The URL can be used to link to this page

2015-523-Minutes for Meeting November 30,2015 Recorded 12/17/2015a DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS r NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK CJ lO15 ■5l3 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 111141111111111111111 i2/i1/Z015 03;45;OQ PM 201 JTESc % 0/� { Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2015 Commissioners'Hearing Room -Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St.,Bend Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Tammy Baney and Alan Unger. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; Nick Lelack, Peter Gutowsky, Peter Russell, Matt Martin and Paul Blikstad, Community Development; and nine other citizens. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair DeBone opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. CITIZEN INPUT None was offered. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, November 30, 2015 Page 1 of 14 4. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of First Reading by Title Only of Ordinance No. 2015-031, a Text Amendment regarding Deschutes County Code Title 18 to Modify DCC 18.113.060, Standards for Destination Resorts (Eagle Crest). Peter Gutowsky gave an overview of the item, and entered the case file into the record along with some handouts. Chair DeBone read the opening statement and Mr. Gutowsky explained the process to be followed, which was part of his PowerPoint presentation. In regard to bias or conflicts of interest, the Commissioners declared none. No challenges were offered. Documents just received were presented to the Board for consideration as testimony. Mr. Gutowsky provided a history of Eagle Crest's development. It was the first Goal 8 resort in the area. Some subdivision plats submitted were understood to be a part of overnight lodging but were not deed restricted. Proposed changes will clarify how this is handled and any penalties if the ratio goes below what is required. At this time, Eagle Crest more than meets the requirement. Monthly review and nationally known companies that track overnight stays will be used. There are other requirements, such as building specific overnight facilities, or deed restrictions. County Code is more restrictive than State law. These are narrowly tailored amendments that apply only to Eagle Crest. Other resorts meet compliance through other means. The DLCD is aware and has not expressed any concerns about this change for Eagle Crest. The Board had no questions at this time. The applicant was invited to testify. Brent McLean, who represents Eagle Crest, gave a presentation. Development by Jeld Wen started in 1995, and his company bought it in late 2010. (A copy of his presentation is attached for reference.) Mr. McLean explained that State law changed in 2003 regarding compliance. By the time the County embraced these requirements in 2006, about 97% of the land in the development was already platted. At this time, Eagle Crest began to track these properties better, and started surveying owners in 2008 to find out if they rented out their properties in total or in part. It was agreed by the County that the survey was effective. Their ratio is also felt to be adequate. However, it was determined that it is time to memorialize the uses. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, November 30, 2015 Page 2 of 14 They do not have land available to build overnight lodging per se. They only have 17 more lots to be platted. It would require about 300 units that would be financially unfeasible. A text amendment is the most cost-effective and logical way to address the requirements, and would be compliant with State law. This is the result of about 19 months of work of Eagle Crest representatives, County staff and County Counsel. More homeowners are making their homes available for short-term use, and there are a variety of entities that handle this for them. Commissioner Baney asked if people can list their properties with more than one company. Mr. McLean said that some owners may choose to list with more than one. The units also need to be readily available, and the schedules show a year at a time, with a few timeframes grayed out, presumably for owner use. The resort will provide the time and money required to make this information available to the County. Eagle Crest Resort has a centralized reservation system, as part of their website. All listings are shown here regardless of the company hosting the property. The text amendment calls for a compliance fee if the resort is not able to show the required amount of units being available. The cost would be $687.50 per delinquent unit. There was talk about this setting precedence, but it only applies to those units built before 2001. Therefore, this applies only to Eagle Crest, as other resorts were built later with the requirements in place. DLCD does not oppose this action, and `centralized reservation system' is not specifically spelled out in State law or County Code. They reached out to former Chief Justice Jacob Tanzer, who agreed the change is lawful and consistent with Goal 8. Some have said this is inconsistent with Code. He does not dispute this, but it calls for a centralized or check-in service. The State does not require deed restrictions but the County has, at the time of platting. It was not so stated at the time Eagle Crest was developed. However, they want to count those units that are compliant with State law. Laura Craska Cooper spoke about the legislative process. Some issues have been pointed out that will make this better. They have to be consistent with State law to be counted, but the State does not require a centralized check-in system or deed restrictions. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, November 30, 2015 Page 3 of 14 Mr. McLean proposed language that would allow the resort to count these units as long as they meet the Oregon statutory definition of overnight lodging in Eastern Oregon. This is for 38 or more weeks per year, through a central reservation system or a property manager. He feels the burden of proof has been met. The Resort's history is unique and predates much of the law, but the uses are compliant with State law. Audits would be effective and the compliance fee is a real penalty. There have been just a few comments offered by individuals, with only one being a resident in Eagle Crest. He asked that the Board close the hearing and begin deliberations today. Chair DeBone called others up to testify at this time. Jack Mumford lives in Eagle Crest and has owned his property for over eight years, and owns a condo there as well. He is a former homeowners' group board member, representing about 900 owners. This change will positively affect all the owners in the resort, not just those with rentals. He is concerned about potential lawsuits relating to owners not being able to build and the ability to renovate amenities. The resort has been counting the individually- owned units as rentals for years. The text amendment seems clear and reasonable, and would like to see it approved. Mick Finn said he lives in Eagle Crest, and has been an owner since 2006. He also served on the board in the past. He would like to see the text amendment approved. Without approval, there will be financial instability in the community. Owners are concerned about this, and feels the changes will help. Northview has worked hard with the County to improve this situation. Butch Henry lives in Eagle Crest as well, and has owned since 1988. He is a licensed real estate professional, and is on a board of directors. He encouraged the Board to affirm the text amendment, which is the right thing to do. He owned a property that was a fractional unit for many years, so is familiar with reporting requirements. He has reviewed the text amendments and asks as an owner and a business person that the Board support them. Kimry Jelen said she lives in Sisters, and has been involved in resort issues for a while. She feels there is a larger picture to be considered, with the difficulties of new technology and different trends. She thinks it is a temporary bandage that relates to other resorts. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, November 30, 2015 Page 4 of 14 She said she submitted a letter yesterday in this regard, and read it at this time. She would like to see something better crafted. She indicated six key concerns, one being that other resorts will try to adopt the same method. The Commissioners have to make sure there is compliance and all stakeholders and. resorts should work on something better. Nunzie Gould said she brought lawsuit against the County regarding platting. Eagle Crest was the pioneer and the other resorts watch what this one does. She feels the ordinance needs more work. She is familiar with other resorts providing large bonds instead. She is not sure how this is going to work. Eagle Crest has been at this for a long time and has been a leader. The Board needs to think about precedence and what this means to the community. There was some new language shown at a slide at the last hearing but she does not see it offered to the audience today. She thinks more time is needed to do this right. She does not feel there has been meaningful public debate. Ultimately it gets down to the construct of reporting. The County has had some problems due to non-compliance of the resorts. It is difficult to track this information or whether a unit's tax was even properly reported. This process should not burden the County. She thinks Eagle Crest should build 17 more overnight units on the remaining 17 lots. She is concerned about rural, sprawling subdivisions. On November 29 she got an e-mail from Eagle Crest, offering vacation rentals at a discount. She asked if this type of thing could diminish overall revenue. The formula given for Eagle Crest units and lodging could be different. She wants the record left open due to new wording put into the amendment. They use `resorts' in the plural which concerns her. She suggested the Eagle Crest name be used specifically if this is the only resort affected. She thinks Tetherow might want something changed for itself. It might end up being a model for the State. She does not like one-off legislation, and thinks other resorts will be knocking on the door as well. She wants to see the written record left open due to new language. No other testimony was offered. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, November 30, 2015 Page 5 of 14 The applicant then offered rebuttal. Mr. McLean said they want this to work and to be clear. They are not proposing a voluntary survey; that is what was done in the past. Eagle Crest will do the work. The counting method may create more cost, but they are happy to pay for it. It is representative of the history of Eagle Crest, and is reasonable. Regarding the comment that the new language will not bring Eagle Crest into compliance due to the centralized check-in system, he noted that their website has been the best way to reserve units over time. If it needs to read `Eagle Crest', they can do so, but it applies only to units established before 2001 and no other resorts were on the books then. The County may want to consider how rentals through websites are handled, but this would be a pilot program. Even Visit Bend did not have this information at first. State law provides for a fee if there is noncompliance, as does the County. The compliance fee was based on all the work that has been done. Eagle Crest was a pioneer and a lot has changed since then. They want to be brought into compliance in a logical way. Ms. Gould said it needs perfecting, but that would require specific details. They have been at it for 19 months. It has changed as public comment was received and considered. This does not set precedence for other resorts. Regarding building 17 more rental units, they are concerned about lawsuits regarding deed restrictions on properties that were purchased. This would not get Eagle Crest to where it needs to be in any case. Regarding seasonal sales, all entities have these as part of a marketing effort. This includes hotel rooms and vacation rental units They have never said this is a model for the State. It is a unique change for a unique situation. Regarding leaving the record open, he feels they have been very transparent and every property owner in Eagle Crest has the latest information. Ms. Cooper requested that if the record is kept open, they would like a final rebuttal period as well. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, November 30, 2015 Page 6 of 14 Nick Lelack commented that the platted lots graph has a recording in 2013 in response to a specific plat and a ruling as to whether this was initiated. In 2015 it was found that no time limit was required to submit the final plat. No others have been approved. There is a responsibility for CDD to work on how all the resort are complying sometime next spring, They would go through their materials to come up with a report on all. Having served on destination resort committees for years, Eagle Crest was used as an example at the State level of units that were not deed restricted but were designed to be used for overnight purposes. These are small units with a specific design to function as overnight units. Chair DeBone asked if any of the language is new today. Mr. Gutowsky said the applicant asked to add clarifying language and he felt it would be appropriate to present it today, before adding it to the amendment, so it could be discussed. Commissioner Baney clarified that this application was introduced by Eagle Crest and was not to include other resorts. Mr. Lelack said any other resorts wanting to make changes would require a full-blown hearings process. Commissioner Unger would like to allow some time for public comment on the proposed new language. He otherwise wants to move forward. Commissioner Baney would like to expedite the process. She suggested leaving the written record open until 5 PM on December 4, with a week for final argument from the applicant, and consider deliberations on December 21. The Board agreed. Chair DeBone closed oral testimony. 