes Very 6 Basalt shallow 46 0 Basalt Rock outcrop with very shallow soil and adjacent to NE building site. LCC 8 47 0-4 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel 7 36A No Very 4 Basalt shallow 48 0-11 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 36A No 11 Basalt 49 0-15 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 36A Yes 15 Basalt 50 0-17 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 58C No 17 mm Basalt 51 0-24 10YR 3/2 LS Shovel/auger Deskamp 3 36A No 24 Basalt 52 0-24 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel/auger Deskamp 3 36A Yes 24 Basalt _ 53 0-24 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel/auger Deskamp 3 36A Yes 24 Basalt 54 0-25 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel/auger Deskamp 3 36A 1 Yes 25+ - 55 0-24 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel/auger Deskamp 3 36A Yes 24+ - 56 0-26 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel/auger Deskamp 3 36A Yes 26+ - 57 0-22 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel/auger Deskamp 3 36A Yes 22 Basalt 58 0-24 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel/auger Deskamp 3 36A Yes 24 Basalt - 59 0-17 10YR 3/3 LS Shovel Gosney 7 58C No 17 Basalt 60 0-8 Horse paddock with commercial sand hauled in from an off-site source. 64770 Melinda Court rborine @bendbroadband.corn Bend, OR 97701 r T175,R13E Section 30 Tax Lot 200 6 Deschutes Co,OR Figure 3: Building Site for Nonfarm 7:ellingB:usiding • 7 a ; site for Nola 1t13 R13E Section 3.11.XI .. .,, Deschutes Cty•OR '' s :.f a+r re t v • topp. ,:c,,,,,::,4,,, . „,i,. �;1 y , �c * d*a. ;.;,$4041(41''$';'y „74 � , ' r l n 1� J.'';,.'' .' d � � pp�Ra" c a y .'!,..,,,,4:' r Y w 5,gg 15 ,r a 1 4` „ t 3 %' 7c 1 �r a � �, : : F t ,+ a' ;.- '- V F , ”' r e h iY� t r tt s. a i. S , wa r i&' : tt::.4,1,,, ,, ,.' i 4,,.4 , ' '4',. ',, i,,?.,:,''.. 1 ,:/"'!'t, ''' '''.' ' .02,,,,. ,'4,1,',. '..‘$0, r,. ,,,' -,,,L.-...:,'. , :,4' 'ii.' A.- '''` }p ( F f L r 144 •��4 r',, `n 2�" M ° 1„ , a•. C, ti 'Sad p �• aP.. v 1 g y - i ' ,,,0∎ s , 0414 . S. p tl k 11 ;fiI t k A ]p} k ', [ •'' Sage 10/197014," a v4; -'t '' ,' e i y ru:, w r" Considerations for determining suitability of the property for crop,livestock,or merchantable tree production: NRCS estimates that 36A-Deskamp loamy sand, 0-3%slopes will produce 4.0 tons of alfalfa per acre and 1.5 AUMs per acre for pasture, irrigated. The Gosney soil, a contrasting inclusion, will produce 2.0 tons of alfalfa per acre and 0.5 AUMs per acre for pasture, irrigated. Neither soil is rated for non-irrigated farm crops. NRCS estimates that soils in 58C-Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp, 0-15%slopes will produce 150#/ac forage on the Gosney soil and 250#/ac on the Deskamp soil for grazing by livestock. Production is very low.Under a high level of management an acre of this soil would support a cow/calf pair for 15 days in late spring,irrigated. NRCS does not recognize the Gosney or Deskamp soils being capable of producing merchantable trees. Sage West,LLC rbnrine @bendbroadband.com Roger Borine (541)610-2457 Bend,OR 1 ' r :: , ii! :r. a 0. A tIGiSK{1R r„, ,t :!..:„..,i.. ... .„. .. *� ,..;.....,.:„... :1404,4•'•!'•:.•, • z t 0 P .. v } , y iM. A . r en.. Y • .w� Ilutw S rl 41 • 1x17 7 ' .. ':� f ql•7, '. `C 11 D1109it, 7W(ir-. rC t rii'C (SC(TiYr4 �GIY! '�l,,,10i •O..- o�.t U n itsC:: 3 C.IK:Iii x'141"} ci•er'I Lz,t X v.® _.......or... 1 ililliiiiiiiiiiiia ,;-,,:3::‘• :. .... , RECEWED BY: OCT 1 0 2015 October 6, 2017 DELIVERED To County Commissioners and Paul Blikstad; Dort 13ave bt'n._ I would like to offer a few more points for the hearing. I attempted to remove the letters bearing my signature during the open portion of the hearing process. I was not allowed because the applicant and attorney turned them in. I did state during the open portion of the hearing • In 2015 I met with Mylen Bohle (Agronomist OSU) along the property line of the proposed home site in question.The pivot was irrigating over the home site. Mr. Bohle could not believe that this was being considered for a home site and commented: "Why are they attempting to take good farmland out when it currently is irrigated and has a history of being irrigated with a pivot" Mylen Bohle, 2015 • Applicant claims I sent him an email in the letters he wrote dated May, 2015. I have never had an email address or sent an email. • Applicant claims I use satellite imaging. Not the truth. I do not. • Applicant re-wrote the pages that he attached with my signature in May 2015. Falsifying the entire letter. Applicant Attorney turned this in. The applicant transpose my signature. • I have never sold hay to Mr.Schroeder. Do not know who that is. • I have never farmed the SE corner of the Clough property at 22075.This is the area without a pivot for irrigation. • NE corner grew hay for profit under my farming. • NE corner is high value farmland. • The 3page letter bearing my signature in May 2015 is all false. • The letter from 2014 bearing my signature is also falsified by the applicant. • The NE corner is generally suitable for farm use. • The SE corner is the least suitable and generally unsuitable for farm use. It has never been farmed and the pivot does not cross this area leaving the remaining farmland suitable for agriculture. I purpose that the NE corner is suitable for great farming at a profit and the SE corner has never been farmed for hay or livestock. Don Barbin � 0_ -- Is RECEIVED Extensobn Service Crook County BY: /L3 l"} Oregon Stag Univ+ y,498 SE Lynn Blvd,Prineville,Oregon 97754.2840 OSO Phone 541-447-6228 I Fax 541-416-21151 http://extension.oregonstate.edu/croak/ OCT 1 0 2015 Oregon State DELIVERED BY: P0.4 644/4 Date: September 17,2015 To: Don Barbin r From: Mylen Bohle r ' " f Area Extension • :'ronomist Central Oregon - Oregon State University Extension Service Subject: Yield Potttntial of Grass Hay in Central Oregon - You asked me about the ield potential of grass hay in Central Oregon. I am enclosing some yield data from trials we conducted n 1992 and 1993. I am also enclosing some$iata from trials we did in 1999 and 2000 looking at the optimum time to apply nitrogen fertilizer to Bras.hay and grass pasture in Central Oregon. I hope you find the information useful. If you have any questions please give me a call. Agriculture Sciences&Natural Resources,Family&Community Health,4-H Youth.Forestry&Natural Resources,and Extension Sea Grant programs.Oregon State University,United States Department of Agriculture,and Crook County cooperating.The Extension Service offers its programs and materials equally to all people. Sir': "" Hand Delivered and U.S. Certified Mail AUG 1 9 2015 Paul Blikstad DELIVERED BY: Community Development Building 0064 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend,OR 97701 CC:Alan Unger,Tammy Baney,Tony DeBone,Tom Anderson, Erik Kropp,Stephanie Hicks Re: Clough Application 247-15-000035-CU Dear Mr. Blikstad: As you may recall,letters dated March 12,2014 and May 6, 2015 bearing my signature and relating to the issues in the above-referenced appeal were submitted for consideration.The purpose of this correspondence is to make material changes to my opinions expressed in those letters. I request that this correspondence be included in the public record and considered as part of the County record in the event the County elects to proceed with the appeal. When I signed the March 12, 2014 and May 6,2015 letters, I did not have a full understanding of the entire situation involving the property at issue. I was coerced into signing the letters submitted by the applicants. I now have more information and have reread all the letters,and based on my new,more