Loading...
2017-221-Minutes for Meeting February 17,1987 RecordedRecorded in Deschutes County CJ2017-221 Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 05/09/2017 1:24:03 PM Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Bend, Oregon DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Audio Cassette Recording Titled: WORK SESSION February 17, 1987; 10:00-11:30 AM. A meeting of the Board of County Commissioners was held on February 17, 1987. Commissioners present were Lois Prante, Dick Maudlin and Tom Throop. Also present were Rick (sham, County Counsel; County Administrator Mike Maier; and other staff. The following items should be on the next Board business meeting agenda. Discussion of the award of a State seat belt grant to CMA. Signature of the contract needs to be expedited. General Safety Policy. Discussion of revamping the dog hearing process. Statute says that the Board has to hear people who want to testify regardless of the circumstances. The Board is thinking about delegating this on an administrative level. Modification of a lease agreement with Data Processing Services. On the job training contract for an office assistant 1 in the Juvenile Department. Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, February 17, 1987 Page 1 of 6 Motorcycle Club agreement and certificate of insurance coverage. The race takes place this coming weekend. Dennis Maloney's father died, so Dennis is gone for a few days. He requested that Dennis Brad Costello and Jim Hammer attend a Juvenile Justice conference in San Francisco. Modification of a contract, with Chair signature. Lazy River South road access problems and petitions. There are similar situations all over the County that probably would not be approved today. People move in and then after the fact, come asking for remedies for fire and safety reasons. The Road Department is involved in this discussion and may come up with some solutions. The Board is hearing a lot from those who want more access and those who don't want the access put in. (There was a long discussion with staff about some potential solutions and public input.) Letter to representatives to outline the status of the juvenile referee program and how to fund it. A meeting is scheduled next week. (There was a long conversation about this program and a similar one in Multnomah County.) Possibility of allowing property owners to put a helicopter pad on their property for community use, for Air Life services in south County. A paved pad does not seem to be possible. The County would like to investigate the possibility of a joint effort in this regard. The County puts in some dirt and levels it, the community raises money for the sod, and a youth group places the sod, Midstate puts in the pipe and lighting needed. Farm dwelling in EFU zones for non-farm uses. Staff explained that DLCD sent a letter in this regard, and the LCDC intends to work with counties to correct any identified problems and to assist with farmlands decisions. Part of this identified Deschutes County as a problem county. Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, February 17, 1987 Page 2 of 6 The Board at the time adopted, in November 1979, the statement that it is presumed that all areas zoned EFU are to be operated as farm uses. This is in conflict with State law, ORS 215.236, which identifies non-farm and farm dwellings. The Assessor's Office is involved since this affects taxes and farm deferral. One of the Commissioners served on the joint legislative committee on land use, and was around when the reports were being developed. He feels there is a major discrepancy in how the County is implementing land use law and tax law. It is very inconsistent. In areas that are designated EFU, there is a provision that anyone who applies for a dwelling automatically gets a farm dwelling. In tax law, this type of special assessment is not automatic, but they have to meet certain criteria. So there are two separate departments in the County taking separate approaches. There should be a strong stance in regarding to taxation. Also, they are in violation of State law. And they are causing some difficulty for other local counties. Specifically there are deficiencies with farm dwellings in EFU zones, when the County granted 57 of the 190 statewide, in FY 1985-86. In non- farm dwellings in the EFU zone, the County had none. There were just 14 farm dwellings approved in 1983-84. (The group went into detail about the numbers involved.) The County had 70% of the statewide number for parcels that were below minimum lot sizes, ten of fourteen total. These were parcels from 5 to 20 acres. The process is that these people should have had to apply for a condition use permit for a non-farm dwelling. They would not be able to get farm deferral; they are disqualified from this and have to bring back taxes up to date going back seven years. They cannot go back on farm deferral no matter what they do with the land. The County has been allowing these outright as a farm dwelling. This is the problem. (There was a lengthy discussion about this issue.) Ms. Prante feels that there are some farm businesses that can be economically viable on a smaller parcel. There are no avenues in place to accommodate this. Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, February 17, 1987 Page 3 of 6 It was pointed out that there continue to be discussions about the need to highlight and separate primary and secondary or marginal lands, and efforts are being taken to do this. The Board hopes something will come about after the soils information is put together. This might work in the County to get some lands out of EFU so they won't have this problem with the taxes. No one knows what will happen with this at LCDC. Mr. Maudlin said they have been working on this since 1983 and don't seem to be making much progress. It may not be resolved until 1993. (There was a long conversation about how to handle marginal lands.) This is a problem in much of the State. The biggest issue is the lot size and the use. The basis is the lot size whether it is farmable or not. There are about 40,000 acres zoned EFU in the County that are not receiving farm use relief. No parcel under 20 acres would be eligible at this time if someone came in for a farm deferral. Anyone who already has this designation needs to show that they are earning an income from farming, or intend to make a profit. MUA and Industrial have to show a profit, but not EFU. The trigger will be if someone wants to put a home on the land they own, it has to be a certain size. This is true even if they are farming the land and making a profit. They may be able to get a dwelling permit, but won't be able to continue the farm deferral. Sometimes people need to be on the farm to take care of the crops or animals. The Board decided to have the Planning Commission take a look at this issue and come back with recommendations. They will likely be just as frustrated as the Board is. It will be an issue at periodic review. It should be addressed statewide, per a study that was done by the State. However, they move very slowly on things like this. They tend to think of EFU as being large-scale agricultural pieces of land. They have to consider the adjacent properties as well. The intent is to have some kind of review of the parcels under 20 acres. However, farming a 15 -acre piece of land that has been successfully farmed may not be feasible in the future if the owners want to live on the land to farm it, and the deferral is lost. Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, February 17, 1987 Page 4 of 6 The State feels they need to have 20 acres to farm, although there are animals and products that can be grown profitably on less than that. So a small parcel of land that could be used for farming could fall into disuse. They might want to change some EFU parcels to MUA-10 or Rural Residential instead, but they would still not be able to be on farm deferral from that point on. The laws would have to change to allow this flexibility, and this is a major problem. There are a lot of properties that got lumped into EFU because the soils information was not available at the time, but those lands should not have been zoned that way. The soils information may be available in a year or so, and perhaps they can address it then in period review. The Board did not feel that this would go very far. Each county should have the flexibility to get rid of some of that EFU land that should not be zoned that way. The State is working on this and feels it is the number one issue for the legislature and DLCD. Marginal lands needs to be addressed in some way, but this has to work for the entire State. It was pointed out that someone is having to pay taxes to cover what those on farm deferral are not paying, so it is also a question of fairness. Some people on EFU small parcels are not making a profit from farming, and may just have a horse or two on it, but are on farm deferral. And someone else is picking up the tab. There is no gross income test, but just an attempt to make a profit. Much of the land in the area is not profitable no matter what you do with it. This needs to be fair for everyone. There will be an impact with this change. Someone who bought fifteen acres of land years ago but did not build may now have to try to get a conditional use permit for a farm home, and will lose farm deferral, even if they had been farming it all along. They may also have to pay back up to ten years of back taxes at that point. Their neighbor may have five acres with an approved dwelling and will remain on farm deferral. This does not seem equitable. To change this would mean urging an Administrative Rule change or creation of a secondary lands goal that DLCD has talked about. Or it would take a legislative solution. Neither seems to want to deal with it. AOC is also trying to push for change. It doesn't look very promising at this point. Staff will report back. Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, February 17, 1987 Page 5 of 6 I certify that the above is a true and accurate record of a meeting, as reproduced from a cassette tape identified as Minutes of a Meeting of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners, held on February 17, 1987. This record was completed subsequent to the presiding Deschutes County Board of Commissioners' tenure. (1-7 1)14(A_ L. Bonnie Baker For the Board of County Commissioners Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, February 17, 1987 Page 6 of 6