5. Before the Board was Consideration of First & Second Readings by Title Only, and Adoption by Emergency of Ordinance No. 2015-029, a Plan Amendment (CR Contracting). Matt Martin provided a brief overview of this and the following item. The request was for emergency adoption to allow the applicant to begin work on their project before their peak business season. The Board is required to adopt the Hearings Officer's findings unless there is an appeal, which has not happened. Staff encouraged adoption by emergency today. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, November 30, 2015 Page 7 of 14 Chair DeBone asked about a request for a well access. Mr. Martin said the shared well to the west is being accessed and the applicant offered to provide future access through an easement, but this was not a condition of approval. Commissioner Unger asked about the parcel that does not connect to others, shown on the map. Mr. Martin said it is not part of the property and was conveyed at some time in the past due to a lot line adjustment. Commissioner Baney feels that an emergency clause is warranted in this case. BANEY: Move first and second readings by title only, declaring an emergency. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE Chair votes yes. Chair DeBone did the first and second readings by title only, declaring an emergency. BANEY: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2015-029, by emergency. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE Chair votes yes. 6. Before the Board was Consideration of First & Second Readings by Title Only, and Adoption by Emergency of Ordinance No. 2015-030, a Zone Change (CR Contracting). BANEY: Move first and second readings by title only, declaring an emergency. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE Chair votes yes. Chair DeBone did the first and second readings by title only, declaring an emergency. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, November 30, 2015 Page 8 of 14 UNGER: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2015-030, by emergency. BANEY: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. DEBONE Chair votes yes. 7. Before the Board was Consideration of Deliberations on an Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision regarding a Type 2 Limited Use Permit (Cooper). Paul Blikstad and Peter Gutowsky provided information on the item, which would allow up to six weddings at the property. At a work session with the Board, a recommendation was to bring the Board a summary of all the relevant uses. This information and a matrix has been provided. There are policy implications that resulted in a lengthy staff report. Testimony from the hearing has been summarized as well. In regard to matrix 2, there are several questions whose responses will form whether this application should be approved and the implications of same. Commissioner Unger spoke about the primary use of the property being farm use. He doubts this is a working farm and they have not met the burden of proof that this is the primary use. The house is being used more as a vacation rental and the main use was to grow and sell hay, but the trees do not have a three-year history. They need to show that this is more of a farm use. Commissioner Baney said that she agrees but can't make a decision on how they can move forward They have been able to bring in more information, and she feels that this application can't set the bar on some of these issues. They have not provided even one good year of information, some of it based on revenue that is estimated. This application lacks what is necessary for her to move forward. Options might be the applicant getting a land use attorney if there is more of a framework to bring this forward. The Board could give this back to the applicant to present again at a later time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, November 30, 2015 Page 9 of 14 Chair DeBone stated that the setting is great for weddings but State land use law applies, and it needs to be incidental and subordinate to agriculture. The property is used for overnight stays and events, with little history of the farm use. It does not fit the requirements. Commissioner Unger asked if there are ways for them to work through this. There have been several types of limited use permits on land, and the issue has evolved. He asked if this should be used to clarify the limited use permit process, or is there a better way to handle this. Mr. Gutowsky said the 150th day is December 15. The applicants are not here today. Another hearing has to be noticed, and he does not know to what degree the applicant is willing to toll the clock for additional evidence. They will want to know specifically what information is needed, whether from a third-party professional, or if there is an income trend that can be shown. Whether this applicant affords the Board the ability to clarify what is expected, the Board could indicate what is required whether or not it is approved. The Hearings Officers rely on the 40% number. There may be value in waiting for the next limited use permit application to determine what is required. Commissioner Baney said that the applicant has to show that they'd like to toll the clock and be able to respond. They tried to fill in some gaps on the application but did not hit the mark. Using this application sets the bar too low for others. She suggested a denial at this point. There is no trend data and too gg p many discrepancies, and not enough clarity, Commissioner Unger does not want to use this case for the purpose given, but perhaps another that has better data and would help a farm use be more successful. Mr. Blikstad said that the Hearings Officer found that there is a farm use but was not substantial enough to support the addition of six weddings. Mr. Gutowsky added that the Hearings Officer was calling out the vacation rental and weddings that had occurred, but then it got into trees on site and how those are connected to the events. Commissioner Baney said she had a hard time trying to figure out if the numbers made sense. Chair DeBone said he supports the Hearings Officer's denial. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, November 30, 2015 Page 10 of 14 Mr. Gutowsky said they can bring back a decision reaffirming the Hearings Officer's decision, to meet the time limit. UNGER: Move to affirm the Hearings Officer's decision. BANEY: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Mr. Lelack would like to gain more clarity from the Board at some time in the future regarding the specifics the Board would like to see for this type of application. 8. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of First Reading by Title Only of Ordinance No. 2015-020, an Amendment regarding Code Enforcement. Peter Russell provided a PowerPoint presentation, with the procedures to be followed. Regarding bias or conflicts of interest, none of the Commissioners had any to disclose. There were no challenges from the audience. Mr. Russell referred to the presentation, a copy of which is attached for reference. It was recommended that Section C be removed. Commissioner Unger asked if there is a conflict that creates non-compliance, whether this process would help remove that conflict. Mr. Russell said a Code violation is defined in Ordinance and there has to be a conclusion reached. This could help with neighbor disputes if there is a recognized violation. Mr. Lelack added that this is a tool to help with compliance issues as necessary. Commissioner Unger does not want to see further hardship. Mr. Lelack said there are some exemptions available as well, for certain situations. Mr. Russell said that a motion can be made to remove language in Section C as part of approval. Commissioner Unger does not see any harm in leaving it in Section C. Mr. Russell said that it was suggested that some things do not require land use approval although would need building permits. Commissioner Baney agrees with removal of Section C so as to not leave a loophole. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, November 30, 2015 Page 11 of 14 Tom Anderson said the original proposal came in years ago in regard with Code enforcement and future land use. It was limited to land use and if you are in Code enforcement, you need to address the problem before doing more. At some point this was expanded to include building permits, So they can't apply for land use approval or building permits until the Code enforcement issue is addressed. If something is allowed outright under land use, it is moot except for building permits. He agrees that Section C would complicate the effectiveness. It could be argued that all permits are there for health and safety reasons. Chair DeBone opened this up for public testimony. Merry Ann Moore of Sisters encouraged the Board to approve this text amendment. Both Nunzie Gould and builders are behind this change. This is a logical way forward to help with neighbor disputes and needs to be codified. All parties are behind this, which took over a year to develop. It is plain good. government to adopt this. Mr. Russell reiterated that Section C was not in the document originally, but it was inserted by Legal Counsel and the committee was okay with it either way. They agree with the final proposal. Mr. Lelack said they could keep it but limit it to land use at this time. It would take building permits off the table. Mr. Anderson said that A-3 is where it talks about building permits. If Section C remained, if someone came in for a permit on an outright use, this could allow them to move forward. Mr. Russell said they would get a building permit if it is allowed outright. Mr. Anderson feels not having it would strengthen the ability to resolve Code violations. Commissioner Baney asked if this was part of the Planning Commission's discussion. Mr. Russell said they spoke of both. Section C did not come up. Nunzie Gould said the intent was to have eo le follow Code and to have P p people comply. Caveats are already in play. Removing this would streamline things. The goal is not to hang people up, but to deal with the bad apples. The manual adopted last year did not address this. She would strike Section C. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, November 30, 2015 Page 12 of 14 Mr. Anderson asked whether this is for all permits or just structural. Mr. Lelack said they cannot deny a mechanical or electrical type permit. Commissioner Baney and Chair DeBone said they are okay with striking Section C. Commissioner Unger asked about leaving the record open in case the committee has other ideas. No other testimony was offered, so testimony was closed. UNGER: Move to strike Section C from the document and do first reading by title only. BANEY: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Chair DeBone then conducted first reading by title only. The second reading and adoption would be scheduled no sooner than two weeks. 9. OTHER ITEMS BANEY: Move that Commissioner Unger be Chair for 2016 and Commissioner Baney Vice Chair. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. UNGER: Yes. 10. ADJOURN Being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 a.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, November 30, 2015 Page 13 of 14 (4 DATED this Day of 2015 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Anthony DeBone, Chair (,,t) Alan Unger, Vice Chair ATTEST: [if_�.. )/(A., (-kfututi,. (Szateit_ TammyBaney, Ccr missioner Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, November 30, 2015 Page 14 of 14 a 00, 0/" ,� { Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97703-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.dcschutes.org BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2015 Commissioners'Hearing Room -Administration Building- 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the principal subjects anticipated to be considered or discussed at the meeting. This notice does not limit the ability of the Board to address additional subjects. Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice. This meeting is open to the public and interested citizens are invited to attend. Business Meetings are usually recorded on video and audio, and can be viewed by the public live or at a later date; and written minutes are taken for the record. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. 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 Chair calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing not being conducted as a part of this meeting will NOT be included in the official record of that hearing. If you offer or display to the Board any written documents,photographs or other printed matter as part of your testimony during a public hearing, please be advised that staff is required to retain those documents as part of the permanent record of that hearing. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, November 30, 2015 Page 1 of 7 4. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of First Reading by Title Only of Ordinance No. 2015-031, a Text Amendment regarding Deschutes County Code Title 18 to Modify DCC 18.113.060, Standards for Destination Resorts (Eagle Crest) —Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Suggested Actions: Open hearing, take testimony, close hearing, consider first reading by title only. (The second reading and adoption could be done on December 21.) 5. CONSIDERATION of First & Second Readings by Title Only, and Adoption by Emergency of Ordinance No. 2015-029, a Plan Amendment (CR Contracting) ----Matt Martin, Community Development Suggested Actions: Conduct first and second readings by title only, and adopt by emergency. 