accurate understanding of the true facts,I wish to set the record straight After review of the letter and many hours spent at the site in question,I have come to a vastly different conclusion. I have a wider body of evidence and I can see how the prior letters were critically flawed. I now have additional knowledge and information regarding the parcel in question by doing my own independent research. I would like to state on record that the prior letters were prepared in their entirety by Dana and Karen Clough. The letters contain several statements,errors and omissions. Dana was not truthful in the statements that he wrote or the photographs of the rocks. Dana chose not to water the land in the upper field due to his plan to claim it doesn't produce any hay. The land has an automatic pivot that waters daily and can go for a week or more without being managed by a person. Instead of watering with the pivot Dana would run the wheel lines day after day in the west side of the property, rarely operating the pivot on eastern parcel including the pipeline and CUP area. Dana chose not to manage the east portion of the property. The only portion of the fields that he ever fertilized was the west portion of the field irrigated with the wheel line. Excelerite and then followed a year or more later by Beer water. The East portion of the field seeking the CUP was never managed with Beer water, fertilizer, Excelerite or water. Based on my own physical hands on labor and observations as well as the contract to farm said parcel to cut rake and bale I have now a wide body of knowledge that refutes all the information in the prior two letters. I successfully baled and sold hay over the Transcanada pipeline on the Clough property and all parts around the line. This parcel is high valued farmland and when properly watered this parcel will yield at minimum 4 to 5 tons per acre easily. Property like this will yield a tremendous amount of good quality hay and sell at a rate of$240/per ton,generating substantial revenue and profit for the limited hours it takes to accomplish baled hay. This Class 7 soil can be farmed,and farmed well. I successfully farmed this year on the property seeking a CUP,including over the gas pipeline. When I met with Paul Blikstad to disavow the statements in my prior letters and explain my true,non-coerced opinions,I also submitted an aerial photo of the Neighbor; James Bauchman at 62690 Erickson Rd,Bend Oregon; property showing excellent hay growth over the exact pipeline that runs through the Clough property. The Gas pipeline has no negative effect to grow hay or any other livestock commodity when properly watered and fertilized. I have validated the aerials by physical eye contact with on the ground verification. These aerials are excellent support of actual growth,quality and health. Based on thorough research and after carefully evaluating this situation in its entirety I feel strongly that this is high quality,farmable land and that this parcel should not be changed. We successfully farmed this parcel. A homesite is not needed to successfully farm this parcel. I'm requesting the precedence of the land to stay EFU. The CUP application should be denied and the land in its entirety should continue to be farmed and the EFU laws need to be upheld. This is the letter I want to stand as my professional opinion.Again,I ask that this letter be included in the file for this matter and that it be considered in any proceedings affecting this issue. Regards, Don Barbin Concerned Central Oregon Farmer May 6, 2015 Don Barbin Custom Hay Farming Waugh Rd. Bend, Oregon 97701 To whom this may concern: To further my earlier email of March 12, 2013 regarding the Cloughs' property located at 22075 Erickson Rd. Bend Oregon 97701, Custom hay farming is my sole job and source of income. I am an experienced professional farmer who currently custom farms —200 acres of Central Oregon fields and pastures. The Cloughs' hired my services for the past 3+years. This letter is to report the very poor/low hay production located in the North East corner of the Clough's parcel 200, commonly known as 22075 Erickson Rd. The main reason for this poor/low hay production is based on several things. This area has never produced a good yield which typically is 2 to 2.5 tons of hay per acre. This area has been planted, watered and fertilized however the soils in this area are poor and the hay yield is "'0.5 tons. The crop was so low in height it was difficult to stay in the bale when cutting and baling. See Mr. Borine's soil analysis report for details which to me clearly explains why the production of hay in this area is so low. EXHIBIT H I - A yield of only Y2 ton per acre will result in significant financial losses for the a farmer of about $300 per acre times 2 cuttings per season using custom services like I provide the Coughs', one can add an additional $125 per acre per cutting (even without herbicide or noxious weed control costs.) I am very familiar with farming costs as I have farmed my own ground and have leased farm ground for my own use. It is not possible to reliably determine whether a farm field is capable of growing and sustaining a crop by reviewing aerial photographs. Seed will germinate and appear green but will not survive or grow to sufficient height if the soil is to shallow or compacted. The roots of most crops including hay crops need room to grow downward below the surface of the ground in order to allow the plant to absorb the nutrients and water necessary for plant growth. Photosynthesis is the triggering process that incorporates sunlight, soil, water and nutrients to cause the hay to grow. In all instances I use satellite images only for determining acreage size of the parcel and to see irrigation canals leading to the property, etc. Weeds, also, will often appear green in aerial photographs. In short, an onsite visual looking directly down and on knees is preferable in most instances. Below are a few pictures of surface rocks. The large rocks, ledge and boulders found on the surface of the Cloughs' property and below, make it impossible to disc and reseed that area. It would only damage my equipment. No till farming would be impossible to achieve as it would severely damage the equipment. ..tr ,..; t'"' "� r,, ',rte:"^ '�. '" 'w'�.�" ','�' ""�,; • ? erf,y s .wvr 8 P "rt ,., _ 074 . cw r •• • ; ed'N•y ,' ♦ =•X. �aay pia�- a� 4,a n .•1..� y *fir F F «e i J ,.. ,e x`/ 44, ,,4 .•• '.,,I �4 "4 ,�a °�` , y�. r rye" . i � ,. fir. ^kr'' -44 . a-, „ ,+, '.k 1 ' + r, 4r . o M i" f ,: r'e ^ rt e: i oi*,,,, ,,.... „...,. 4.... - ,,,,,,,-;_ ,, -.. ......„ ,;.'4 J.: ,.::`..,,--,,k„---..':',„ :TArri.A• ' ''' ''CV' '''''' ...r. 44 . ° f . ' p Its ''*n � T .-• Ft T wt' � i P w 1..... ■2.„. ..,.., ,e.Sp.r.. .„...-t °::C.,Tv r."-. -ge -▪ '7,4 E.4: - 1, 0.44.' ,. .., .,_ . .It is my opinion, based on my years of work as a professional farmer and from working on the Chou h's property,rtY, that the rocky high ground in and around the home site proposed by the Cloughs is generally unsuitable for the production of a hay crop even when irrigated. Don Barbin O.-- A"---A---- Custom Hay Farmer. Oct 4,2015 To Whom it may concern «0-L ) I owned and farmed 22075 Erickson Rd.for profit from 1987 to 2000. I grew alfalfa hay and ran livestock. Annually,I harvested 155 to 200 tons of alfalfa per year. The property had approximately 32.5 irrigated acres.I used wheel lines for irrigating the land and employed sound farming practices in conjunction with consistent irrigation. In addition to irrigating regularly I routinely fertilized and amended the • soil to perpetuate the health of the land and to ensure the consistent profit I expected. The other measure I followed meticulously was weed abatement To achieve this I followed a consistent spray schedule. My piece of property was a high-value quality piece of agricultural property. I was able to consistently produce yields from my farming that earned profits. Ron Robinson Jr. } + Y\/ a f ■3 y eA ( -GI Med . 