6. CONSIDERATION of First & Second Readings by Title Only, and Adoption by Emergency of Ordinance No. 2015-030, a Zone Change (CR Contracting) — Matt Martin, Community Development Suggested Actions: Conduct first and second readings by title only, and adopt by emergency. 7. DELIBERATIONS on an Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision regarding a Type 2 Limited use Permit (Cooper) --Paul Blikstad, Community Development Suggested Actions: Deliberate and provide staff guidance on a decision. 8. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of First Reading by Title Only of Ordinance No. 2015-020, an Amendment regarding Code Enforcement —Peter Russell, Community Development Suggested Actions: Open hearing, take testimony, close hearing, consider first reading by title only. (The second reading and adoption could be done on December 21.) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, November 30, 2015 Page 2 of 7 9. OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)0), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)0), personnel issues; or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public; however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. 10. ADJOURN To watch this meeting on line, go to: http://www.deschutes.org/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. ElL 7 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. FUTURE MEETINGS: (Please note:Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of Commissioners'meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting,please call 388-6572.) Monday, November 30 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Wednesday, December 2 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Public Hearing on Marijuana Business Criteria and Consideration of Opt Out Provisions 6:00 p.m. Public Hearing on Marijuana Business Criteria and Consideration of Opt Out Provisions Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, November 30, 2015 Page 3 of 7 Monday, December 7 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Wednesday, December 9 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Tuesday, December 15 10:00 a.m. 911 User Board Meeting, at 911 1:30 p.m. Budget Committee Meeting Wednesday, December 16 8:00 a.m. Annual Joint Meeting with the Sunriver Service District Board, Sunriver Great Hall 11:00 a.m. Oregon Youth Challenge Graduation Ceremony, at the Fairgrounds, Redmond Friday, December 18 8:00 a.m. Joint Meeting with Sunriver Owners Association, at the SHARC, Sunriver Monday, December 21 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Friday, December 25 Most County offices will be closed to observe Christmas Day. Monday, December 28 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Wednesday, December 30 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 Monday, November 30, 2015 Page 4 of 7 Friday, January 1 Most County offices will be closed to observe New Years'Day. Monday, January 4 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Tuesday, January 5 3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of Public Safety Coordinating Council Wednesday, January 6 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Thursday, January 7 8:00 a.m. Regular Joint Meeting with the Sisters City Council, Sisters City Hall Wednesday, January 13 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Friday, January 15 7:30 a.m. Joint Meeting with La Pine and Sunriver Chambers of Commerce, at 1,000 Trails Monday, January 18 Most County offices will be closed to observe Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Tuesday, January 19 10:00 a.m. 911 User Board Meeting, at 911 Wednesday, January 20 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 Monday, November 30, 2015 Page 5 of 7 Monday, January 25 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Wednesday, January 27 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Thursday, January 28 1:30 p.m. Adult Community Justice(Parole & Probation) Update—the Unger Building, Redmond Monday, February 1 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Tuesday, February 2 11:00 a.m. Department Update—Natural Resources and County Forester 3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of Public Safety Coordinating Council Wednesday, February 3 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Tuesday, February 9 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with the Redmond City Council, at Redmond City Hall Wednesday, February 10 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Monday, February 15 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 Monday, November 30, 2015 Page 6 of 7 Tuesday, January 16 10:00 a.m. 911 User Board Meeting, at 911 Monday, February 22 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Wednesday, February 24 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Monday, February 29 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Tuesday, March 1 3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of Public Safety Coordinating Council Wednesday, March 2 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Monday, March 7 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) 1() 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 kg%® ken.harms(@.deschutes.org. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, November 30, 2015 Page 7 of 7 TES Or lib ° { Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax(541) 385-3202 - wrv.deschutes.org AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board Business Meeting of November 30, 2015 DATE: 11/23/15 FROM: Matthew Martin Community Development Department 541-330-4620 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of First and Second Reading by Title Only and Adoption of Ordinance Nos. 2015-029 and 2015-030 for a Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Tumalo Residential 5-Acre Minimum to Tumalo Industrial for a 5.39 acre property located in Tumalo and Amendments to Deschutes County Code Title 23, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan (Section 5.12 and The Tumalo Community Plan), and Declaring an Emergency. PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? No BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: C.R. Contracting, LLC, requested a Plan Amendment to change the plan designation and zoning from Residential 5-Acre Minimum (TuR5)to Industrial (Tul) for a 5.39 acre property and text amendments to related sections of the Comprehensive Plan. The Hearings Officer held a public hearing on August 18, 2015, and found the application met, or could meet, all relevant criteria and approved the applicant's proposal in a decision dated October 7, 2015. The Hearings Officer's decision was not appealed. Because no appeal was filed, pursuant to DCC 22.28.030(B),the Board must approve the zone change and plan amendment without further argument or testimony. The applicant has requested adoption by emergency. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Consideration of first and second reading by Title only of Ordinances Nos. 2015-029 and 2015-030 and adoption by emergency. ATTENDANCE: Matthew Martin DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS: Matt Martin (CDD) and Legal Counsel aNA Olt{-- BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING �--�--',' REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest -= Ze Date ///3 v/1 j Name -T`¢e Gt- Ai GL /u f a 1 Address /V 2 3 / .4' /9-iv2 (/ ! etc) Li? d"ma 4-, 9 7 7r Phone #s $-03 - <FD? ` D 9 f-3 E-mail address N/A c 1 r I /1/ u /14 F ii;g In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes M No "041 °Ikc- lieec 071:1 BOARD OF COMMISSI-_ONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest /c (INC i J It a j41 rtt Date Name �- 1 Y /t 1 Address I I 6 3 /49 h 1c 4 1 C i-1) ) 'p Rrdykon ri() / N 7?/3"-,6 Phone #s 5-9/ — E-mail address 1-i C h 41 r I P( h v j API- , /A'IA c , c c m In Favor 1 1 Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes .3 0 { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest t AYVlA)' F Date U/313/t',g �� . Name 60 ri-4-\ Address L' O 6:aAv,1A--MoN --FE-P-1, 1)(2_ Phone #s '&0r 43 /-36 -Z4 6jGdfA6IA t:� D IG� , ee E-mail address Vae-nf,-/ t � � In Favor Neutral/Undecided [ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No rQOG G o .. BOARD_..-OF COMMISSIONERS...,.MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest ( C re t Date I I/ 3 a -20( Name Io.k je Address rU 7 3(= r� c?I 7 `7 Phone #s c--(4 (o 14 7 o 3 E-mail address 1L i 0A ir (cn%., 1 vvk `, (2 v\ C ()IAA In Favor El Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? X' Yes No L5 DC7?fklk BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK � � � Agenda Item of Interest .O U. CA-e, M Date Name Yom- 6 Q..u, Address Phone #s E 20332 E-mail address In Favor { Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? l Yes No O wG `Z� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest C u Q— 614c.' r►11- Date r Name ' -� r2 r Address L-`? 2-2 S I-4 1 C k.-1- t• t S S C1 5 Phone #s E-mail address n Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes ' O ,,re BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest s vt.,� Date p r s Name 'L W1. '.. c-,'."k,- Address Phone #s E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No Lt) 0 N 0 m ,..41011.il. ,—I C w ,a,. , N Y e e" o s ON s f s" 7 . _ c s A' � E ao 04$' t S 6EE 4 , . _ .a . 411 '''' ' ''') 'i?'''' '''t.'',: .!,,Ii,',' t'em-' 1', ,R ' r xan AE t A p y f ,144 d } ' y w i ' ?"q' '4 ",. s1 t ,y � fi 4 S''' I/) 1, C Q E 3 d'., z ' M U = E I— CL o — z w e ' m t17 N c—I O N 0 M e--1 or w +, 4 war ;+ts.) ''•C z O ti ro i+ 7t) Pi- a � `fly ^v 4 ._a N 0 O [, �tW;a 'ts + ..1 w, y E, OO 7 ' U"d: .t�., C �.lo y p aa. 4 CI UJ d7 � X X X X _ m Y LU Sam,. Q O ql O M ,r, m 0 (.1 0 m g'. .4i;i,,,i, 6-, ,,,., s i � (�] ‘`t. , ' a g -o 4 '' ,M0 '',,,, P, 1 ,,"0 -sw,m.: : , W B R - m R €} aR, o t Tai d w R' .,- ';� 4n"g a t r P "' ra � t � 8 / Y I,i ...i rrsrr■ S w € ; I— : Ln s m x P�0 m 0 m a , ' N. i L 0 Co .10ii,1 CL'w ' C O h-R a- x O hs , v (1 a v, E3 a a cp"=gy©3r it '',0 a C I m I I c r I I 1 '0. 7��d¢t '3d r, 4 ,3 : d _44 .,'i:'''.,",1,.'','..11 v , w 2 � n 0 12 2 '.''.pil I�" N 0 O b9� a C 3. -.-,; N f,: Q •a v ti ¢d -W m alj w a d„ v a I,Wtea. a CI, 1 Ui 0 N 0 m .�q a 2 w co a w < R M •VNd.„ ,. LL 1 I'll 1 ,:,0,i'''■,''',', .,.,4,,,,,,.,,,: .. 1 „ ...,.,.„..... ,.......1,1 . , H -.?.i ,_... ,..,..1. P,. a S' H a'• ,'2,,;',,,-,7,`73.'0'','' - ,,w a , �a,+y � r v ",��t�,. , 7 v � � d 3 1 � ,,',.,.4,,, w '. - yam,' 7 •+ ' N N O T. -C7 a1 f6 d 2 in 1.I_i ui I U� I 1 1 CC • • U) 0 N 0 m __I r 5t j 101, .,,-' , tt� 4.a g ''* '.w 1 Ee' p,,, . .�a •E wAtP �.'.,e� 4',''' N i81.,',''' .b (v 4tAW' F Y� T$ t;, ., t, i• $ 9' utt dE6 Y k+a. T2 1. 0 Me W' r •wM 1,, ti er ., e l el�'Na�uY �b E E• SPj13 1.1-I Grow 0 „n N 0 N 0 m W a r1 3 fir. .a.,.-r,a. I L"�x�>�,,,Y:•.. 1. svgs_:F )`fig.'s?, d F 6.,''', ,v ,. ,,,,,,,,,,,, ,. mad Yrn.- ,,,, , ,:..,,,,,.„,, 1 1,,,,,,,,,,,, �, ,,, Y t o Y 1. k., RZ... x 1° t � t 'IS” � a• be :i d' � 2 .wu... 0 un co 0 N 0 m ' i .§ ' :2? :1'" ' i E' �2 ,,a' 1, g. ii n' �u Spa a J E - a a r/''V ",sa RN ,• 'd x E p 6 A, ,q " <,'""V' „?,;','"I'',1 k - agh'E E A/ itgg a Ww.#& 6 iM A ; 1:,!,•,, �T #C tiq a al y er� � ” ,1. '''' :0','" 7 , ,*, i 0.7. • 4 ,641 n r 3W % so igg g ,ro d t fi is Y`�� x I '1111 U L('I 0., r^i o N ■ O m ,--1 r-I *', r ,we M, E W �' 4 w I °`v s: U v s c:, I oZ cV Q I d1l J ra ig 3�' w"" � � W—i 1 dd (-)° , w .;I , � , a`„ " t a I_ R W I E� C , I , ' . Q L.I.-1 i ui a v-1 `� N 0 m C4 d L `L w. GE E E a ;, a ter, y V ,, , , u fa PP iiiiipit,,1 w Q AYE'TF :, y', 0: 2 ) .c f° u Tf 3' ,0 8 (1t dri 2 48'' 3}°� 9N � O M% E. iE a ¢ hk v'ti' , l,,,,, i e/, ,, , , ,a- 9 C. 1 D E r!. aF W ,gP CT. a U.1 o 3 F 3 �.b g GJ 0.. ICI 4- h �} Ain, W ^ T'' L 0 a 1 I I z • d, • u-) 0 N 0 m rte+ c Y T p C E W s i o t�D L Y. T3 ,1{ U :a d't 4t 8,1,,,,.;'',,; R v1 jiH ra tn ' q1 V $ a+� `� ra -a I r bk^'^'` . 6. .y. „r; v ` LJ.1 �" s KY W a I 1 I H © df 2 6o 0 ; i o E'_-) Q o ' 4- U N O 0.3, , a '°�+, s,. ' ' ..c� s, o a C a 3-Uv, a v " i o ... a a cu o� t cu +- • tjj E v - v CI) 2 0 3 o a o a a �., 0 u C °c 4 e clo _I f„ 0 a .^-, +. N E' v ,N $ ,9 w X a+O N 4 �aY + ai O m C C o. "" -- Iiiid. Ln x5 v Q- MfT ,.r„ 9 W Y?0,1 [ :4 3 Y 4 w (1") p N q c,:; (Is y,K411 ' '''''b.° cl- ' =11 ,,. ,- ,,,...., ., ,,,. i -e' 1., y N 6 A.., a •• r b:1n,.ifiii, ;>,++ y'pp x #t 1 E t � y tw 1 '3 0 3 4,E, J D = E_ p W 'O +i U O d , m n 0 N 0 m 'w:: 1 E NI it a a1- 4 0 E ' msµ ° a w as r a �`� ° cu O ty C a , f 4 ' N 9E 4 f_6 y �E' Ea) '4""t V O S+ +d 4 1. I c� 6 w �, b � i�',.,,/EE ^,, µE'..;,,„.; 7 L`,,,'''''1° ly,jiiiii W r �' Q/ Q7 t N. , s V a 4�.) E) cc C m a V7 m +� O w ° }, 'c cc E O O. 0 0 n u ¢ $ cc Z s 0 N O m ul I ' . M t �I , F aE E ;•, „ .,id, O ,,',, T E �' +'+ c , C c m' .t t is Q, ! 8 a .J C3 0 0 � ;� � � a � a tU d1 G�0, —' ,,1,7''' l' , ' I ,, 0 a . , , g '' ,„ ., { E6 �� fi y' l' ,i;',*g„: ' '', i 'a E t I "k§f'� fC7 O �*x, ,.Q Z W un v, 0 N 0 m ' w F � ri ra d 7 4 b , '', ..., ,'t, .!ii ' Kt,, } f' E" �` � E 1 t�, ,,37 V v u a o u° � ' O 4 E , 4 c a n —J E a c U From: "Eagle Crest Resort"<reservations @eagle-crest.cont Subject: Huge Savings On Your Next Visit Date: November 29, 2015 9:24:29 AM PST To: "nunzie@ pacifier.com"<nunzie @pacifier.corr» Reply-To: reservations@eagle-crest.com Private Sale at Eagle Crest Resort No Images?Click here EAGLE CREST" RESORT tt • N s f 4 } + p, • a F MB Y _ y l ` i • 4 f..t I. _ 1. 