10/1/2015 To whom it may concern, Regarding the property on Erickson rd. that wants a conditional use permit, I have some objections. Dana is saying that the property is not suitable for farming. I have lived at 63670 Erickson rd. since 1978 and the property has always been farmed by either cow/calf operation or by hay production. The whole property. As far as not being able to farm over the pipeline that is a falsehood.There are 2 properties on either side of me that I am able to grow weed free hay over the pipeline with no loss of production. Also just go and look at it, there is no rocks or ground that can't be tilled. A previous owner( Ron Robinson jr.) that owned a construction co. spent considerable time and money making it all farmable. Thanks Steve Bradbury steve July 10,2015 RECE1 : BY: r : JUL 1 0 2015 Paul Blikstad,Senior Planner . o DELIVERED LW: Deschutes County Planning Department �CM "+�t�±►t Dear Sir, Please consider this letter as your instructions and authorization to immediately withdraw my letter in regards to County File#247-15-000035-CU. Yours Truly, j pmaubin 21.101=11 • 62000 Erickson Rd: This property is south of 22075 and 22079 Erickson. Bauchmans also have trans Canada gas pipe running through their property. They successfully cut and bale and sell their field every year and have the hay hauled off by the semi load.Make note of the emerald green grass above the trans Canada gas line. This can also be confirmed via a visual while standing on the ground survalence of the quality of the lush green grass. 1)On February 12,2015 a conversation with Mylen Bohie;Oregon State University Extension office,Associate Professor,Area Extension Agronomist Quoted facts from Mr.Bohie: "If land can be irrigated land can be farmed: "Irrigated desert soil can be harvested at a rate of 5 tons grass hay per acre" "Plantain weed can be controlled with herbicide and good farm use practices would need to be met: 2)A conversation with Tom Bennett in February 2015(District Conservationist)at the Natural Resource management quote: "Takes a higher degree of management to work some soil types which then becomes a land owners decision on the potential they(the owner)would want out of the land." Subject: Re:Clough soils assessment Attachments: Clough release form.pdf;Clough soils assessmentpdf, Clough submittal form.pdf, Clough completeness check_pdf From: Daniels, Katherine [ma alto:kathgrine.daniels @state.or.usi Sent: Wednesday, November 26,2014 1:39 PM To: Nick Le lack Cc: 'dana.dough@gmail.com'; Borine, Roger Subject: Clough soils assessment Hi Nick, The department has reviewed the Clough soils assessment prepared by a professional soil classifier under OAR 660-033- 0030 and 0045,which is attached,together with the submittal,release and report requirement forms.A completeness check indicates that the soils assessment is consistent with reporting requirements for completeness.The County may make its own determination as to the accuracy and acceptability of the soils assessment.I note that the web soil survey shows the tested area to be irrigated and cropped,an indication of its suitability for farm use. Please contact me with any questions. Katherine Katherine Daniels,AICP I Farm and Forest Lands Specialist Community Services Division Oregon Dept of Land Cow and Development 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 I Salem, OR 97301-2540 Direct: (503)934-0069 I Main: (503) 373-0050 I Fax: (503)378-5518 katherine.daniels@state.or.us wisonwon.gov/I_CD i te,lop,c -- ,i, Priv 91/1-lictivis clitv trivoryu i r ts- 1A,rAc alcc/t .-•• co riat- -n4 ii Ai4;k oe- - 'L)Y C•bs 't 5 W0 ALt°'Al e Data Point Locatiorls ,',.. ; ,,,;,,, , , „ , T175 R13E Sec 3° Tax Lot 200 Deschutes Cty, OR „ . -8... 2 ../6 . . - - 37 18 3 V 4 ' ” 13 14 15 /5 17 I 36 26. ' 25 24 23 22 21 Required 13 - ed setbacks 27 2,- 29 30 3 1 32 2 46 34 56 47 48 s2 _ 4 8 55 4 "i0t 111""S 53 54 43 itt. . ' ,‘,.. _„ 4') ■ .,, 52 ,''' 39 38 Iti " Underground easement gas pipeline and -7 \C‘: a --....-- ...-- -i--,12-0 alve.,(.0r& Fi-orylsik -, 5',f2--0 314 , c -f53 12-6 1/4 =--- ( 2.5° ft; (61 14 oi itt',51k 5$120 )..,.__,...,..--., ___----7 (/\Y k-')( '''' r[ ' 42240 2 A (119 Y 1 IA') :-- )19° ,......_,.. 64770 Melinda Court rborine@bendbroadbanCLcon7 Ber4 OR 97701 5. Desoribathe vegetafioh onithevrepetty.,:,::mtrerrioix::0,thelypa;Ilistributionand:suitahilitrfOr grazing.. are unable to tdenbfy The vegetatiorcon:the property and(or to grazing the'exiStii.19 vegetation you may wish:totonsUlta rangaconse.NationistioassistVith your aritwer.: .1?As • r „ ... .. „.... .... „„ .. "... ..... 6.. :1)6teribethoype:ahrf-vetome oterops,:inuluctintay,vr:own'on'ihwpropertw:durinsapy of the last:live(5) yearS,....:and the Oortion0::ofthe,:.:prooerty'orr::•mhiottither were produced, or:indicate that no crops were- §rowett :461mber of Acres Cro Amount Produced tGrow the:Cro ...... .... ..... f40:dret*:::liteifelit0WriiihlfiletOpetty:lit$0014 0/..#45)years. 7. ::E)000tip::t00 type arOvOttikeOfirt>h*Sitof0.cithtt property during any thelaSf years, and the partiOhi,of the property on 0100,they were pOsitidea;:, or iattiOate that no crops were :§03Writ Numher of Acres yy,stp67k-Typeandldulther . IlseitSr Grazing tiOliveStOckwere,grazed an.this:prope4Aiiithircthe last ri '.you aware of any other bistoricalAlseatthevropertylorfarmitv? if so p letotij*Ao.:use arid its:::dUratiortt . . „....... , ... . . • .. • •• • • • ••• . • „ ... .:.• - - - . . ...... csv, tvit, rp-fx,r 4\-/ : : • e_ Milif..4 .;- r-i :''.:•'r. •.' .•inr,r4Ai•71 • :- . '. . •p , . •••eeKT• ;I, _: ;''''7',2.•,.•; lIlft ; - t - r - GREENSToNE FARM - -- - >>>> - ---.0,3 CL-"*:=111- i,i,-;,-,_.;':=.' !:‘ .!-,.::,; '. .- - . .„-- — <<<<- - - .., ,,,,,, , , / ; 1 '- -:;--H: • .- - ..- , v ,„.,,, , , 22079 Erickson, Road, Bend Oregon 97701 , ,' , , , ;i2 r I'. i RELEASE AGREEIVIENT e_. ,...„-i i v i.,,. t.„, / ..- , '.‘'..V.'. : --r, -i..' :.--:r; S••.-:•-• -• . 1: -. ..' rr spOl. rr / e W ( ike..3'24'2,;.: l'1 This R E I.EtAS'''"'E of LIABILITY IS made and entered into on the day of to.„.,,, ., 2014, by and ...,,, between Karen E. & Dana E. Cough herein designate, rviANAGeRS and ,.., , --; -'',:,,,:::'. 44,''litiCr herein designated RIDER/HANDLER (RIDER) and if RIDER — . In return for the use .f,e_ :.•:-. Air:,.71: Rider's parent or guardian, th t ; ' .4 ii'''-' ,'"oli future dates of the property, facilities and services of the MANAGER, or any II:tr elmteet he MANAGER performs horseback riding instructions,the Rider his or her heirs, OI'in and legal representative,hereby expressly agree to the following: ..L I:'•''' ,,_:..-: - ttis the responsibility of the Rider to carry full and complete insurance coverage on his or her poise,,-:personal property and him or herself. _, 2 :;4,-;1-4.-c:1„consideration of instructor providing student with r riding instruction iiti:71f174/ih7.1n addition to the fee to be paid to instructor, hold instructor harmless for all il•. ,,o' ut of or related to said instruction. it is fully understood by student that k: ,..0,, - ,, , ,•:,,,%2A. ,,;- .' .44X; :-WI Adiovb,41.its nature may be dangerous- Student understands the risk involved and ' rilitablitty of negligence on the part of the instructor,and further agrees to . the instructors from claims for any less, damage,or personal injury occurring „ r. . ■4 % .% ,?‘,....:1!, ' ns ors rom C ,..-• to the horse and/or student during instruction. :,--:-4:44'::.... ::i:.:1442,..-..,4,,...-- ' - 7':17::'-' .f:....c---. .. to assume ANY AND ALL RISKS INVOLVED IN OR ARISIING FROM RIDER'S '-:,'' :, AiRT'10ifft i'''-i*:':•:7.'"'• '';i: r CE UPON.MANAGER'S PROPERTY AND FACILITIES, or any facility where the iely. ,,.. . . ,,.,, ' - i. +performs horseback riding instructions, including,.without limitation but not limited ;'?„,,.... fall, to,tlifertSEs of death, bodily injury, property damage, i kicks, bites, collisions with vehicles, horses or stationary objects, fire or explosion,the unaVailability of emergency medical care, or the negligence or deliberate act of another person. A.'-'• .:1 Rider agrees to hold Manager and A of its successors, assigns, subsidiaries, franchisees, officers, directors,employees and agents completely harmless and not liable and _. . 'them from ati It*litlf virhOSOV"ler and AGREES NOT TO SUE them on account of or in with any claims,causes of action,injuries,damages, costs or expenses arising out n the tviana the Rider's use of the presence kipci ger's property and facilities or any facility where the Manager,---ru"fanns"....-. ..,04.k."k riding instr ct. , . . .. h based d u tons, including without limitation, those.,. 6!I death'body injury,property damage,including consequential ,. 4•4. - direct,Willful and wanton negligence of the Manager. damages are caused by the , , ,-. 0,444,) t10 ft') *MVO iltei (,frr tr tifo aid �E v Le*- t'►l5 i if '4 t ,, (4t I t"i t r) `�f) ( ■ Fry a►►y 0.4-04 pi' . � �1 irf it r Nhbcv �` +�4 it f 7rj?x Pd1 t pr);y, 4{ri)st4rif� r �* v{-,�r_'r:4t ,F,d, ,tkr, ,,��41# !1!)t rsf�1 r% _ A h tit d litfi% rt►g �, uthftrwiso 4,4- a�f#"r3 . - w :w s'Y-tt��tK . �, trot kttcl)Ad r ;tl iti�t tt� n�} t rit't�ie t'rrt r ,,tz , s ,etti } x ;� ? .'�,�arn,t, ar�d Fu..�d� t'=4 rrrrt�.- � At�N1 1#� rt ►t 114 t. �3tt>F�� �)f arlir1rt„ ttr t ''!! rtxr, ary � �K RJ r#lf�tit i r;t f}f `X f1:nPS 1fir = '�`t �4'1;�1 h tt4 �1t1 1hr:7 . U0srtgYirt, rt - ; Y ya1'4: E', Rolmfld r'§u r prr! prr►( 11pr-m th& 0440ag-iPrI7- n -m 0t.h i fh+.fishy where the Matiagnr pc,rfortrri hrir;nbark tic frig k--vr.�r-:. Nirtrt t_,AltEtrs 10 )litti by 4fl:t t the 4nr f,nr' rtllrr; and rp p,L,1 #i!3tiy- fi lo ifltr t k t) ►1- 1 f ti' .. . # rt ftri S°triyfrJ err is rn1r��;t.rtif-� } 4 � 4S.aYr- (1r (}t11ittt lr # •t lrr s r ''d :end filter rratr'rj ' Fsr t c, .1{ ,./--,i., .�. 7r", �- �- ��%fir � �''.)i� �^"y r 1;I'tik hra 41 r.(miff wilt) St tc' latAii theft that cloq y., i, putt. .tr;r� vot�.3 •,Jrrr,r, ° r. sf.:�s-G- y t kill' anti 1RRririr'r pat ow '.)t f�toAt'r,314ili F fiiij(tt✓ i a tY}ir,,)r, ar1gt; ti-,!; r r]rrtr-'i ;' ii ;, `t tltttdklg 00 1.1W 1)0111. V:4rtir±!,i, titibititt to the 4tiOa t .'rrrt afid Cbr:rirt.!-'>^, ? Nr,) crti f oot of tholitder r1Iti rho r f-w.�,-, pal l ' r 'f .. ,Y r. w r ' ") 77—‘ Add rest"S .T t ilrir)r*elf Hider.. �1. : {?;... ;i k Ai,?' .. e z R?lL f% r -rte ., .... i rr ?1,a rr sr x rrrt or Guardian (if F 1.)074.tiotion of t-IKjr?Jr? RtrSZ, ' A.* . . . ,;1.--•-..-...'_.•.A_::.?.'-.'.. ,-/,-..-.....`..- '.','. . • -• '*'- --'--.* -."---* '.--:-.:,, _:-('.,* , . , .,_,.),.ii4,-*'*--,...*-_L.- ..,."-_ -..-..P.'. . . 0v. ''-4,,,,,f,,,,' -- -"' ,.-••-• . • .:4?''-,:4.:"... .!::: ::.'...-:-.-': '. '::':- -_.'"-.' --_--.--:-,:'-, ... ';.:-!:.::.,', --' '-.-_'-__ ,,'.:" -,..i. :.••::::':••••:: H.....,,-_-,.,...,00`''''. -'''''-... -::-....-...:;h:.":.'-''''. ' :•• •'•--' . '• • ' - -". -'• • • • ' '•• • f•-'• ' ''• '-• '-•• -- • • •• - : -• '• ' ; '- - ' Pr- ,I. -'••••'. •.4"• .-.•••-..-••--••-•••:,-..--", ••.-.•••"..:-- - ,.••.'. ' ••:••:........-.-•••••••:.••: ... -•••,-1--.••r" • . • :• .•- .. -.. • ......--::. .•••. . ... .. •. ::,.-.- r .' '"',7. ,..'...4. -'...,3.' ...': . - -- - -' . -' i41.. ., ''• .' ••••,'...k•.••••:.-:•••••....:-1.•-•.:-.........;..-.....:::••••••••.. . _ ••••••....2•••:•••‘:•••••.--.••••••••...•••••.•:.••••••••••••H........'•••'.........-.. • •- •••••••.•-.-..•...... ...-..............:•."•-':l',..:::::•'..•‘-.- ..: .• ---- -....':•.,..- - •'• ..; -... ;- ,. ;-'- • ', „•:,..- „.. . - . - --.-, .._ . ,..''..,., . •. • . . .. . . , ,...0 .,, .- . • •, --,. . .... - ..• . .... .. .. . . . ..... . . . ... ..... .. . .. .. . .. .. . . ...,..... ....... .. . ... „... . . . .. . . .... _. . . .. • , ,, •,. , ... . . .... .,. ...... ... . • . •,,••,k,in,,• • •••••• - .... , . . . . • . - . . . . .. . . . . . . •.•••.. .. . , ...,.... .. ..... . , ., ..........f.........••-..•... - - - . . .••._• .... - ... ' •••••• • ••• ..•..... ..-. ......,... . ,. . .... ..... . . . . .. . . •. .••• . .. •. .....„. . ... . ,_ . ......- • •-• -••-• • •• • (gill • ' •.•... .• •••... • :..... . - • - • • • • • - • • •• • - ■-• • '- ..nAlk .. ..... . .. . . • - •.-. .• • ii.A. ! •'• - • . '....... ......, •- . - - - ' -. . . . -• ...._.•• . . • '': •• . -••• ••••••• • ... •• • — ' •. • 7••••.•..•••• r•• .•••• ••.. ....... ...•:‘••••••• ..: •.. • . t3L40. •• A.146,...••: • .•'v.....,•':...,.••.: • •:....... ...:'_ • .''' •. - ' -:-•••••••••,••••••••^•••-' ' .. '- -.-- -....,.,..._: _..-.,..,....-...,.........:.•:..,,.,,-; ',,...,,4„;,•k4.:,,,44,-."..,:fr. '- :.)tIcE,;A,•'. :3 ,..,. ...:„.••- _ _ .... . . ... .. ... ... .. .• .. • . • •.. -•_ •• •-,--- -•• • - • .- -• . _ . -- ••• . - ------- ,- -- • . • .- .,., - ....• ... . . ' - ....- 4' - ( - - ,,,,,, _ • ••..,-, ,...-.•• - . . ...,..,... _. .. . . .. : . .,.. .., . ........ . . ...,. ....-:..:y.,:•••••...7.......,....:;.'...-;,NAME.... •-.- ................:... : .-7 • . . ,.. -• ... •• ... •••.- .- • .. ... •• :' .....-..:.•..- ••:.;.:,. ::::::•••... ..,:.•• - -- - . •.:.....•.. -- __ .. 4.. ''''-.•..,. ,,,,,..4 ,.. . • ,..:.....,„ ' ..:•.••..."••••:.•••••• .. ADDRESS:-•:.:.2-.. .....--...-.....-_:.... .-•••:. .:.": ••••••.......•...-.. ::• : ..... ... :: •.. •.- •...::.,•..•-:.....:•:•••• ••••...•- •••.... -••-• :•••-••••••••:.••••:-••••••••••••:••...••••••••••:•-'1••:•-.:........,••.......-.•:•-...... :-.,:•:••••-•-...........:::•:.••,..:•'.:. ...............'. .......•'.i .'.--• • ... . • •.. .• •• . ... .. . . .- • •: • • . ..,. . .• .:: .• . ..... ...:: . ....• .. • . : .. . . . ....• • • . ::.. •. ...... ..."...••..- ,, • .....•• .•-••-• ••••• ":..•... .. •:...• - •• •• •.. '•••••• ••• • •-•.•• .. - •••• • ..• • •• . . ... •. • •• ::• - .. :.. . .. W.,- ..."'-...T.•••......."•••". ... '.••.. ........:••••.......:•.::• :;::•-:•:.::::...,:..............:•:......,.:•: ...•.•....:••:::•.:.....:••••:-...-....•.:.•• ...: .•- . . ••...... • --..•• .• ... •:..•:,. -. 7 . . .....-::.•:.,...'•.-..... • . -- ....f..,......:•‘. . .::. ...... ••• ,....'::....•.....i..;-:.1.'.-'.....:;4:, r•::::'...:•T 1.:'.,...!,;:-- :•••••••.'•.;.•••••.. •••-•••••: .. -' - ::::•-•-'''';••••••'••-•••-• •••••••••••.::::-..........•-••••••••••••••:•-•'... ..i. •••••••••-••:-.. .••••••,.,.....:•:-.':••• •• - : . - .. ... ••:-: . ••..., : .. • ..--- •.;- : - :••--.••..:••' . ..... -• -.. • -- . .,•;:, •'.,••-••••••:.• ..._.,., i r2 itiv • -• .f-t----CAS.11--••:•••:';•••C 0 D •- CtiARCif... )fq.ACCT.f Mif.)•?1,,f- .•14T474.-''...-•••••-•••-?Atti-4",•A''•'-4'.."-.'7**.• •-• A;;;: •.•.'.. :,.',.::',";,,,,,:'}':.,:r7:_-•'''''.'12-•..,..,Da.,.-..•.,.. ••••:,,,,QH ... :..-..-•..„).fa,......,•,....:.r •- :••••••••-••:•:••........ •. •• • .:- . •• -•• • -• • • • :•., .- - .' ..,.........:.:.•••:• •... . . -.,• • •••••••..•:• . :..-. . . • -;'....• •••• •-.,.,,, •••....,.,7-, :-.:0,,,7:-,',-,..1, tf.. ''',. -.........:T.:...• ..';•••....:•2 •.:.:•••••••••••••••.'::•;•-•••••••••••••••:•••• ..-.-::':'...••••:::•:::•„-•.::,.... •••••••:•.•••••••••••'.••• - '. .•- '..-. • .•: .... '. ;.-•••.....':••••;••'1•:.:,......:•••••:•:•:•H.1.-•••••••••••••••••••••;••-.• 'i:••• ..