1 r' 1 • • r + • • w 4 y 4 PRIVATE SALE Don't Miss Your Chance To Save This Season Through select dates, enjoy lodge guest room rates starting at Sly or 40% off vacation rentals. GO TO THE SALE > RESERVATIONS 877.935.6572 Private Sale ends Cyber Monday at d:oopm PST. Available select dates through.5/24/16. Please reserve lodge guest rooms by phone. Golf Savings End Today Last chance to purchase 5259 . punch passes and save on retail in the pro shop. These savings end today at 2pin! LEARN MORE > u Forward. ©00 Eagle Crest Resort 1522 Cline Falls Road Redmond, Oregon 97756 www.eagle-crest.corn Preferences I Unsubscribe Peter Gutowsky From: Paul Lipscomb <judgelipscomb @gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 2:57 PM To: Peter Gutowsky; Nick Lelack Subject: Eagle Crest Text Amendment 247-1S-000444-TA I will not be available for the Public Hearing on this matter on November 30th because I must be in Salem that day and the next. Please see that my comments as set forth below are made part of the record. Additionally, I would ask that you run these statutory interpretation issues past legal counsel. The text amendment currently proposed by Eagle Crest conflicts with other provisions of the Deschutes County Code, and with state statutes. These are legal questions and it would be better practice to run these kinds of legal issues past legal counsel before the County Commissioners have to make a decision on it. (Recently one of the Commissioners asked me why I thought Deschutes County was being reversed so often lately by LUBA and the Courts. I suggested that if more frequent use of legal counsel were made before a decision was reached on legal matters fewer reversals would occur and the County would save time and money.) As I noted in my written comments before the Planning Commission, under the terms of Goal 8, individually owned units can be considered "Overnight Lodgings" only if such units are "available for overnight rental use . . .through a central reservation system operated by the destination resort or by a real estate property manager, as defined in ORS 696.010." ORS 696.010(19), in turn, defines a "real estate property manager"as follows: "Real estate property manager means a real estate licensee who engages in the management of rental real estate and is a licensed real estate property manager, a principal real estate broker, or a real estate broker who is associated with and supervised by a principal real estate broker."Thus, under Oregon law, a "real estate property manager" as that term is used in Goal 8 must be a real estate professional who is licensed by the State of Oregon to perform real estate management functions." National third party websites such as VRBO, Flipkey, Homeaway, and Airbnb, etc that advertise individually owned units available for overnight rental use are clearly not "real estate property managers"as defined in ORS 696.010. Accordingly, individually owned units available for overnight stays through VRBO, Flipkey, Homeaway, Airbnb, etc. cannot legally be counted as "overnight lodgings" as currently proposed by Eagle Crest. Nor are such individually owned units able to qualify as available "through a central reservation system operated by the destination resort" under state law because a decentralized reservation process that relies on any number of distinct, separately managed and independently operated commercial internet reservation businesses over which there is no central control cannot qualify as a "central reservation system operated by the destination resort", nor even as a "system" at all. Finally, the definition of"overnight lodgings" in the Deschutes County Code is even more stringent than that specified in ORS 696.010. Notably the Deschutes County ordinance adds an additional requirement that not only the reservation process, but also the check-in process must be managed centrally by the destination resort itself or by a licensed real estate professional. For example, DCC 18.04.030 defines overnight lodgings as follows: "Overnight lodgings with respect to destination resorts, means permanent, separately rentable accommodations that are not available for residential use. . . . Individually owned units may be considered overnight lodgings if they are available for overnight rental use by the general public for at least 38 weeks per calendar year through a central reservation and check-in service operated by the 1 destination resort or by a real estate property manager as defined in ORS 696.010." See also DCC 18.113.060(D)(2). Legally County code provisions may permissibly be more stringent than state law without creating a conflict, but not less stringent. Simply put,the pending text amendment proposed by Eagle Crest would be in conflict with both state law and with other provisions of the Deschutes County Code. Thank you for considering my input. Paul Lipscomb PO Box 579 Sisters, OR 97759 2 From: Pamela Burry To: Peter Gutowskv;Nick Lelack Cc: Tammy Banev;Tony DeBone;Alan Unger Subject: Concerns with Eagle Crest Text Amendment Date: Sunday,November 29,2015 10:08:55 PM Dear Peter and Nick, Below please find a letter concerning Eagle Crest Text Amendment. I am traveling for the holidays and therefore must send this via Pamela Burry's computer. Thanks. Jerry Norquist To: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Fr: Oregon Land and Water Alliance Re: Concerns with Eagle Crest Text Amendment and request for answers to questions November 30, 2015 Please submit these comments into the public record regarding Text Amendment proposal 247-15-000444-TA/Ordinance No. 2015-031 on behalf of the members of the Oregon Land and Water Alliance (OLAWA). We agree that Eagle Crest is out of compliance with its overnight lodging requirement. But we do not agree with this proposal to bring them into compliance and find several aspects not in the public interest. We urge the BOCC to craft something better. This proposal is more far-reaching than a simple modification of how Eagle Crest will provide Deschutes County with the required annual accounting on resort overnight lodging. OLAWA has six key concerns: The method Eagle Crest proposes to come into compliance with the 2.5:1 residential to overnight lodging requirement is flawed because the voluntary survey they've based their calculations on doesn't provide a precise picture of actual overnight lodging occupancy. This new overnight unit counting method may shift substantial administrative costs from private businesses to county taxpayers. This new code language will NOT bring Eagle Crest into compliance with the state resort statute. By this statute, resorts must submit overnight lodging data from a central reservation system. The language of this proposed amendment has been expanded to include "resorts," plural. So Eagle Crest's proposed method of counting overnight lodging may be adopted by all county resorts. This new code will likely make it harder, not easier, to ascertain compliance with actual overnight lodging requirements. The county needs to define a better, "third way"to count overnights that accommodates the new trends in how vacation rentals are managed. We are opposed to a "comply or just pay a fee" approach to overnight lodging units at Eagle Crest and every resort. Specifics on these concerns follow. It is the job of county public officials to act in the public interest to assure that resorts perform their primary, statutory function: attracting and serving visitors. To that end, Deschutes County should take the time to work with all county resorts and stakeholders to create a modern, overnight lodging unit data collection and reporting system that will offer a true, timely and transparent view of resort compliance and reflects the changes in how rentals are managed online. Respectfully, Jerry Norquist, President, representing OLAWA Incomplete analysis of existing overnight lodging units at Eagle Crest Eagle Crest wants to "redefine" 300 individually-owned homes as used for transient rentals. But the survey data on what units are actually being used as overnights reflect less than a third of the properties contacted. And Eagle Crest had accurate email addresses for only 58 percent of the property owners in the neighborhoods surveyed. This is insufficient to determine what's actually being rented to visitors. We recommend pausing on this code amendment until a truer picture of actual rentals is developed at Eagle Crest. We agree that a new method for counting overnights is needed, to accommodate the shift to third-party rental websites such as VRBO and HomeAway. We also believe Eagle Crest's current method used to calculate overnights—an annual, voluntary survey of property owners—is deficient for determining with any precision both what units may be redefined as visitor-serving and whether the resort is complying with state resort code. Our understanding is the new method for counting overnight lodging units proposed by Eagle Crest would be submission of monthly reports from online rental agencies and the central reservation system. But there is no specificity in the proposed text amendment about how this data will be synthesized into one, clear report before submission to the County. Without this synthesis, the monthly reports from one dozen sources will be difficult to impossible to make sense of. The County and the public will have less understanding, not more, about what's actually being rented to visitors at resorts. Potential transfer of private business costs to county taxpayers Taxpayers should be shielded from any costs of administering a new counting Y 9 9 method. Synthesizing individual overnight lodging unit reports from a dozen third- party rental websites and the central reservation system at Eagle Crest each month will be a large, time-consuming, ongoing, potentially costly project. This cost must not be shifted to Deschutes County taxpayers. Imagine if all resorts adopt this counting methodology; should county taxpayers be on the hook for the cost of private businesses to comply with their basic statutory requirement? The proposed text amendment should spell out that it is resorts not county staff that will be responsible for this task and cost. If not, the County should develop a budget and allocate staff time to cope with this new demand, stating the projected costs. OLAWA opposes any potential shift of the overnight lodging reporting cost burden from resorts to county taxpayers. Noncompliance with the state resort statute The state requires calculation of overnight lodging unit occupancy to come from data from a central reservation system. Deschutes County may be obliged to request a state fix to resort code in order to adopt the new proposed counting methodology. Unforeseen consequences when other resorts try to adopt this counting method The text amendment language has been expanded to include "resorts," plural. Until the concerns outlined in this letter are addressed, we oppose allowing the proposed counting method to be expanded to other County resorts. Deschutes County can do better. OLAWA urges Deschutes County to use this opportunity to craft a new method for collecting overnight lodging data from resorts. We recognize central reservation systems are no longer the sole pathway for tracking this data. We urge the County and resorts to engage a consultant to create a uniform data collection and reporting method that is cost-effective for resorts, does not shift the burden of counting to taxpayers, and delivers timely data that will provide a picture of how resorts are complying. Deschutes County should not enact the provision stating that this or any resort can simply "opt out" of building overnight lodging units by paying a fee. Oregon destination resorts are meant to encourage visitor-serving facilities for the purpose of economic development and recreation. Because it's more profitable to build housing than overnight units, it's important for local government to do its job in assuring that resorts are abiding by this statutory mandate. New building at Eagle Crest should conform with existing county and state resort statute. It should focus on verifiable, visitor-serving units that move the resort into compliance with the 2.5:1 required ratio. This is only fair to other new resorts that are building overnights. AA. 41. F3 il X Y 1,,, q I� . ...,.,,,,,:,.!„ j a. , tic) . ,;w 1 ..C2 vr,,...,. y,,, , V { y J , J Ty I : I' I (/) 3 T O W `n + , CU 0 0 1 OC N C (if) O ttO to th a) E . „... (3) 1 o E -c2 ' . •4-1 CU O '. ro U U O 4--I Z Q C Q 0 U 4— ; H O i co u 0 m , 1 , I CU p v Q a--r V F-- _c 73 r1 •MO cpn p O •p Cup th p > - .— a.,_, O 0 cu L. q,1 _ p s— cn CO N O �- O U CU 4-0 co a cu cu +-+ v v O .— . co CU _ p CL 73 E co _ C E CU O > •C x .- �-� c (0 p p F .v) ate-+ 0 I- L O +� i c!1 p +� O t U O Np -0 p � Z3 a.., p co CD V) p O fo cn Q -0 CU ro Co p ate-+ -c Z_3 Q -0 p w W E 0 cn (A '> = v) Cl) ,. v_ h:r0 _S. CD p ate--+ — p ro co L eto O — O v O _• CO CU CU Q Q Q p , el u •�, bjp cn p v7 Q O O Q v) u O 41 p L - I— O I— 0- I— • • • • • • 4-1 tn a O C o ca 4 �+•'. - >'• U U tan C • 4- iC (0 CO — �O C 4-' E O a CI v o v C — c U_ Q i }, C .� ?j O C C O ID •N O CD (B . cn U C C1A ccn a ' a c c E N c 0 § i O -0 O _0 cual llFllI ro -0 E • c ` a CD to E , o_ L O a = a (13 a -0 W F (0 ( - CD ro N C C o a O o a c U a in >• } C O � LE O ai (0 a C a _ S- bO }' t a a 0 — C (0 0 a O 73 +0 Q 4-• )' _c Of 4E, Q U . cn Q c3 £ { . j ll is 4 IF 4 A r k IT O Cr ii- V)^ d" O 0 N 0 U) C CO y N 4--I O C N cu cc E -4--1 -0 N C 2? a) U F N CO OD X W F- • • N - >•1 Q! • his ■-•^,.,...,.....—. 4 ' .. p G r .� � U i , $ 7 M464Y N; r' U N d m tto 0 a W , ry0 s r' 4. d H U p U N n N N q y L OIL ma . w i, V) (L) V) A ID CO CU vi) 1:5 4-1 CU C a) — 0 *) CU • o (1) rc — 2 E cu co ai n la o 4.- c U 4-1 Gi I 0 CO CC MI 13,) '4-1 0 4-P s_ 0 • • • 0- • = -- C cn cn , c get -I-) 0 l CV 0 ei. Gi a CO s_ r U >cO 0 E 03 lD _c '... 0 CO v) La rl v--I LO 0 tu3 r° 00) le vi ni 44— 00 c — ._ co N Iv nj : 0 4 /1" -0 c 4- C 4- .4-1 -1-1 --ro 4-' D 0 0 0 0 Ln = I 4_, 0 — U 7_1 CU " 0 v) c Ct -1-1 fa 4-1 E m 4-1 4-1 V) .....- 0,, V) r- V) co •-- (I) 0 CU V) V) U -1 C 4 cn cnv, ra c MO a) 00 0 >, ,..= C 0 C '- (-) -0 0 — L, to C , ... .