•••••-...."': ....•. .•••• . • :i'. .:..•:. . ..if.2, ....':',..i''.'T'''••':: r . ... . y. . •••.: . .-- - - - - • . ... .,. . ift.!,..,kf-,i-,:„.; ....,........,......... .,-:.y.,..,41JAN1.011 . . ...- ,„•,.-..,.:01•$cit,,.. ........ip-r.lor,j....:, , .,•_.,.,....-..-_.... ...:-.-..•_ ,_,. .:,:.,.plIC:•.r. - __-. ..L -- *,..k.4.1t,,',4-,J.-44.''' - ?r...i.•: .‘.••.:.::,., • ......:,:::::.. . . .. . ..„. . ,::• _. .,. .• ••.:.••7'...ii,,k14,,,,,, . . . ,.... : te ••• . •. ..•--: •.• . . , •• i••• _4 4,....s..- ..''. .. - Idt)41:kite& : ..........- -..... ••• JL7IL •, , 4°. - ...e;y7C'i to. .,....., -:','..- .• • ••'..... •• '..''•• -• • .4?::-...r!......7•••••'..-•-- -:.--.: -.-,... -,. '.. . - ... -.:. ''.,:'...,..,:'i.'..T:: AO 2•••••.'r•••••••• r• •: ••-. .• .• • • • .•- •. .... .. . ._ -iii•:•isl•a • 1...1'"I'..i...-;...00‹: • a ... _ 4,,,‘,-,„)•V.tir t • • .. ... . e) , • .• • ." . et.11 Ito 1:$a"."rith, •-.-::,, • ."-. -71,,.. . . . .. • -:,..,:.-- .....;_....:.:..-: •• 3 •••:::::•'......:::....:••••••:::•-•:.[..•:..-:.:.•. ..'2.......--.:-......:- .......•••,•. ..•.•.... -........• . . ... -.... ..• .• :.-..... ••• .....,..1.... ..... ...../....4.7„....-. '1,...4. 4..... c.4..".. •.4-Sir.. . :. •,• _ ........ ... . . ... ..,.„•.. - 4... :.......::. .. ......-.• • -••• ..-.......• • .- Tp-•,. • ••i1 .1,4. ••- :- :.•••• ••.... . .,......-• ,r-v --rwr,••••••••-. •.-,.„, ••::..7,.... ....• . .. . .. ...... • ..:...•• ..••••• .. • . . . , . . . •-• . „..# ... .. . . .. , . . . . ..._ , :.... _ __, . • ....... . .. • - " • ""--"- - ••••••,,•,•-• • - 4•••:•. ••••...., . . . ,.. • • • . -,• • .... . , .. .,.. • • • ••••- -••• ••2i. , ..... .. „. .... .. . .. . . . . _. .. . .. . . .. . -•- , .. ... .. , .. ,... ••• . . .. ... . . . . . .....-••.._..• • •• ..• . .- . ,. . . .,. .. . ., • - ... • - • • ••••• •• - • " •-• ••• • .• .- :ii••• - • • .... ., . • .•-• ... •- • - , -•...- - i - - .-... •.',7•:. t".:•• --..q:, • :'',._.-: -,..-' ....„:. --_,_ „ .. . . ..... . . . • .._ • • . .._ .. . „;•.. . •_. .; .........„. „ . .... .,......-...,-. t.,,...1 ............. .... ...: .. : . .... . :..... ...E.:: .. ... •• . • . . .... .. . . • • : ... ..... . ......... ...: .t. . ....... .:„. . • • •• • ,_:•:•••. . .,..._-_•.:•.••••::, .• ,....,,.....,,,,,... ... —. .... ••• •• . -'''' •.1.- . .. , .... .•. ..... .. ... „ .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . ..... ..... .. ... • -••• •41.•:•• .. .. . .. . . - . . . . . . .. . . •••••••• -•• ••••••• - ••••••: l'.. ••••••-••-• •c--• • •,•••. .. . . il. .. •.•-...... .. ..1:1:............... •-.......f.,..,t,:6, . . .. ... , ..„...... . . . .........,.. .....,.__.,..... . '''-•01;, .... „„..... t . • 1.1:: - ; .... ....-..;.,...•-••.....•• ... ....1',..-• • - - I'lli:: . . •, . . . .. • 11- .. •••- t , . . . .. . ... •. . .... . •, •- • .......‘,...,...,...,.....,_,..,_,...,.......... ........ _.,..... .... ... ...,........•,....:,...„...,..... . -• - •••• •• ••• • • •- ------- - - • • : • ••••. . --1-.... - ..::••••'• .1 • -- •t„ . ::'-- -' :•::::::.:::':::•:::'••• ':: •-. • : . •••• . :. ••• • ...•• •.i'l- A • • ,.. • • 11.. . 1,..,Hv:•,. -•V .... . . .. ..,. . .. . . .. _. . . .. . . .. .. . - - •... . •. - • • • I • . • .. , . .. .. _....,.. :....•,. .....•..... . ..., .. .. .. •,••••••...' - '--:•::-...•••• iASTO:P.441...g..S .$z....:7,f..3.,. •. ..• • ,..•, .. „ .14%.•-•.:i•J • . • • A • ,,. .,,... .• , •••• . . • ,,•.• . ...•. . :i.411,'•-•-:•.• .•.-- •• • :-:••... .•-•• - -•• • • • . - •• . .k .• . • .. -• ."g:' • 146.4:: ::••_nif • . ..._ ...... . _... .... ...._... ._..._.,. ..... .- . . .-_ ,L., _,.,.•. ... .• ••... • • . ...- .. _..._._...._.... ___._._...._._...._ .... 0 •-i--0.)-- 0•r--..,.:.„.c \c,0,1.. ,•--,ei,.i.-1/7._t) 6.1.',/i..6i \,,.''.-i:•,,--.-•,.• c.•••)-1...--.7-.-- • . ,.._, .• . ...111.-eil.- SUMMARY OF 11 YEARS OF FARMING PARCEL 200 Dana and I bought the property in 2004 and were naive about farming hay and irrigation. I was raising show horses and Dana had a full time job. The property had been on the market for quite some time and the previous owner had neglected all the fields. It was over grazed and overrun with weeds. At the time the US Forest Service was offering a program for weed abatement paid for by the government of which we qualified and took advantage of. The following 2 years we had Round Butte weed abate the fields and after three seasons began to get better yield on the hay fields and more growth in the pastures. We watered diligently and fertilized. I put a total of 2 horses in each of the 2 fields on parcel 200. The fields alone could not support the horses year round and I had to supplement with hay. We had a major problem with the North field because it boarded Erickson Rd and the neighboring loose dogs would enter that field and would chase the horses. We contacted the Deschutes Co. Sheriff however the problem continued. I eventually elected not to use that field for horses and tried to grow hay.The pastures were burned,fertilized and weed abated. The top half of the Northeast field of parcel 200 never grew more than approximately 6"to 7" and produced about 34 ton of hay per acre. It was dry dusty hay of poor quality that I could not sell. After 3 seasons of trying to harvest hay at 34 ton per/season/per acre, we decided to discontinue farming that area, per advice from our custom farmer. In 2008 after remodeling the house & improving the grounds we listed the property for sale. It was too expensive to farm hay and 1phatigiverruptraising- horses. We were losing money and could no longer support the cost of operation. We had the entire 40 acres listed for 7 years with only one offer and that was contingent on getting a CUP for parcel 200. That fell through upon their discussion with Deschutes County Community Development. Very few buyers were even interested in the 40 acres of non-profitable farm land. Finally we were vS&ren r S"tThf she q vet" t,LP 6" rnt5l 'tc'► ' o �'ces - ,� �J J EXHIBIT I Rats-6 = e- }� t (11-X4- �P`�� 57 able to sell the south 20 acre parcel ( 206) with the house, shop and barns in 2014. The buyer was not interested in the additional 18 acres (parcel 200) even at a discounted price. Since we bought the property the cost of fuel, fertilizer, power and chemicals have gone up exorbitantly to push out the small farmers. It takes hundreds of acres to make growing hay profitable. The cost of a custom farmer to harvest the hay is $125 per acre. If the production is low (i.e.: %x ton per acre) it costs us$250. Per cutting for that acre just for the harvest . This does not include the cost to raise the hay. It does not make economic sense for us to spend thousands of dollars on all the equipment necessary to farm only 18 acres. We are now left with an 18 acre piece of land that has to be farmed from a afar and it costs us more to farm than to not. I can buy hay for less money than I can growing it. We cannot keep animals there because they would be unsupervised. There is no incentive to put in the many hours and money to keep the property looking pristine like it was when we lived there. It would be a great hobby farm if there was a dwelling on it. 1-4).ttf,are a 61 stn �� 41.1-1 • . ... , SEC.30 rTIIS R13E. ..... : SCALE-r...--409,-: NW 114 OF THENVili14- .. - . .. - ..1- ; . . ... • „ Ni..... , ...-: : .... . . ..„ . . .. __ . . . . . _. . _. ,... V 44,411120rAIVASIOrier:AirdiN111111' •. .•..................,•,.., ..., •• .... • ....... • . ...,.. ' 1.0-_,---:-,---. ,--_---------..., --..-_•-:-..--..----..-,i-.--„•-liffri-;-:.-.-:-.•.-- :::...• --:-....;-ffivi. 1,:., -1 ... . . , . ,:- , . ;•::: v. , '---- '':: ---'-------:-'1.-1-?':------------''' ' ' ------ -4040r 411 1 . .r '-- ---,---:----- s---------,-:-----------:---(------------------------- ------' - .To:. r ', ..1 3i; . ' ' ::,-• . _ . ... . ..._ . . . . - . . :#0 , -,f-..:-..-:: . :.: -- ' .''''.----. ' '-....''' ' ' : ---.'- -1 ::::- • • A ' - , .,zA . , : ,, .• : ...: . . dop.F. . .. . , , -..,.. _ _. , . ....... . .. . .. . . ,, .. i : --• - - --, ..::--:---._,- ---.:., - „,- ._ -_ _-- .., ..._.. _...: ,,iiii . 4. ,. . , . . '...i i..: Inj aysnmarva-tERspifis . . .... .. .. , • ' -,: EEEI 00LiititiS: maamoaisfo...NM.... •.,„4,m ..... ...._.. ._ ..-....... ,... ... ::, v. . . . :, "1114-:'" W 911$99P"-1.-" QUITCLAIM DEED FOR WATER RIGHTS TRANSFER . ..Agri.,v#A#0014tivA.. QUtTCLAIM MAP . q .. ,. NAME DANA KAgratatitiaii: :TAXL.Orik 200 „0:18.ACRITA:=1 : 5 oxraos4244 .... ..... .................................„.. ..„.„:::,„. .,,.....„: ,.: : I — Rik AIROMPFERMIVASIOMISOCOROXAC, : ..:1 ... -::: evytivaY � " , " v ,* a �r ' °m �,i ' w "'sd 'N.,- "ri- " * *.," -i „" i„,,„",,""'" ^ ""4''tr'; :"'" -* " iTrl'i «,,,zoTvp"7 , .',.T., ',:;,; '4',... 4 C' ', , ,, , rir'',,,,„,„I * '',1), -,4 i'- , -'4:-,,,i'',.,.0,'.4. r ,...ei„:, ,,, ,. ; ,:., ..., f, A 74": ,r, tr!""14,,, C)* * : IIF-, ,,4 c'....,4* 7.°0, toTto , ,,,.,t,'''v r '�, ,y�yy M �, w IA ha ' �µ��°���', ERR' �� r'',:•',.!'"'t, k t ,� w � � "rIG",.tit.* ' ;lig" 0." " v . ,, ,., .. \ ,...,„, ..t.. . ,IN ,,ii ,,,, ,'"' ‘ ,t 1. , ','.. L -.„,.., 4 \ ,, „. f ,: .N., ' i,„..,„, ',kw*, \ '4:::" N.,. N,„„ ,, c) .',. u . ",,, ", ',,,,, \ S%,,,,it,, \ Ss, \it. •t.„,„, i xi 6*,,, vsfq, _IS for t w a )4 41#0415 k aIa ql• w ■ 440 i ' -15ry �(n�-cr rt��1�. 14 ce.), hhh. : 8 lik 1. fop tot gir .4 , low4 firoolowoolor"" - •- . # ' 'IOW' N4 . ,„„.... .... 440 ii,44440 ....,.. . . -. ,.. .. . . . . ,, . ' , ,■, . ' , . • • . , --::) '' '' , ' ''.''' , , , .'"),,'„ ' ,Y.,,''.' '. '. ' , ,,, --", :',.:,,,,' '',„,. -.,., , ,','-',-,,,-''',ii, ''',,, ,,,',',,,..',,,-., '',,-i„,,,t44:h,,;."":4;ti",,,,,,,k,',',''.-.>-.,,-,,_'-1 :o1bi.1 t,'':..-,'-,-''-,''.'..,"'.:'''"Y-''.',i','...-,2,',:.1,4,A:;''-(,'.'.1,',-'''" ',T)•;i.:•.''-,''',.4:'',.4'',:.7.,-',:-...,;.,',,,'1'4,..,'.«,.,.:.,,;'''.'',2,-...'-',„.,,-.„,t,"...1'','6'-','''4.,.„-.':,,:'v.,:'.!::,,'',..,:,::-,,.,,,::-.,.--0,k:,0,,‘;:r',„o',',..,,„,.,,',:,„,".-,'".,.,,.',,,,„,.',,,,.1 r',,,:,.,.,:',:,r.,.,,',,.,,'t,.'1;, t 44k4 * .,.,.:.. fi:.', k,2! k,,,,', e 4 v', --f,S3'-'f6',;■...'ilt,,,n.t.',=',-', '':' . ' .':".; - . -:. , ' ' , • ' • . .... . ---, .. ..., . - ... No wiv-1/2- v-- ri if)'rf In S / 6/°Y-1/1/v'' 10/1/2015 To whom it may concern, Regarding the property on Erickson rd. that wants a conditional use permit, I have some objections. Dana is saying that the property is not suitable for farming. I have lived at 63670 Erickson rd. since 1978 and the property has always been farmed by either cow/calf operation or by hay production. The whole property. As far as not being able to farm over the pipeline that is a falsehood. There are 2 properties on either side of me that I am able to grow weed free hay over the pipeline with no loss of production. Also just go and look at it, there is no rocks or ground that can't be tilled. A previous owner( Ron Robinson jr.) that owned a construction co. spent considerable time and money making it all farmable. Thanks Steve.Bradbury Steve o't-EC.E17.VEP - To:DesthUtestountY Plannint Departrhent., .:-FEB 0•6 i015- file ft;47-iri-0" 90035-CU. . . . DELIVERtn:-BY: Atten:iPaut..Blikttad,*40.:41aorier We were notified byttesdiutes:touritythatthe property at TM-1:7433011.200 has applied for a permit to anonfant:dwellingorithit:property. Currently this land is-zoned:-EFU10.The land itonlyIllacres,Ensize. We have lived Zsdtive Ways east of thii Other property for 19 yearsand-WatCh the activity on this land.. This property has tOngandyheen,-401.1ffie piece 0f taro)land.-it has been manicured to grow hay and /or alfalfai:-gettlngItOICuttlhg*-00Yeap,CehtraGtegori Irrigation District confirmed that this property currently has 10.42 acres of Water rig*:Please see the attached aerial photo of the property(outlined in 10)1 showing tOegreert fields,irrigation liniiitakiertgation,ponti and horse loafing This Is ,e.leaely:aleyeti.0001:41.*.e hayfield*Deschutes County. Erickson it.aarriall:.turat road,fafri.***(th,Onall:childreh WalttOtha.,#0401 bus et the end of their drive ways. Neighbors walk dOgta!i104f00 bicycles along the stretches of Erickson f024:-Ane*::nonfarm dwelling would create additional 46*000440-i:lfiiiiafe car and truck traffiO:t401 ,.natrotapoontryvaid In the pasti9:VCOMwe haveleeKthetriginal 60 acre property be tarVed Ihtevsmaller'andvhaller private pieces.the new people have built accessory buildings or riding right up On the property lines.This stirs up:dustanditietat the horttesi pip:andithOgn*ropikgAtind, fottoos4400iitiliim theClougOiare,oneththeblggett-efferiders,See theattacileOieetlai*Ittf the large:grey quote irtihi SE corner.That riding arena is in the neighbor's!Opt yard,t4e400110014,#cosrwa'stberie;firt. We are afraid they do thesarne-rthing.aggin In the new location offondOigAoptheffentily We bought-our propertyforihellulet4:Turallifestyle4,:WeteeLtWapplicant is trying to cash in on the land rote'in Deschutes County- Theirgairtshadanot beattheeXpense4f the rural neighborhood on Erickson Road,or by-taking:any-part of that prime piece of irrigated farm land and plating a home,and all of the other harri..smfaCa:that:support:that new hohbffn farm prod OCticet, :Tharkypii:for your attention, Ca'Am-k •kr, . . Brad and Carol Davis 22121 EridtsorERoad Bentk:::OR:477.01. :02/16/15 faEIVED.' swl.tantoitvittevetorateottiteportinent FE:3 I itastotava: :ORA Attrta soicti arm!?'"Insoft foiefigiitstitingStir riarsaandliitelktio40: ,.tio.aatu:601,64:tekiNizatxt„ We'arlOWithigirilS: mgardstAtilaCtuditiimaki4e.................................................... titiOitatiterkaktiticatitthitistillixt WearOppwigitit004::i:: ::44*EPOT**0.,04 '::*rp.s*:t*ktpp$f*t.if:;.064§*V*t*f*liittO#.N4gfy:*k *****26Villifat 1.4. 0.0004.1#4.0.0 0014.000:41100:4:********fittgfe: tafges:quaptities „„tai-othogiiiiiiid404:40.044****zmpewam4smidkmrsip....m.,.:-MictiamaspliAwoiiisist..- .;. iiiiittkatmaatefettiftetweetwaftrittitilarattkapablevt: :emit%arapteOngi crppg.„ ;.. . . 4t. : . . .,Paitt13111(iitifid ,. :„.. ,...... From: $:.-aariciesurtroacifityahao.com. Sent t Monday, Februarylk:2015-,01S:pm: To: Paul Siketad Subject; File Number 247-104:99045-CVEnots00. 6,10 Deschutes:CountyPlanning Department 247-1 5-000035-CU Attn: pow. atiksto Senior Planner Dear Mr. Blikatad: We ware notified property at 22075 Erickson Road, Bend, Tak.tOt:2%.Y has applied for a perinitto::butit a nonfarardifelling-;:orrsaid.:,property: The current is in the "Exclusive Farm Use zone. We have liVetilfIneighboti0.4.11 --cibugtV.SE.Andthis:propertyfor six years. The property has always been groom04:40,groW multiPle cUttings:bf hayydar attet,yot 11*atip grow , „., .