‘ E ' v.' - cu ri co en c 4-1 ri oe cn .ro >. •_c 0 r° Cn co c:n 4- rl 0 rl CU 0 c tuo sa) C 0 •- C S-. Ci.) •- al -0 OD c -CD V) CO C 73 0 •(° a) •— CU _C —__, CD 4-1 U > s_ 0C 0 Cr) 11) Cr) c) 0- a) (0 4e E 1'3° k_ = c a — 0- s 4-- v) Ca. CL a 0 ...471 0 0 a o E 03 cu co 4- 0 4- 0 •1/4 -0 — •• ro ni 4_, co co — •„,— (-NI _c rn Or% 4_) a cu > cu 0 - co o co er- v) cu (fl i- (J) co _c in o d. t co 4-j (0 0- .4=P .- Co a — CO L_ _C a C n 0 ..c Cl. (U,,, 0- Co = ta- _0 a. co 5 • • • >. N N t?A N 73 co 0 = CO O_ L 130 Q cu sa) N v) L N L � c 0 .> iJ ; 10 O .in U 0 0 a) _0 O N > 0 �, �, an }' L CU d' +� w a) N E v) 13 = N 0 N C) V) > +' -1-e M c C > j a a c a N a v C O N 0 � , >. -0 a) L -0 f13 C a 0 o C ID L U a) t cB = — 0 _ O N -CUD i aN' W >`' c U .2 L L C c - _ m .- .E D O CU O a) + , _C > U O CO C CU ON '� aN, •E " O VI JJ a D �O 73 C 0 v 0 Tu. (a 7 N C D U a) LS 4-in3 a O tu0 v -0 O .- O 0 � U C '- C C L U v1 V u v O O U ii )vvi • • • • " C MO 4-4 0 C Cr) — — MO 4-0 . C4= . C o N - «1 o 0 10 1., . , 1 4 , tUD no I ..c C (..) ._ • tu0 CO et, •— C 0 o . " 0 -C ? CU V) CM tie •— C +-• C • L. -c CU t 0 4-1 > 1 0- k : 4 , • i 0 y , 4_ CU 0 1 CU n 1 u C >- +-) C co •— c 0_ s_o CO E03 ,.. 4.4- ■ -iv n.. 0 co , a) C U > H' ai V) (/) •, 0 03 a ., E 4-0 L C >ft _ >,.. CU C 0 = 1 E co .4- c 0 4-0 co tto ci ON c -ug •— C (...) cfs C n3 a EL0 a3 •— E0 •.... V) > 0 ° CU CU 4-0 c ro c.) 4-0 CO -c E (n w s 0 +a w ..c a) to E a' s_ . 13 y.n " cu .— C 4 .1 laCI .--- C3 C •c C CU 000 CU > CCI s— Om CC 0 • • • a) _>• _C U, tIO D 73 O > O C 13 > >' Q) O i 0 2� co CU co O 0 0 -0 O O fn co i co +� to O N .> `� N o cu C v O U CO ` N S U, C CO j_iin i 4-1 CIO 1 N C 'O O E I a) N O 0 ID O MO 1N O O co i . N O N N , N >, -Q ?. N O s E. > p OD L_ -0 ZS 2 (O� +_+ N c to N -0 >sv N N CAA N C a--+ N i O 'N tuo tio cu L_ i N i +�0 73 cu c CLO N O > > w (U z o O v > • • • • CO - +-1 E h . v) E > - a-0 O G) -0 `I_ 111 — 4 J +, N Ag C L c6 — . O ' C O c6 U - I--+ fa N �C = (D .- -1-0 c a) = a) > ._ O O C v1 () ti co cu c co cu U E cu 0 4- i O O ' U _C O en >" -0 +-I -0 c U ; a) x fB CU C cn 03 O _C a) N 4-J a-+ N 4- 1 'v a) tap y=- VV) .c CU a, v ca tu0 i •— a) % -a = .> X i O cn CO a) N O a--+ CU C 0 a) CC N p L -- L O a) O c v) N +, }+ cv O I CC 03 E `*' ate—+ • • . C; cn � E cu -0 fra fi O il tt O a e- 1 U i o 1 IT! . . L!1 C N — O I CU _c O O cn + + O O co L• ate-+ U 111 O L ci � E CU I CU c , v . � 4-1 o E o . CO CU E 0 szu L u U ?j �O � O 4 + 0 Q N Q E CU co o 0_ O c u ca o C) aA +-1 _ c L +-) — N L CC O_ 0 a O • • +- N 4-+ O v U o Z > a) O aJ +N i a a) C to _ s1 O cr O O C OD i •- cn C tu0 O C 12 _c Q a1 o E O 4 0 � O co C - CU C C o N N a) to tie f a--+ C O U >- C CA O 0 O s- a� co a-+ >, O C v ate--+ C CO O O U OD fv 4-) 0 0 �O •bO N U C O E a) 0 v c o -0 _C r oa, .oC Co U a1 0 *' �O ' i U co 0 i +) O ++ cn ' > + ' +-+ CU O o v -0 4- C- C •� _C a) 0 CU a o v + o C O 4-1 •- co a� 0 O ( U - U o O C C n N CD CD bA 0 Q i -0 O U co ci ++-• CO v Z CO ro • • • P pri O N N N rl a) VI E co a) -0 — '+- +� v CU v 4-1 = a) E co V� . O 73 X -D co c U O O o c c aA ` O O X — a) O a) +, C 0n C 0 N C fa a1 : f6 C > i a' (0 C cu co O a) L' ; a) "O VI C a) ; F *to v > > -o a—) °) c C CU CO = 2 cu E 2_ ` x v v v E 4-4 _0 L.) '5 tUO L c v U C a) s_. U can a-) 03 O m C2_ o o > Z N Q 0 O w • • • 4 co ; , a v t:µ... r O C N/� I. / bE + O N `I 'a C 1' O O l,` U +_� E• CU � � U C - j C CU -2 co 4.0 O Si ca t O N CU CO U U N C +�-' a'C..,, N C ca co o o v o , - ' v C C C v ." ca e 4- C) C C O -C .t N .- C CO O S ca i _: N N 0 d) U a C C a O ; , N CD N U a N L N O O -C 0 0 0 0 40 Q • • • ‘AJrE C„. Or Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board Business Meeting of November 30, 2015 DATE: November 12, 2015. FROM: Peter Gutowsky. Department CDD Phone# ext. 1709 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Board deliberation of File No. 247-15-000001-LUP; 247-15-000298-A (Cooper).. PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? No. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The applicants submitted a Type 2 Limited Use Permit application to allow up to 6 annual weddings to be held on a 54-acre property, Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-TRB) zone, identified on County Assessor's Map 16-12-32, as tax lots 301 and 314. The Board conducted a public hearing on October 26, 2015. The written record was left open until November 2, with a one week rebuttal period for everyone who has standing concluding on November 9. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Deliberate, and provide direction to staff. ATTENDANCE: Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager; Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner. DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS: Paul Blikstad. GO -1„ Community Development Department 0 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/ STAFF REPORT DATE: November 16, 2015 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner RE: Work Session and Deliberation: Limited Use Permit (File No. 247-15-000001- LUP; 247-15-000298-A) The Board of County Commissioners (Board) is conducting a work session on November 23 in preparation for their deliberation scheduled on November 30 for File No. 247-15-000001-LUP; 247-15-000298-A. I. Background The applicants submitted a Type 2 Limited Use Permit application to allow up to 6 annual weddings to be held on a 54-acre property, Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-TRB) zone, identified on County Assessor's Map 16-12-32, as tax lots 301 and 314. Tax lot 314 would host the weddings. This tax lot contains a dwelling, but no one resides in it. Hans Cooper resides in the dwelling on Tax lot 301. Hearings Officer Stephanie Hicks on May 27, 2015 denied the application for a Limited Use Permit for commercial events facility in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone based on: • Primary Use: Failing to meet its burden of proof demonstrating the primary use of the property over the last three years is a "farm use." • Trees on Property: Not demonstrating the trees on the property were planted and grown on the subject property and demonstrating there is a connection between the trees and wedding events. • Proiected Revenue: Proposed commercial operations exceed 40% of the total projected farm use revenue on the subject property, a standard established by previous Hearings Officer decisions for meeting the incidental and subordinate criteria. II. Issues Requiring Board Decision The Board will need to determine if there is substantial evidence for the following: o Is the primary use of the property a "farm use?" Quality Services Performed with Pride o If"farm use" is the primary use, what is the gross farm income? o If "farm use" is the primary use, is there a connection between harvesting trees on site and the wedding events? 1. Is the primary use of the property a "farm use?" DCC 18.04.030 defines "farm use" in relevant part as the "current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money by raising, harvesting and selling crops or by the feeding, breeding, management and sale of, or the produce of, livestock, poultry, fur-bearing animals or honeybees or for dairying and the sale of dairy products or any other agricultural or horticultural use or animal husbandry or any combination thereof." (italicized emphasis added.) Hearings Officer Decision The Hearings Officer found that the primary use of the property over the last three years since the property has been used for wedding venues and vacation rentals is not a "farm use." The record shows that income received and projected from these commercial activities is more than that receiving from farming, and that which can be projected to be earned in the future. The Hearings Officer also noted that to support applications for commercial uses in the EFU zone, three years of financial records are recommended so that findings may be made concerning income trends and establishing parameters. Written Testimony Since Board Hearing With the exception of a Schedule F, the applicant provided no additional evidence addressing hay sales. Regarding tree sales, the applicant, besides the Schedule F, provided a typed written invoice with copies of checks in the amount of$4,700, $2,550, and $8,165 for 2015. The applicant also provided a typed itemized list of income derived from vacation rental by owner(VRBOs) and weddings for 2014 ($22,150) and 2015 ($29,750).1 Staff Comment The applicant did not provide a minimum of three years of financial record to establish income trends for hay or tree sales. For comparison, the three applications relying on income to meet the incidental and subordinate standard, Downs, Miller, and Brown submitted farm income evidence as follows: Downs: Included in the record the dollar amount of hay from the subject property for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. Applicant included an affidavit that he expects to gross between $18,000 to $22,500 in hay sales from the farm use and that he will not charge more than $2,000 for a wedding or commercial event. Miller Submitted into the record evidence of his gross farm income and income from the alpaca boutique for 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013. Brown: Submitted into the record evidence of his gross farm income for 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 in the form of correspondence from his accountant Sandra McGregor- Caverhill, CPA. 1 This income in staffs opinion cannot be counted as farm income. Furthermore, if the Board ultimately approves the application,VRBOs cannot be coupled with a limited use permit since DCC 18.16.042(0)(7)states no agri-tourism and other commercial event or activity may begin before 7:00 a.m. or end after 10:00 p.m. -2- 2. If"farm use" is the primary use, what is the gross farm income? Hearings Officer Decision—Hay Sales The Hearings Office found that the record supports a finding that $16,310 for sales of 65.25 tons of hay at a market rate of$250 per ton could have been made from the property in 2014. The applicant submitted a typewritten and handwritten list of 2014 hay sales from their Central Oregon operation (354 tons total). The lists show names of customers (where available), amount, price and barn from which the sales were made (e.g. main barn, my barn, Scott's barn, Peg's barn). The list is not broken out to identify the properties on which the hay was grown. None of the totals of hay sales from the four individually identified barns matches the $16,310 the applicant alleges to have earned in 2014 from hay sales on the property. Adding the figures set forth on the list submitted by the applicant results in the following: Main barn — $24,509 My barn —$18,893 Peg's barn —$29,317 Scott's barn —$13,882 The applicant did not submit purchase orders, billings, receipts, bank deposits or tax returns to support its calculation of hay sales in 2014. Hearings Officer Decision— Tree Sales The Hearings Officer found that substantial evidence in the record supports a finding of $6,305 in tree sales was made by the applicant in 2014 from farm use sales. The only evidence presented by the applicant is a handwritten ledger of Craigslist sales in 2014 and sales from two 2014 Spring Sale events, totaling $40,310. The ledger does not include any information regarding customers, purchase orders, dates of sales, or billing information. The applicant presented no evidence of bank deposits from the tree sales, and no tax returns filed with the IRS. The "Craigslist" sales are broken down on the ledger to identify the stock sold, number and pricing. However, the entries for "Spring Tree Sale 1st" and "Spring Sale 2nd" are identified merely with a single line entry of the revenue allegedly made ($21,775 and $12,230, respectively), without any identification of the number and types of trees sold, the prices for such trees, or the customers to whom the trees were allegedly sold. Together, these two sales are alleged to have brought in $34,005. Without more information, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's evidence of the Spring Sales not to be credible in light of all the evidence in the record. Moreover, the applicant did not present any evidence of tree sales in 2015, or tree sales in 2011, 2012 or 2013. As discussed in the findings above, substantial evidence in the record shows that sales of trees is incidental to the primary farm use, which is growing and harvesting hay. Written Testimony Since Board Hearing—Hay Sales With the exception of a Schedule F, the applicant provided no additional evidence addressing hay sales. Written Testimony Since Board Hearing— Tree Sales The applicant provided the following submittals to address tree sales: -3- • Pictures of aspens • Typed written invoice for tree sales with copies of checks in the amount of: o $4,700 o $2,550 o $8,165 • Schedule F 3. If "farm use" is the primary use, is there a connection between harvesting trees on site and the wedding events? Written Testimony Since Board Hearing The applicant provided the following submittals to address tree sales: • Testimonial letters • Photo of a married couple with large trees for wedding backdrops • Photo of the dance floor with some of the trees for sale in pots along the back, framing the wedding seating area • Letter from Mark Jarvis acknowledging tree varietals for sale at a wedding • Letter from Andy Smith, arborist, stating he attended a wedding at the Cooper Ranch noticing the trees for sale sign, prompting him to recognize the ranch as a local resource for future tree purchases • Spruce or Fir Tip syrup recipe as a future item to be incorporated into wedding events • Pine Needle Tea recipe as a future item to be incorporated into wedding events • Picture of a Bobcat pulling up Colorado Spruce Trees to be used to border the wedding area and frame the alter • Pictures of the set up incorporating the Colorado Blue Spruce (as an example) as the backdrop for the wedding ceremony III. Evolution of Relevant County Decisions Table 1 and Matrix 1 (see page 8) summarize seven decisions that are relevant to the current application. Table 1 — Relevant Land Use Decisions Land Use Application Overview Commercial events to allow up to six annual weddings,on an Type 2 Limited Use Permit(LUP-12-4; approximately 200-acre parcel in the EFU-TE Zone. Duggan) Procedurally, County staff issued an administrative decision approving LUP-12-4 in August 2012. Commercial events to allow up to six annual weddings on an approximately 40-acre parcel in the EFU-AL Zone. Type 2 Limited Use Permit(LUP-12-2; Procedurally, County staff issued an administrative decision. Downs) The Board called up for review staff's findings and decision and after conducting a public hearing, approved LUP-12-2 in October 2012. -4- Land Use Application Overview Commercial events to allow up to six annual weddings on an Type 2 Limited Use Permit approximately 1,700-acre parcel in the EFU-TE Zone. Ranch at the Canyons) Procedurally, County staff issued an administrative decision approving LUP-12-4 in April 2013.This permit was never exercised. Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Commercial use in conjunction with farm use, to hold up to 3 Review(CU-13-31, SP-13-19; horse shows annually on an approximately 20-acre parcel in Newels an EFU-TRB Zone. Procedurally, a Hearings Officer issued a decision approving CU-13-31, SP-13-19 in April 2014. Commercial use in conjunction with farm use, to sell alpaca Conditional Use Permit(CU,14-7; products and,incidental items on an approximately 43-acre d Miler) property(two contiguous tax lots)in an EFU-TE Zone. Procedurally, a Hearings Officer issued a decision approving CU-13-31,SP-13-19 in October 2014. Commercial events to allow up to six annual weddings on an Type 2 Limited Use Permit(247-14- approximately 200-acre parcel in the EFU-TE Zone. 000020-LUP; Anspach) Procedurally, County staff issued an administrative decision approving 247-14-000020-LUP in March 2015. Commercial events to allow up to six annual weddings on an .' Tvpe 2 Limited Use Permit(247-15- approximately 39-acre parcel in the EFU-TRB Zone, 000061-A, 247-14000202-CUP; ! Procedurally, County staff issued an administrative decision Brown) denying the application-Applicant appealed and a Hearings Officer, after conducting a public hearing, approved 247-14- 000202-LUP in May 204:5_ ;, ; The Duggan, Downs, Ranch of the Canyon, Anspach and Brown decisions are Type 2 Limited Use Permits, each requesting up to six weddings, subject to Deschutes County Code (DCC) 18.16.042, Agri-tourism and other Commercial Events or Activities Limited Use Permit.2 The other two (Newell; Miller) are Conditional Use Permits, requesting commercial activities that are in conjunction with farm use. Unlike the Limited Use Permits, they are subject to DCC 18.16.030.3 The Hearings Officer in Newell and Miller cited recent case law, Friends of Yamhill County, 255 Or App 636, 651, 298 P 3d 586 (2013). Commercial activities in "conjunction with farm use" is not defined by statute, and is determined on a case by case, fact-specific basis. Friends of Yamhill explains how to determine whether proposed uses are properly considered commercial activities in conjunction with farm use.4 Duggan, Ranch of the Canyons, and Anspach received administrative decisions that did not factor income from the wedding event compared to farm income. Those decisions in retrospect were done in error. Starting with the Downs decision, the "incidental and subordinate" standard expanded, adding a fourth prong comparing income from commercial events and activities with 2 Chapter 18.16. Exclusive Farm Use Zones. http://weblink.deschutes.orq/public/0/doc/78730/Pagel.aspx 3 Ibid. ° Four elements of such uses are identified:(1)the commercial activity must be related to a farm use occurring the subject property;(2)the commercial activity must be incidental and subordinate to the farm use; (3)the commercial use must enhance the quality of the agricultural enterprise; and(4)the commercial use must promote the policy of preserving farm land for farm use. -5- farm use income.5 The Miller and Brown hearings officer decisions further revamped the "incidental and subordinate criteria" by providing additional guidance in determining whether the proposed weddings/events facility will be "lower in rank or importance or secondary to the farm use." For Limited Use Permits the three notable criteria are listed below. The "incidental and subordinate" criteria is number three (#3). 1. Types and Operating Characteristics of Proposed Commercial Events and Activities 2. How the Proposed Commercial Events and Activities will be Related to and Supportive of Agriculture • Is there a farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2) on the property • Weddings and other events are physically and/or economically logically connected to a farm use, and specifically to the existing operation • Participants at the wedding/events support the farm use through payment of fees, purchase, of farm products and services from the applicant 3. How the Proposed Commercial Events and Activities will be Incidental and Subordinate to the Existing Farm Use on the Property • Prong 1: Relative Timing and Duration of Wedding Events vis-a-vis Farm Use Operations • Prong 2: Intensity of the Facility Use in terms of Physical Space Required for Wedding Events • Prong 3: The types and locations of all permanent and temporary structures, access and egress, parking facilities, and sanitation and solid waste to be used in connection with agri-tourism or other commercial events or activities • Prong 4: Income from Wedding Events/Commercial Use Compared to Farm Use Income As the Board determined in the Downs decision, "requiring the use of a farm product(s) from the subject property at each event is necessary to ensure that commercial events or activities are related to and supportive of agriculture." The Board also found in Downs the proposed weddings and commercial events would be incidental and subordinate to their existing farm use in part because: "The gross income of the farm use (grass hay) is $18,000 to $22,500 per year and the applicant's charge for each event ($2,000) times the 6 events ($12,000) is less than 50% (35 to 40%) of the overall gross farm income." (Bold emphasis added.) In applying the "incidental and subordinate" standard in the aforementioned Miller and Brown decisions, the hearings officer examined both the physical space for and income from the proposed commercial use. In Brown, a Hearings Officer interpreted the phrase ""related to and supportive of agriculture" in the context of "commercial events and activities" under Section 18.16.042. In that decision, the Hearings Officer relied on the Miller decision and others, to rule that a commercial event or activity could be considered "related to and supportive of' farm use on the subject property solely because it provides supplementary income to the farmer (Underlined emphasis added). s Outside of Downs,the other two Limited Use Permits, because they consisted of large acreage(Duggan—200 acres; Ranch of the Canyons- 1,700 acres),were not subject to Prong 4. -6- IV. Board Options Staff provided Matrix 2 (see page 15) for the Board to assist them in evaluating the Limited Use Permit burden of proof and formulating a decision. V. Public Hearing The Board conducted a public hearing on October 26, 2015. The written record was left open until November 2, with a one week rebuttal period for everyone who has standing concluding on November 9. VI. Additional Testimony and Rebuttal The following individuals' submitted written testimony into the record from October 26 to November 2: • Ralph and Linda Moskowitz's documents dated October 26 and November 2 (Attachment A) • Paul Cooper's documents dated October 26, October 28, November 1, and November 2 (Attachment B) • Phil Renyer(Attachment C) • Charles Brown (Attachment D) • Oregonians in Action (Attachment E) These individuals' provided rebuttals by November 9: • Charles Brown (Attachment F) • Debbie Farmer(Attachment G) • Connie Marshall (Attachment H) • Linda Moskowitz (Attachment I) • Sally Curey (Attachment J) • Paul Cooper (Attachment K) -7- r X co CO 2 e w 0)U C aE) 0)C .c 0 N C 1.f).. a L U ,_Ov rL-. L VO'.. 4 N m LL 0 ..---- ca U O coo E al 0 L m ~n `o > Ew NCCZ a) m � v3 ~ U N N;O w 0 E:. 3 C w co >` O .L. O w (a vwi CO y ° N O o £ ° 0i-° E `n o `0 o 0 0 o a o ' m 2 ° 0 � w � m ,_ av E O' 0c w c (C w -,! O Y OI O '2E2 _d- LO. N O c sa3 .a M as 1 j al 6.Et N O`C w 0 L N C O) _O N Q U O w N c - = 0 N Y o N N ' ai7NEU y... oa.; _U ] 3Nw0 m > 0 UQ4' aMCO 0 5 ?r C � � 0 (U(S� N ,G c ° E � C N N O ° N L O V � y m y 0 .V ay h C O d a}• a 0 o 869L ' 3 cg. c 0 L C a!? O O ca C O':L) o -:U m' . a o o 0 p O O U w r O 0 .v ' .4 O V � 'O O .2., 0 '06 m O N C N o m 0 5 cL H C 's a� '6 C O. COL O >. 0` L >;0 ° C LOLL >�� E " OLOCOLv w L > U m cA oI- 3 o a l- m 3 HwE» -- o --v r - o aH o . a.. 3 ca o o aw) N 0 C C O C E o a w w U Q C C O O O _ gN ` C C LL G: .a N.; .: co a'' ,O •4i.� O LL .0 c o a N w 7 a1 E •o 'o:..- a ar, o. c a .n— a O 0 --O o- a c a c ai c o li cow N N N 0 D N N N 0 0) C s a Ev` o° ° Ea mamc `pc.00 a � m2 c rn c - ° o m y N r C Ol V O).v00` : S-C a) C co O i n m -CO .= N 3 E co E ti �i ;E _ o, v > o2 o LL m a) o ur v v E m o co m o C £ o .sa3o $ N 0.3 -- fi ® £ ° EEC Nv o E o Oa :o E r U o N .s V a5 m N. N •V U y � ' pa-c v w o w m N N o a D N k-. 0 0 o o C V U . N5 Lrn > 0 E ® = a U no00 > o 0C Ev o oa - .0 N G S E 3 4 CC N C 0 > W a C N > 0 L w m 0 O U O m N ° CA w c .t. 0 4. EveN5 om'0 0 Oa C Cuw ° oat gE o co 0a?ow 2 0 a c °O:=0 � , 'Oil N,t . .2 = .. 2 L . 0 -0,,, O Q.L.. VOI - m E o m a a o 0 '- c aY a) Q 0. O la>•O N a G — a O O O L 0 ' OI L U `,",: g c R @ N: co O E L v'3 u..?0 4w` N N 0 w L _ _ N 0 C >i ° c £ ' ai El.?: °'�' ° 3�� c.- ° o m � E v - 0 0 3 a) o a) -Y t o) 3 oc ° .i C 012 0) ,. E O , c O N N ,O vaam ° acn :v2 -#1a 'OO O c - a) O.� L NO d � _ c) 3 OC j Co-t -G O ,a ao >,O a �j` co, m O 0 N m C 1 0 O m p O O p '0 I0 .'0 0 w 0 . T.). _&5 �.a a o. �S'wx. 1B _o -o N O LL vi L 2 U s C7 U U w w . N'm 'O 4 N (6 >. > Q Clk yc N 0 4 O O , a m O N O O O O O Q U CD @ :•N u) l9 CO ai ` r C 0 • c U 2 7 O 0 w 0 O 0 a0 c .L:'E .. 2 E .. ° O O O - 0 — LL E„ v - EgvC EYoccoa L a7 E °u,of • c v � oo 0 ° 00000 O m -U -U > O .a 65 c.@ c > IXN.O wUr NNPO 4. aY Q Q C d a = "=O a N E > a ° 0 0 0 O > 0 0 L c O U m a) a N F- a a C o m w C C N 3 N O)r r O y O N ♦ s Im' ..g, ca .0 a O Gj w-co._ C lip_ is w- �n o d _ c v C y a) w U C N c7 eN y W' 0 7 +- ^^ C O 01 - MQ (0 (I) -0 v)4- a; C � � . �� . = ], 000 › +& o E u) w c y o _c •2 c , N *=• 36 -a °v ty �0 t/1 a� C O r -- c 'p tU C O t0 u1 �j � O c a1 Rf � +, C71++ ••- iU W C zf G) Cri g voi 7 O Q 0 z cow C y C'C q1 c 1U F- O A. H N a N N CA N f0 •� v a) E a) Q U 'C7:. a�; w a) w a) a) N O a) 'O w 5 N C N o a) az) 4-, R0 c o (on N3 • - o C L1.. c cp p, Cl) o a) W U t C) Q a)' 3.t O N O c0 ° C Cou1 5u) �•. - U) ra a) c . Cr E Q f6 C � o t i .6 a „6 C O �. 0 o c. 0 t0 O :a :E N t) W CG Q) w i7 7. a) i5 a) d (0 O o 4) Q) N o dy 1z' y E 'C7 cLO: c � D a) � .2 (0 2 N .. o E o v O w. > 8 � o � 0 . 0c1. �. 1( L elt c as A O 07 aj .0 N Nj C .0 3 C N C 6 C V1 O o c 0 a� ° N c)'c a.) .§ 'i: i0. "C7 U otou1c� �;" cc a) 4 aoCOn � (/) aoi o C L- Cr1 41 as m c 0) Cl) o E 2 Qy • rn ca 3 a� > -005o c v1 +' a) c • c C ° � - a) a) aa) mEE Vc) c «+ N, c0 N � .o C7: c0 W � cc; Qc0 o p O 0 ▪ a .c13 cil � �o • c m U iL v • -a o 0 o c ; c+ a) 1 o as w .0 c J J RS r.- -8 % E oo �ƒ fg' ®= 0 0 k k / � � / 7 / / � 0 oe @ 2 f / % » § 0 - o 7 G > o2 � as f 2 \ \ f � gcs = m 50 9 > c / / k a) \f 0 \ 0 - co 0 0 co (a) _c ▪ \ 0)7 b / 0 § 2 - ° / , ° b2E O - k / ) k—kk § U § >:_ / _ ® _ £ ± k % � � foo ° o % 6 ,- E o � ▪ � $ � ,_ £ £ $ - ° 7 2 = a g = E o k / / a c /o \ O 0 .5 EIE \k $ RE / @ E & # 2ko = 5a E � _ t § § ) / 0_ E 0 I o = ■ / 2 _ % Z & � ° � o � k k ( .—> 7 / o / / / / k - 2 0 t5f / 2 £ = 2 § ® � e T § 2 / / 7 c o o 2 � - = - E £ in- 2 / / / k E ma / E % n -c To ° ° 3 O co - 3 ° f o o E2 / 3E22 / 7y \ � • OW < in° c = .c hH o / 20 0 C.) Z..." E _ �CD_ : / / 0 co » 2 c k c o - ¥ m - s / � � \ � �f / / > � c / /: _ % b ƒ = m § / t % ƒ @2mui U \ L � ° = cn = c « o £ f � k a § 0 \ � \ k 2u) cm/ ƒ ) � 0 E 7 3 ( /.c as ° $ c 2 6= o z 2 G = Q E $ § - S 0 � k �/ \k / / / / k / \ / 0 $ d k k % k ■ © Z A < R 5 Q u, .O 'C7 C a) — � � c � a) '4-.. caca`) �, a� aa � c � .ainO Qa) •� 0E - › DE O a) N E N +� .r L. t1f tll d 7 cA co N a) CV - c C _c .- 0)+.-' = "C7 -c E co a CO a c o) C 'C 0 E. U7 r m OC) D c a) c D O 1017)).- .- (300 c c 7 3 E a) o , . as .� a'��., - N C a ad C c . a) ' � ca -- ,; '� Z. c a) cn O 0- — 0 I a) to ... c c •c , 1 `03v, 0 Qanca.- ca a-, cct3 � 'c °o cam ', E o c � � � ymc oa) m � (a0cfn .- to.e. E0 rnoa) m � -� • '`� -co t c a) a O a m . C C7 fJ el 0`E "a � y w 0 as o ° a) O � O m oC.1 c a0)4p ° a = 'c c vi C . C) — e °iv_, •- E ((la) t z s U — C L co c33 >. O N a) 8 _c O N qi C` ,, c6 , .2 �C o 0 ° 'cab a) Nccdo .O "Gc ° N � o8 E — (?) p rn moE 0 0 `3) c o ai a - °. 0 ? > _ >, N o ai c a - .0 -a 3 0 g aa)) ONCE. c cca, Eto fyE a) o LcEocr ccoEE a au, a, i -• cU 2 ) u) a) .- a a) cOa `. o ac „ O 0 O 0. ? c b a- 14_' ) c. c co _c G a N . 0 E U) _' O .0-. o IC Ocur.. s= . IcQco u) caOca . . cam .0 . , N Z m a 1- 0) a) V C C = c O w C 7 crf to m Q a) .Q w, (0 -0 (a C — to C 7 tp j 4 t • Ta n' fa ) d (i) c a) E C !0 O h faL a ;) = 7 f6 O c7 'v E rnQ ` Ola ' O .� c ›,- w E � E ° m .- = m cV aa)) —• m rya f° o d _ « ca) o. o.° � 8. al cu n.`' rn E 0-'t c d; O L Q °� C mGw J8a) C gaOca • ` "-- a -2 . N aa. c8. c .F C E C = 0 c a) (a O c fa o p E cu fn m -- cn ° (13 o C co O ,c C C — f; _ V Lir -c O al O -a C'5 N ci) C Q a O - a) °� G) a m 0 as ✓ 2 L. acia 0 1 aE L W (1) • E L 0 CI)) ", . Cs) 1 C7) u) C _ cG O 'a 12_) • QE • a � ccatOON 5EU)QU) 003c 0OCac0•r a) `" a N a) O O. O -Pi c0 "- a •4. a a c R1 To f6 89- C C a) ., E v _SGT, 5 ( d .- v N .� C o V .t U.. O 'b O ..., c1 ti.. Q O ^ crf w �.2.O N m a a) a) 'V , r i O - E E to v c� t 3 O E 0 a1 y+o 1a .