„„ „ ood as the effort:the fanner puts into the soil and land,- With that being said, the,:cidugtes:haye,stoppedvatering' and fertilizing the property. They bring iniatOrfettirtger trucks tb-,:fertillia,theicOet Pritiort.ofthis: .property but regjecticcoara:fOrthe'',St of the There is an irrigation pivot that ogoo to provide the land water that they no longer put to :8616kson:Roadia a narrow:* rural road:that is::home to many tamities,with children, often found riding: bikes or out for walks- It haa,:tOttiOtir 0.1t.',#ttehtiOti:that 4the 010.tight intend to operate an equestrian boarding;facilltyonce,a dwelling is built. AlpowsAtt-th*w01 con*an increase in traffic on a day basis with hoiS4:-OWhera,toritittj and going to see their animals.We Onoose to live on Road because of the quiet fanning lifestyle like many other neighboring residents do. We do not agree with taking a prime Plede,Ofirrigatedfarrniend•:to place a: home and:other outbuildings on. Thank you for your consideration., Id Blikstad From: Cheryl Trachsel<ctrachselgoomoast,net>- sent Thursday, February 19,2015 3:11 PM To Paul Blikstad Subject:- Regards to file number 2471-5--.00013$0-CU1)ene and Karen Clouon Mr. allkstad, We are-responding:to the applicationty Dana.and-Karen Clough for nal:14e Permit for a norifarm dwelling on an 18 parcel in the Exclusive Farm Use zone. We object to the exemption.because it would-open the doortoothers in the same zone to want the same consideratian, We chose to live in this area because of the farm use stipulation and the.abitity to keep large acres of land from being built on with more homes. Sincerely, Fred and.Chenil Tradhsel Dated This 19th day offebruaty,2015 E4001100*-190t-40Vtif rOttiani:201.5; Sentfrorn my iPad Paul,Blikstad From: Danny S<lovahohven@hotmail.corn> Sent: Thursday.February 19,2015 11:50 AM To Paul inkstad Subject: DANA CLOUGH NON FARM DWELLING ON ERICKSON Hi Mr. Paul Blikstad, As the property owner with a common corner to Dana Clough(although it was his south 19 acre parcel) I am affected by the exemption he is seeking- lam planning on submitting a written statement before the end of day tomorrow. I talked to a planner and he said there will be a public hearing. I am an interested party to this proceeding and would like notifications of all public hearings and decisions as well as deadlines. This email is fine for notification. Thank you, Danny Sheridan, 62664 Erickson Rd mailing address 837 NE 9th St. Bend OR 97701 phone 541410-0984 . . ... Danny Sheridan -,62664.:Eriekson,Rd.. :. Bend OR To Paul Blilistak•Desehntescounty 0.4404%division: T.'...6ii:istegerdinwtheapplicattion'of DantaottglIfOr anoritiirrn dwelling Ilk:gen:220n f,iiekson.P4.5 .:t request more tinIeto,reiiieWlke 614.10440.n. A4'T have rogootly: look:0444.:-40-0,4%aeveg..4.1 factual errors. tht:Aeseliption.ofPiontainlaa:_weert ortupg 1(itis7woutritionsheihnsect'eommonly.foiiincloNiiwgripting land),pg 11 0.600500.44f water rights 04 17 13 71-40%--400 acres(there*0-9401 04,041i 110:i:1 ::witat I have .::. ...... ..,..... .,.... . . ....• .. .,.. been „....:O.,bit:t o as c erta in ir a short period of time allowed'brmyvorkschedfic I:ifoe a relaIionship,witttit ownership „ . Fanaler regarding development through :,0 1.4ict.*•••••Not-•d•e••••i:t•••••w••••••. *.i••••t•:•,, o••••• •father•:•••••*• .,d•:•:.i.. i:„...i[*:.: :uigh,lett:ast her legal adviowas-she:has ..... preptwed,thisapplioatiom t•ani planning•en•CSOrralifiVlbwapplieationin.tiote,defkl beta:rethe planned public The claim thattbere.,41:•bandinflneneeon iiteOetitedrfdrintkaietk.4ikikit)*Ot 14.0.40.-;as it .'0.,40-064400.-.0 the people will Iiisifp:#4:-..p44:Ompiertyantitheirteactiottto farming vadtiews•-attd:rus uses of EFu land. As a•Iiiree parcel landowner ver4016spAothelobjeet practices . ... . ....... . •• •-• •• • property r have had in004*Othe410.004.,04:441:11.i4gPrAdtki$ :tvg—iirding— HAI*tigighb*, ,,. .....•••••.„. •••_••• ...._...,..,_..._...... ••••••••••,.:-..........• ••••••••.• ..:.....:. already,specifically oornplaintslibout field iiumis*,:burningitr emend forlaadvIcating;, iiiisqbsiraotors:atliithi,Ittua neises:foxn-676010.**00'ilike.kititot*hammer and using ooyotoo with:410,tovoi iti:vg$4§pgAieintit tilatkdysmali size(19 :Atli not being abletoproducealimibteincome,usingeitabriiheirtirming practices the ,cy0.16a1 Nth*:residents will be hobby farmers or Agtotnottor"t4toopimoloay viiith:An, outside iocome and not toittatit of general farming practices. Until th.0814.0.0,boogooto:4040*i.0*.04 j74.1.74. 0 opposition to iftig.,appiicatiottior tho.: reasons-iisted:"abmwand reserve thenpportunityto btinwnp,;other:xeasons.:aiid::errtgs in iheaOpj.kldikin,aS4b.4ye•tinie:rt0-,4*1.14 I ant saying this in*10140*ltdgettl:therelt ai public hearing planned.. • 51440.0.1t-] - --- D 4 1..- .''.. ,....i.,,..- , )464Y.; T04 • .airefVfe:' '..!! , . .... FEB 2.1Y i:201.5 DUIVERE.0".:1174 To Paul Blikstad,Senior Planner Re:22075 Erickson Road,Bend AKA TM 17-13-30 TL 200 File#247.15-000035-CU (247-150403-A) Hello Paul Blikstad, I am sorry that this appeal hearing will be during the middle of a work day.I did not feel that I could take time off of work to speak against the Cloughs appeal,although I do feel strongly against a neW home being built on this prime farm property located at 22075 Erickson Road. I signed in and spoke out at the original public hearing held in the evening. I read most of the"Applicants Final Argument"and was interested in how many times the reference to "not being able to make money due to the low yield of hay on this p a r t-i f the field"was-pointed out.- - --- --- And that they"have tried for many years to make profit growing hay here". I sell real estate for a living and have watched what the Cloughs have done with this property over their ownership in regards to commercial value.I would like to submit the MIS listing for 22075 Erickson Road when the Cloughs were advertising this 18 acre property as"horse property"(growing of hay for profit not mentioned).In fact these pictures show both horses and cows grazing on the grasses that the Clough were able to grow at 22075 Erickson Road. Even along the east side which they are claiming as "the soils are so poor". In reading the MIS sheet you will see that they wanted to sell this parcel in 2007-2009.Their listing price started at$499,000 then dropped to$450,000 without a taker after 421 days.So,I feel that the Clough want it"both ways".They would sell these 18 acres for top dollar as a"fabulous parcel ready for your horses"but now claim that part of the property is not productive. I didn't see anything in their real estate listing about an unproductive area when the property was for sale. I urge you to hold your line on your first decision which was denial to a home on this EFU property.Since my home ownership at 22121 Erickson Road in 1997,22075 Erickson Road always has been productive --. for some type of farming_practice,either raising or grazing.I feel the Cloughs want to build a home on this land because of the mountain view and will try any means to persuade the county to allow them to do so. 22075 Erickson Road is valuable farm land in Deschutes County and should remain so. Thank-you for your attention to this matter, r cba LS Carol Davis 9/18/15 • Y1 �c� ri r11 fS-7171 Is keel I.r rt afio4. - X Also h t h ?via r Levi aC, A2 ........ atvi ...february112: 2015 TG iE Thappschutes•County.:Ptanninteornrnission Fita:#1474154100035,04.•: tnis,:prxwertit. We understandth6yaresaitit the land:Aslant ................. We:hoo 0000:16:::0#home fo.agivooq*101:haveqoigrot:hay:::crpps harvested onthis:: land, :•00t.00.00.0:0141.41$th:0:.Pr:01.0.Mt:WOS:IIPT to.00:::01v1400 €xclustve Farm Ue Zone We have already had homes,:buillton 3 corners our prOperty, This:is:sup.p.ose•to:‘b.wFarrwP.roperty: wish it routstay this way. ‘:SidetatitininthiS matte, •• • • • . „•• „:. • • • • . • • .;. " Paul Blikstad From Danny S.ctovaholwen@hotrnailcorn> Sent Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:00 AM To Patti Blikstad Subject DANA CLOUGH NON FARM DWELLING ON ERICKSON HI Mr. Paul Blikstad, As the property owner with a common corner to Dana Clough(although it was his south 19 acre parcel) am affected by the exemption he is seeking. am planning on submitting a written statement before the end of day tomorrow. I talked to a planner and he said there will be a public hearing, I am an interested party to this proceeding and would like notifications of all public hearings and decisions as well as deadlines, This email is fine for notification. Thank you, Danny Sheridan, 62664 Erickson Rd mailing address 837 NE 9th St. Bend OR 97701 phone 541410-0984 Paul Blikata l'' From: Sheryl Trachsel <:otraohselecameast,net Sent; Thursday,,February.19.2 15 3:11 PM To: Paul Ellikstad Subject Regards to file number 247-15-000036-CU/Dana and Karen Clough Mr. Blikstad, We are responding to the application by Dana and Karen Clough for a conditional Use Permit for a nonfarm dwelling on an 18:08-acre parcel in the Exclusive Farm Use zone. We object to the exemption because it would open the door to others In the same zone to want the same consideration We chose to live in this area because of the farm use stipulation and the ability to keep large acres of land from being built on with more homes. Sincerely, Fred and Cheryl Trachsel Dated this 19th day of February, 2015 E mailed this 19th day of February 2015 Sent frarn my IPad Paul Bhks d' From: S S ericksonroad rahoa.corn> sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 8 16 PM To: Paul Eitil0tad Subject: File Winter 247 45 000035-CU EridlOtOfpadd Deschutes County Planning Department Re?,::' File' 247:45-000035 GU ttn: Paul Blikstad Senior Planner ,Deer:llr.! llstad:. We were notified by Deschutes County that the property at 22075 Erickson Road, Bend, Tax Lot has applied for a permit to build a nonfarm dwelling on said property. The:curre at land is in the Exclusive'Farm Use zone. We:have lived neighboring the Clough% and this property for six years. The property has always been groomed i to grow multiple cuttings of hay year after year. The crop will only be as good as'tt e effort the farmer puts into the soil and land. With that being:said, the.Clough's have stopped watering and'fertilizing the property. They bring in! large fertilizer trucks to fertilize the lower portion.of this property but neglect to care for the rest of the:soit. There is an irrigation pivot that used to provide the land':water'that.they no longer Out to.::u ..:.: Erickson'Road is a narrow, rural road:tl at is home to many families with children, often found riding: bikes or out oOt for walks. it hale come to our attention that the Clough°s:intend to operate an equestrian boarding,facility once a dwelling i built. Along with this will come an increase in traffic on a daily basis with horse> ners coming and going to>:see their animals We Choose to live on Erickson Road:because of the quiet farming lifestyle like many ether: neighboring residents do. 'We do not agree with taking a prime piece of irrigated farmland to place a home and other outbuildings on Thank you for your consideration; ,RICEIVE, tM:,: . .. -....... • • - • ''-...-- ,„,...,„...._:.„.„_..„,„-,„,.„...,_„,,,„... ..,..,... . ,... Almenvoitteetisiapomittlentt" .P.;.4 I P.O. i1]5 r34:UI:V:;:'"':•q,Cr4 r,:n4 11J::4;;;:Z:V:t■.:: :L.,•:-.,N 6 ..' 'fiOwt th9p 97:70:a , . :ge nkt::**dior:.ZC7-454Ik10:11S--Ctt ApOkw*:; Wom.:7.04:1Wtm.K:kko0 zIake§.:::m.gthitwouvzsat.. wt:wwwrithg::this in feganis:to thsCondiliOnalkisrPermitfota rmiarndwelfitit thgtgfe.::: atio*eAsimEck:Apolicafitti. :1:iittki, welvopiyAeittp,,:t40::::Glif:4010#•:14* W40 ,,:;:the*.itaitoom4: 07.wworotfto*4w404.:.:**,:****4:40007:****.itio...4.0**: '*m.o.:.:4***):*,-01*))14kpoogoit-01004494=00$*A t*::b.000:00t*pkiisiooiqh6t tt*14WVNtitiabIe 00 tIO:b0.f6tOt:0004000::*i:t WO:li!imill** taw quaptities ofbay ,..,tii*f;*i0*xt4*.k:4:*,*t:7"x.44.§IL:*.m*bxroi*gkksnNR.oa:w,ki.twm.,Vk :kwxot:w-r;.tkzop.,..atwt,.r.*a=xt.... ii*,,:00:460)*******iab-s:most7, ,.,Witkm*quatefetthai,rathroWthtthett.ftoU' grp*ig arn*Ttrrmg mo 45.K.00:4,-.0..., .. 2.• 1 . •.. . -‘,.1.:E• '••• .:.: t.;._,.. .:::, ..--*,./t:;...--.4,,t,- 4 .:-.'• ' ,-ezeig4t,,i;*-'f:e.::: :‘.....--Y.- - x ... . ..... / ,.. / •,-,'"7.•,, :::::.-: :::...-•;_;e-- • ' ::&.. „..S. , s • - .,_,: - - - ..... ••• 1 but ( ( July 10, 2015EI BY: : JUL 1 0 2015 Paul Blikstad,Senior Planner DELIVERED BY: Deschutes County Planning Department 004 t,t Dear Sir, Please consider this letter as your instructions and authorization to immediately withdraw my letter in regards to County File#247-15-000035-CU. Yours Truly, r " 4 4i1b.l-- .2 From:William Groves[mailto:William.Groves @deschutes.org] Sent: Monday,November 17,2014 4:36 PM To:Daniels,Katherine Cc:Peter Gutowsky Subject: Unsuitability question Katherine, I really appreciate all the help you've given me lately understanding EFU issues. I have another one: I've got an unusual property that has applied for a non-farm dwelling. It's a 2-acre property with 2 acres of irrigation rights. It has been historically irrigated,plowed,and seeded in association with an adjacent property. The twist is that the majority of the 2-acre property and the proposed homesite are on a soil that is Class 7 regardless of irrigation. In talking to the owner's representative,the owner recognized that the proposed homesite had very low productivity but was afraid of losing the irrigation rights and thus worked the ground. When ORS 215.284(3)(b)says, "A lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel may not be considered unsuitable solely because of size or location if it can reasonably be put to farm or forest use in conjunction with other land" ...and OAR 660-033-0130(c)(8)(ii)says,"A lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel is not"generally unsuitable"simply because it is too small to be farmed profitably by itself. If a lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel can be sold, leased, rented or otherwise managed as a part of a commercial farm or ranch,then the lot or parcel or portion of the lot or parcel is not"generally unsuitable"." I could see two conclusions: 1)This 2 acre*has* been put to farm use and managed with other land. This is a fatal flaw. Or 2) It is not generally unsuitable"solely because of size or location"or"because it is too small to be farmed profitably by itself"-- It's unsuitable because the soil is bad. It can't be"sold,leased,rented or otherwise managed as a part of a commercial farm"because the soil is bad. Any experience with this sort of issue or thoughts on this situation? Thanks again, Will Groves Senior Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department ASFPM Certified Floodplain Manager ph#(541)388-6518 fax# (541)385-1764 Web:www.co.deschutes_or.us/cdd EMAIL#2 From: Daniels, Katherine [mailto:katherine.daniels @state.or.usj Sent:Thursday, November 06,2014 2:32 PM To:William Groves; 'jjohnson @oda.state.or.us' 2 Cc: Nick Lelack Subject:RE:Proposed Amendments to Farm Management Plan Hi Will, I assume that the dwelling has not yet been built. If you don't have your own definition in code of"commercial scale"or a similar term,the best guidance is probably to go to the definition of"commercial agricultural enterprise"in rule and --interpr-et-that-definitionan-con.junction-with-the--case_l a w-you-cite.-1_agr-ee_that the_interpretation_of thisxerm..is ._.--TM_--------_.--. --- somewhat of an open question and involves a certain amount of discretion on the county's part.At the same time, because farm dwellings and accessory farm dwellings are sub(1)uses,the county can't actually have its own review criteria. However,you could more specifically define the terms in rule at 0135(1)or 0020(2)in your own code. It's a fine line to walk! I believe that the Aplin case is the last word on"principally engaged." Hope this helps a little. Katherine Katherine Daniels,AICP I Farm and Forest Lands Specialist Community Services Division Oregon Dept.of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol Street NE,Suite 150 I Salem,OR 97301-2540 Direct:(503)934-0069 I Main:(503)373-0050 I Fax:(503)378-5518 katherine.daniels @state.or.us I www.oregon,gov/LCD 3