- ° . �j C _N O ° 0 c Q N w� w O a) O ca c ( a ca) .-, E o 0 ca - rn = a °- E a) O to Tu p E a) UQ' = acc . Oc. O ° caveO :° `a.OECO) oON, cca C O N .N C) d ~ gyp C 0 J Ca C V) ci _ c6 c r-• C a) O c (a a) cn O 7. v U a) co Co co I— O a) LL U N (6 g ' ,Q1 u) a) *LO, 7 0 (q - M - O a) a) cU cv 7) LO -c ca ❑ c a) — a) N C _c 7. 2 (n O a) '- cn 7 C E C Q >, N c6 �O a) '� O O C 4_ a) U c6 C)"O U - 0 (0 C LL a COO O a) ° D "O a) - To u) m ° . f/) E N 2 •a x0 yL -0c .g N ,- O L a) co E -o >+ CO >+ E O 'O E o a s (o l() (n co ca o O Co c 0 O a) ,_ 0 ccnn p)" n p) O p) E ' C o U C� O a) .N C (c0 ns 'C , O C X m c " p O f Q .F co c O U L >., v Q .0 c� (o2 a) -9 ° a) a) a) 2 0.. E . -0 E -a aE .= C - O -C a) O E -c ' o a L N a p a) a L o (/) Q �r) :=. I- a) .E co 4- D c � (o 4- C) C -a cn o U Y .. 7▪ E a) co E Y m c a) -O co ° L cn a ++ C - a) 7ti cOj (A C O o C C C 7 a) (o E o a L N co Cl) a .W = O L (a W t8 a)i O ca a) a C a) 0 co __ '`- [1 O C 'p `- 'U O cs)'v J C O p o C .0 ,Q co o a a) 9C L C .- c0 a) D C F,. a) O) -- -O C E o_ O •'•'' a) a) ,— _C a d E -a C a) p e•(� , o L Q v) E -' C a) o a) CO E u a .- Q 4O u) U (n a) 0 ,0 (� a) o o m oz7 a) o ui 7'c "� c p cco a) ai ° E V -° cco0. 3 � .c6 U `L° m03 a ' o 3 a a r -a ca) "L Co .O p w 5 E ' a) - O °- a) `" ") y n w) Uj .0 a) O) C 4-- @ C w O c a,a O = C (+p a) (1 co L (p L p +-' B c v0i E .-- -a c p E � V a) _c O - 0~ to cp O a) O i vs To 0 C p N E O O)"O a) - O ai a,c ad 'O 22 U p o y (a O cn C C a L L X 'O 10 CO 0 cp - Oj -O 4- O j (� p '- o O O V N (0 O O C a O _c 0- a) -ui 0 cn o C L L co o n > Y -0 C) O) C CD C .a co = ,N m c6 a) m E -p o � Co m 02 5 a) a Co .- ,w °C) rc C O 0 0 0.. a0 vi 8 z›. a) a 0- 0 3 E 0 a) t6 N E F. W o N i o a tOi2 >, U c a v) CT) 0 CD C co 1,7i -9 .a ° V 0 o a o 0 0 0 LL o ai a C .0 0 c� a) 8 U co it E 1) -p 'c !' E E7cc°'o C) u, o ' cv ,_ a = 't7 O 0 7 ° = Ca) - •C O (a co O ¢ C N a - > a) o u) a) .o u) c a 'en J ,t7 T ❑ O R N d t N C C '. Tae .13 C ' J Cy c -.'+,. 'a 0 7 °C a) , Mcav0N o u, 0 •� w c Ic -C O) ca c O „_, c (a X E a u) c ° 0 0 4-,to u) .p„ ..., 6 D N a) co a) O 0:U c. 0 7, -a D —.m L N — Q U 7, O 0 0 cs 0 d v u. D ui -D . CO. _ C 0 y, I a) y ., can 0) 0 '- " •C c '� D O rn,� (T1. D C a) ti` (0 (d 7 `S (f). . OpC (.) MQ Y •'p -D (0 C 0 u) ,...., -G a) (0 := 0 r..4p C�'•10 c a+ C vD- §ti d C a) N Z3,0) O c) a. O (T)U C a> o Q U C C M a) - 7 0 E ;'t. L''[Qi C ui � 7 �.." v O C 0 D � ca m O 2 0-- O O � � �"G .� E 2 r--, › (n o .� jai 0 °8E .0 ct, 0, 0 a2, •§ 0 (1, = �' c °' v °—' ` a) , cC6 . Uvrn �,c a) a)`.' Eimoa) c7 u) •r' I03a • °vE2'E .c6c, " 0. -a D 0 •i C L co 0 c c0 D U 0 co 0 GL 0 .- R) 2 0 0 ».+ D) N c c , .0?,,, w ) C 8 _co O o > cu tu O + "D' O `? Cs ❑ © +, 7' N pa v`- C i +C+ D O -Dj U to U) c C C -0 -0,,, CU C 0 ) -a U 0 Net• C _ 0. D N N "� O C O C C 0 D >•,•E m E L. 'D c 0.) a> c 3 C ' mV ca `'a 3 aa> ° o � � ¢� ai 0_v D ca d U -o 0 a):o o c t) c m ca w o o a) � m y .1, rn o a) > y a c " m 'O M C o C C 0 .S E a) 0 co rnco rn.0 w N 0a .u, �i c mra° . c , o - C .c .Qi CO . 0 d 00 , c a E v E C y mC i 0 �, a cco 00 ,.00tva c3 ._ vEu) c� UoEo (oDz J V a) `V D 5 O O O D C 'O D 7N L N � co -C 0 V o 0 D >.�3 u, �, C) C aa) a C Z7 Z7 V) C -C N a) a) 0 4) 7 U a) — 2. O w a) a .- a) o C a3 v to O D a) (D c C C a) - H3n § a) ,-. ) 0E .0 ¢ c�. }ro. oE -0 ¢ c� rn3d' .ScaCcC) c() ° `(7 u, 7+ actsra (v P E c .0 8 � ` O c a a y �O 7 ` -.-. o c av :.. -a' ro .�e o a o .._ ._ 0 .0 u, 1 - C 0 o '0 NL fan Ec5 a) m iri Q2 0v°i `so 4C2 °I E c � f° o cow t) .- 0 ` a) o c I.°. t ED.9.. . c a E .a £ ;.a[ u 0)a S co co a 0 � — 4, Li- c, Ep $ c) 'oEy 8vic 0 ,, C C 8 0 0 N 0 - >' rA 00) P"'" (0 O E 0 0c D -C C 0 � a: io `D a) 00 0 o ;�j rq 0 c u aa) N .a U .0 C1 a- a) 0 C) ... w 0 Ca 7 U -o Q) @ 0 +L+ t C r] Q D t ,cD co C >, ns N 4 co co V 0 = Nv3 ome a „cu, . .o o = v a) c u) .'3 a) m,o as ° - C = ,- � Croo s ca, U a O. ro w c8Ca) , � L . � u, _ ... me Cl) E E � � 2 �.,,,t a0i m cu) U) U ; rnca 3 o U) 2 ;'- ate ; � , a a y ' 0 U 0) L M a) a) cv 7. cC 7 D c W •c 0'N a) a y 1a c W c •6 `) 2 o = a� a o to o 0 Q x = (aErn 0 cQ .. V C o ao a a.r c t .4.7; U l is 0 N nmE �co ` C E O tCa 7 D ao -a a`UicQ , a8 $ (O22 L a (i) -r3 as co . 0ca � 0 `p4 . J � I N X s- 4.0 �' 0 a ) c (0 C c) C ° N c 0 „2 - ) o (0 cA ° (/�,, C V) a) E 1° u) CO —. c (� N'+ N O o a) >•. N _ .�3 J X (0 a 7, 0 O a) c 00 fa' a) C 7 n• O v.- a) L 0 O c,,.. 7 ° E 0 N "O c Q Q) c0 C Q) a Q c "° 4) en O 'c c0 Co c a) .- ..f O N •`L, " c cC • o c ° cam• � c� c ° ter � c� Co c . 7, E 7ti C .� (0 O 7'C a) 4) O C c C mi C el N O p O U Co - `0 U - U •- = p -- O Co ° cx CL ° o o c 0 3 Co N ' c 3 a c co E o a) N o (0 a) 2 7 u) 3 a) ° w a) CO c ) = 0o0 (0 co aQ c ° v � � c v co Q - ° � ° a) (a (1) a) C ° ma µ= � eL ° v o -° ¢ u) J � � a) o _ E 8N m Ea) ° c(a a) 2cca To co cod CO cE E .,,fcNQ >' ,_a) CoU row 8 8D •` ° 0) C - a) o mac' jai .o- •Qgaa) v o 0 .— yC° ba) =1PE -v moo EC .. ° .r a) N a) •v_ •� - a) - a) c 0 a) u) Vi E N .- o -0 v E 0 N a) c C w -c O- a) . -0 c o 0 - 0 7; U f E m - c rn c) Q o N a) Cl.4- C L.. a.. N U 7 (0 Q Z 7 4 V CO 0 U u) __ •CD N;. C (/) J ° m m .0 r N ('7 4 ui co• 4) 0 vu m C O y'm "O L a) Cl)0 (0 O N a) O N .0)lh Q cD a) p U 4 L c �' c 2 � � � it 2 Qr ° w mO O c a j a) E a) v •- a) N E (p ,� 2 �, m C `A C O C -a c E co a�` n E c as o ca a) m -g a 3 � as > 0 E E 3 .� q c, co ~ ° 0.) 0 E Q) c 2 "Co (aa O N o 4 3 f0 C1 C Co _co a) E •c '•w" c°a c E E aa)) 4- a) ° E � °) � b:.�, �; ° - �' >, � U `n .- (a a) f-. • a) -c c O 7 6 C U °E O o E °N N Q) O mQ O . ° a) 7 « N C U E o N -(13 0, O °u) V C CJ Q p d i a) ce u) 5 y C E Cu >,N P y C O = N O-t ui; N � `p c a Oc 03 Oo c �0 aa -0 • D a) a) J . U E a,o c � _ ° � E ca)cc n ao ° i n) U ° u) -2� � � U -c o 0 a) O C); -o a -0 3 a E zu o E,] c C -8 cp E C4 C (0 O C m j a) m .c -p C L 5 -° a) a) 0 J 0 O o 0 O 0 Co > 'C 0 .' O Q) a 0 a a) a) c0 a) a to co o C ( c 4._ o O 47 as w o .c L C L c g 3 E C "O 'E 'O C 0 7 a) a.. G C¢. c: CO 5 = a (a o C c• 7 co . :c 7 z «. L a) C O ce 0:N (j Cl) w 0 `n `n U I- ti's W 3 0.-o U) U) CO -o Cl) H O O .0 C ti) C d Q1 C •> N ()" . L C L O a)C O '5 El co a> C to.) O O C 'a D N (Cl ¢ Ea. D co c L I 7 a > Nfl)., .. c C CI) a C C ' W d W r i!f t6 r!i ti,a' a ra .. o o Q S * CD CI o = c, :u' y 0. [2 0 C _ 6F3 is N N Iu a , tt3 ICS - CQ w �; y c - ra cu v, + 'o 3 r o a) �r ? to 3 3 , . e cia) . nto) 0v, •C10) oa oa 1- c ao .. race c0 uy M N 69 p) CO � C M C C . 0 C j 0 T i- © ry) a CO c'') N CV c u) L 0) ) C cty h- "C7 ti- N a CC) A O , .- Cl) 0 a) ` .C} p ,- a : .T C :, •— 69'.1 Cf3 a) kR ° E E r. 69(u d (Ci a) + r C CO 69 a3 ro a) m H 3 II' ?r 1 3 > II o 11 > . ro o v u > 11 >,o ,.., O CV O N C� N (2 u7 O � 0 c_ L •C] '0 ) r•" .,i ` , 0 < a' . 0 () r L L rr- W - U T D. T 0. 0 U `y 0. cy 0- c 'C) co c C) a C) a cDN CC) 0- CDC) - ti ti0. tiO. 'Q N f1�� C C C -0 IC N N N 0 "0 a O r N .<•.• cn r �? ` N To r ICS ` N C N Cl) N u) 'c" ' > C') 0 0) ) Cl) C'7 a) o ' C` E. a) p › Cfl ,> C9 7 d3,> O 6FS Cg � 7 � 7 0 - . rn a d, > 69 a CO N c CI- m e 'g L O;o C ' m N o ‘'it 'a) ,15 'a) 03 c 'a � Cct�� O .5 p "N N C cu cu a) O n a o, c C a) "'" c d a n 8 a) . 8 , -- a) o 0 o O 1 7 a Id N N a) rn"0cE x � c (..) 3 '� c � C c a` 4.0 a). c to � N >. NE u) E cuw N cr E amw) a: o s O c c U ? � (2 'S, cE C a -0 5 •mo d ° E72 co c u.) Lou v) a H w • 0 E � pptd .r p 2 RS w. ° w 4 ii,mok' e Community Development Department i+" ' „,. Manning Division Building Safety Division Environmental soils Division 'Tr isa o db Ilkiwiiir P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue send, Oregon 97708-6005. (541)388-5575 FAX (541)385-1764 litto://www.co.descnutesor.us/cddi PROPOSED FINDINGS FILE NUMBER: Ordinance 2015-019 (File 247-15-000491-TA) APPLICANT: Peter Russell Deschutes County Community Development Department P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97708-6005 PROPERTY OWNERS: N/A REQUEST: Amend Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapter 22.20, Review of Land Use Applications, to enable the County to not process land use applications or building permits for properties with existing code violations by creation of DCC 22.20.015, Code Violations and Land Use, and amend DCC 1.16, Code Violations, to include a reference to newly created DCC 22.20.015. STAFF CONTACT: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Statewide Planning Goals II. BASIC FINDINGS: A. PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval of a new section of County code (DCC 22.20.015) that would enable the County to not process land use applications and/or building permits for properties with existing code violations. The County would only process the land use application or building permit if the application or permit would remedy the existing violation. An exception could be made in emergency situations involving public health, safety, or welfare. DCC 1.16.010 would be amended to reference the newly created DCC 22.20.015. Quality Services Performed with.Pride The proposal stems from issues raised by the public during the Board of County Commissioners' (Board) October 2014 review and approval of an update to the County's Code Enforcement Manual. After the Board's approval, the Board directed staff to form a stakeholders committee with representatives from the land use activist community, the development community, and interested private citizens to explore potential solutions. The Board included this task on the Planning Division's 2015 approved work plan. The resulting committee met on Jan. 6 and April 23, 2015, and via e-mail exchanges. The group reviewed language from other Oregon county codes on the topic and discussed issues specific to Deschutes County. The group reached consensus in mid- May on how a code violation would be defined, how language on County land use forms should be modified (this does not require a land use approval), and the text for the proposed code at DCC 22.20.015, Code Enforcement and Land Use, which will be placed in DCC 22.20, Review of Land Use Applications. Finally, 1.16 Code Violations and Enforcement, will be amended by creating a new 1.16.010(F) that references DCC 22.20.015 and relettering the old (F) into (G). New code language is shown as underlined and deleted language is shown as strikethrough. III. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS: A. CHAPTER 22.12, LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURES 1. Section 22.12.010. Hearing Required FINDING: The Board finds this criterion has been met as public hearings were held before the Planning Commission on October 22, 2015, and November 30, 2015, before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. Section 22.12.020, Notice Notice A. Published Notice 1. Notice of a legislative change shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county at least 10 days prior to each public hearing. 2. The notice shall state the time and place of the hearing and contain a statement describing the general subject matter of the ordinance under consideration. FINDING: The Board finds this criterion has been met as notice was published in the Bend Bulletin newspaper and described the proposal. B. Posted Notice. Notice shall be posted at the discretion of the Planning Director and where necessary to comply with ORS 203.045. Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-019 2 FINDING: The Board finds this criterion has been met as notice was posted in the bulletin board in the lobby of the Deschutes County Community Development Department, 117 NW Lafayette, Bend. C. Individual notice. Individual notice to property owners, as defined in DCC 22.08.010(A), shall be provided at the discretion of the Planning Director, except as required by ORS 215.503. FINDING: Given the land use in question does not apply to any specific property, no individual notices were sent. The Board finds this criterion has been met. D. Media notice. Copies of the notice of hearing shall be transmitted to other newspapers published in Deschutes County. FINDING: Notice was provided to the County public information official for wider media distribution. The Board finds this criterion has been met. 3. Section 22.12.030 Initiation of Legislative Changes. A legislative change may be initiated by application of individuals upon payment of required fees as well as by the Board of County Commissioners. FINDING: The application was initiated by the Deschutes County Planning Division, which received a fee waiver. The Board finds this criterion has been met. 4. Section 22.12.040. Hearings Body A. The following shall serve as hearings or review body for legislative changes in this order: 1. The Planning Commission. 2. The Board of County Commissioners. FINDING: The Board finds this criterion has been met as the order of public hearings has been followed. B. Any legislative change initiated by the Board of County Commissioners shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to action being taken by the Board of Commissioners. FINDING: The Board finds this has been met as the Planning Commission public hearing preceded the Board public hearing. 5. Section 22.12.050 Final Decision All legislative changes shall be adopted by ordinance FINDING: Ordinance 2015-019 establishes DCC 22.20.015 and Ordinance 2015-020 amends DCC 1.16.010(F) creating a reference to DCC 22.20.015. Both ordinances implement File 247- 15-000419-TA. The Board finds this criterion has been met. B. CHAPTER 23, DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-019 3 1. Chapter 1, Comprehensive Planning, Section 1.2 Community Involvement Policies Goal 1, Maintain an active and open community involvement program that is accessible to all members of the community and engages the community during development and implementation of land use policies and codes. FINDING: The Board finds this criterion has been met as the coordination between code enforcement and review of development permits was an item on Planning Division's approved 2015 work plan, which was adopted after public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board. Additionally, the Board during the October 2014 update of the Code Enforcement Manual, directed staff to form a stakeholders committee to work on this topic. The County recruited stakeholders from the land use activist community, the development community, and interested private citizens to serve on the committee. The committee met on January 6 and April 23, 2015, and via e-mail. The group reached consensus in mid-May on the topic based on a review of the ordinances of other counties, the proposed code language and the insertion of language on County land use applications that to property owner's best knowledge, the property is currently in compliance with Deschutes County codes and conditions of approval from previous land use decisions. The latter does not require land use approval. 2. Chapter 1, Comprehensive Planning, Section 1.3 Land Use Planning_Policies Goal 1, Maintain an open public land use process in which decisions are based on the objective valuations of facts. FINDING: The Board finds this criterion has been met as the task was an outgrowth of public hearings before the Board on the Planning Division work program and the update to the Code Enforcement Manual. The proposed text amendment will be the subject of public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board. Finally, in the text for the proposed DCC 22.20.15, code violations are defined as matters that have been adjudicated by either a prior decision by the County or other deliberative body; through the review process of the current application; or through an acknowledgement by the alleged violator in a signed voluntary compliance agreement, (VCA). Thus, the presence/absence of a code violation would be a factual matter and not one of interpretation or discretion. The application to be processed would have to bring the property into compliance with Deschutes County land use regulations and/or prior land use approvals. C. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS 1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement FINDING: The text amendment includes workshops before both Deschutes County Planning Commission (PC) and the Board. The text amendment also includes publically noticed public hearings before the PC and Board. The Board find this criterion has been met. 2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning FINDING: Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 197.610 allows local governments to initiate post acknowledgement plan amendments or changes to land use regulations. The County on September 17, 2015, provided the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) with the required notice 35 days prior to the first evidentiary hearing, which was on October 22, Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-019 4 2015. The notice included the proposed changes with additions indicated by underlined text and text to be eliminated indicated by stikethrough text. The text amendment was processed via the County's development code procedures set for in Title 22, Chapter 22.12 for legislative amendments. The Board finds this criterion has been met. 3. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands FINDING: The text amendment is not proposing any changes to land use designations, so the Board finds this criterion has been met. 4. Goal 4, Forest Lands FINDING: The text amendment is not proposing any changes to land use designations, so the Board finds this criterion has been met. 5. Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces FINDING: The text amendment is neither proposing any changes to land use designations nor proposing any changes to previously designated Goal 5 resources. Therefore, the Board finds this criterion has been met. 6. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resource Quality FINDING: No development or land use changes are being proposed that impact air, water, or land resource qualities. Other areas of the County's code deal with protecting air, water, and land remain in full force and effect. The Board finds this criterion has been met. 7. Goal 7, Natural Hazards FINDING: The text amendment allows for exception in cases of public, health, safety, and welfare. Additionally, the dominant natural hazards in the County are wildfire, winter storms, and flooding. The text amendment leaves County building codes and planning setbacks untouched, which are the planning mechanisms which the County uses to ameliorate natural hazards. The Board finds this criterion has been met. 8. Goal 8, Recreational Needs FINDING: The text amendment will not remove any recreational opportunities and will provide a path to ensure any Goal 8 destination resorts comply with their obligations. The Board finds this criterion has been met. 9. Goal 9, Economic Development FINDING: The text amendment still allows properties to develop and that any violations can be corrected, ensuring continued appropriate use of the property. The Board finds this criterion has been met. 10. Goal 10, Housing FINDING: This goal pertains to urban or urbanizable lands. The proposed text amendment will not result in any changes or elimination of residentially zoned lands in the County. The Board finds this criterion has been met. 11. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-019 5 1 FINDING: This goal pertains more to water and sewer services. The text amendment will ensure any water or sewer service which first receives or has received a Goal 11 Exception will comply with any conditions of approval for site plans, building permits, or similar County approvals. The Board finds this criterion has been met. 12. Goal 12, Transportation FINDING: The text amendment will not change the functional classification, performance standards, or access management of any highways or roads. The Board finds this criterion has been met. 13. Goal 13, Energy Conservation FINDING: This plan amendment does not affect the County's regulation of solar setbacks, siting of small-scale windmills, land use or density, etc. The text amendment will ensure compliance with any conditions of approval for site plans, building permits, or similar County approvals. The Board finds this criterion has been met. 14. Goal 14, Urbanization FINDING: No land use plan designations, zoning designations, or map changes will result from this plan amendment. The Board finds this criterion has been met. 15. Goals 15-19 FINDING: These criteria do not apply as the County lacks these lands (Willamette Greenway, estuaries, coasts, beaches, etc.). Exhibit D, BOCC Ordinance 2015-019 6 Testimony of Paul Lipscomb, Sisters/Cloverdale area, in favor of Code Enforcement text amendment: I am unable to attend the Hearing on this Code Enforcement text amendment on November 30th because I have a prior commitment in Salem all day. I was a member of the work group tasked with coming up with a consensus recommendation for this text amendment. The group was comprised of representatives of both community activists and the local realtors and the COBA homebuilders. As a group, we met several times and had several email exchanges of proposed drafts over a time period of many months. Eventually we were able to reach a consensus agreement on the most appropriate language for Deschutes County. This same text amendment has already been before the Board of Commissioners in two separate work sessions, one before the Planning Commission meeting on this text amendment and one afterwards. The Planning Commission has also already approved the text amendment unanimously at its October 22nd meeting . I have attended all three of these meetings. It now comes before the County Commissioners once again for final approval. I wholeheartedly recommend this code enforcement text amendment to you. As the work product of our task group, this text amendment embodies our group's consensus agreement as to the most appropriate code enforcement provisions for Deschutes County. It is a well-balanced proposal that has been approved by the representatives of the realtors and the homebuilders as well as by representatives of Central Oregon Land Watch and other community advocates, by your planning staff, and by county counsel. It meets with the approval of all concerned. I would ask that you close both the oral and written record and give it final approval at today's hearing. Thank you, Paul Lipscomb judgelipscomb @gmail.com Eva Eagle 17212 Pine Drive Sisters, OR 97759 Dear Board of County Commissioners, I urge you to vote in favor of the text amendment on code enforcement that is before you November 30. This amendment would require that land owners be in compliance with county codes before permits are granted for new uses on ther property. It is supremely important that permit conditions be taken seriously by all. They are an obligation of the activity that has been permitted,the need for such conditions is the reason that the stated use is conditional rather than granted outright. If property owners apply for new uses on their land while remaining in violation of prior conditions,then the permit process is really just a charade. Neighbors must be able to count on the protection of such conditions. Indeed,the continuing livability of Deschutes County depends upon good enforcement of our county codes. This text amendment is the product of collaboration among realtors and activists and has been unanimously approved by the Planning Commission. Why? Because it is such a good idea and indeed a long overdue formalization of good policy. Indeed,this amendment formalizes a practice that has been in place since the code manual was first developed,but for some reason has never been adopted as part of the county code. This codification is long overdue and you can correct it now. Thank you for your consideration, )414- Eva Eagle Bonnie Baker From: Peter Russell Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 8:31 AM To: Tammy Baney; Tony DeBone;Alan Unger; Tom Anderson Cc: Bonnie Baker Subject: FW: Update on code enforcement text amendment Greetings, Here is a copy of the e-mail from Bill Rodgers, who was on the code enforcement stakeholders committee, that Nunzie Gould made reference to yesterday regarding section C in the proposed 22.20.015 Peter Russell Senior Transportation Planner Deschutes County peter.russell @deschutes.org (541) 383-6718 From: BillRodgers [mailto:bill©cascaderan eri g id ers.orq] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 11:15 AM To: Paul Lipscomb; Peter Russell Cc: William Kuhn; nunzie©oacifier.com; andyh coba.org; merryannmoore(a gmail.com; moey@ centraloregonlandwatch.org; Jeff Eager; Kim Gammond; Nick Lelack; Peter Gutowsky Subject: Re: Update on code enforcement text amendment Hi Peter, That certainly did get by me. I agree the language for outright permitted uses should be stricken. Regards Bill Rodgers On 11/24/2015 9:46 AM, Paul Lipscomb wrote: I'd advise you to take it out if the county staff thinks it's causing a problem. Otherwise we will be starting all over again after the first of the year to write yet another draft ordinance. PJL On Nov 24, 2015, at 9:13 AM, Peter Russell <Peter.Russell @deschutes.org> wrote: Greetings, Code Enforcement Stakeholders, Yesterday the Board held a work session on the amendments to Titles 1.16 and 22.20 which would enables the County to not process land use applications or building permits on properties with existing code violations. Under the current language (see attached) 22.20.015(C) says the prohibition does not apply for outright permitted uses. There was general discussion about the magnitude of this language in that the County can often take in permits at the front counter that do not need land use approval due to the small scale of the building or the activity does not trigger site plan review. An example would 1 be a house in RR-10 as the use is outright permitted, provided no other zones apply such as Landscape Management(LM) or Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA). One thought is to suggest to the Board at the public hearing at 10 a.m. at Nov. 30 to simply remove 22.20.015(C). I looked at old e-mails and previous drafts and the language now listed at 22.20.015(C) came about in mid-to late April at the suggestion of County legal counsel. Current County legal counsel is accepting of the removal of the language, but we wanted to check with the committee members for their thoughts. Thanks and have a great Thanksgiving. Peter Russell Senior Transportation Planner Deschutes County peter.russell @deschutes.org (541) 383-6718 From: Peter Russell Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 4:13 PM To: 'William Kuhn'; nunzie(a�pacifier.com; judgelipscomb @gmail.com; andyh @coba.orq; bill@)cascaderangeriders.orq; merryannmoore(tgmail.com; moey(acentraloregonlandwatch.orq; Jeff Eager; Kim Gammond Cc: Nick Lelack; Peter Gutowsky; Peter Russell Subject: Board work session and public hearing set for Nov on on code enforcement text amendment Greetings, Code Enforcement Review Committee, The Board will hold a work session at 1:30 p.m., Monday, November 23, on Ords. 2015- 019 and 2015-020 which together implement file 247-15-000491-TA, which is the text amendment to DCC 22.20 and 1.16 . These in turn would allow the County to not process land use applications or building permits for properties with existing code violations. The Board will then hold a public hearing on Monday, November 30 at 10 a.m. in Barnes and Sawyer rooms(this is the place the Planning Commission held its hearing) where they will accept written and verbal testimony. The materials for the hearing are available a week before the hearing date. By now,you all could probably give the presentation better than me... If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks. Peter Russell Senior Transportation Planner Deschutes County peter.russell @deschutes.org (541) 383-6718 2