2018-216-Minutes for Meeting April 23,2018 Recorded 6/18/2018•AABOARD OFCOMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541) 388-6570
N�A
Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2018-216
Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk
Commissioners' ,journal 06/18/2018 9:38:51 AM
.."w ` 1111111111111111111111111111111
-
FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY
Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Phil Henderson and Anthony DeBone. Also present were
Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County
Counsel; Tami Jo George, Risk Management; and Sharon Keith, Board Executive Assistant. Several
citizens and one representatives of the media were in attendance.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT:
CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the
Consent Agenda.
Commissioner Henderson requested to pull item 4 for discussion.
BAN EY: Move approval of Consent Agenda Items 1 - 3
HENDERSON: Second
BOCC BUSINESS MEETING APRIL 23, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 7
VOTE: BAN EY:
HENDERSON
DEBONE:
ConsentAgenda Items:
Yes
Yes
Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
1. Consideration of Resolution No. 2018-009, Annual CAFFA Assessment and
Taxation Grant
2. Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2018-027, to Dispose of
Surplus Property
3. Consideration of Board Signature on Document No. 2018-195, Lease
Agreement, DCSO Livestock Rescue Ranch
4. Consideration of Board Signature of Letter Appointing Michelle Cermak to
the Investment Advisory Committee
ACTION ITEMS
Consent Agenda Item #4 as pulled for discussion. Consideration of Board Signature
of Letter Appointing Michelle Cermak to the Investment Advisory Committee
Commissioner DeBone explained the responsibilities of the Investment Advisory
Committee, current vacancies and the interview process. Ms. Cermak is a wealth
manager and works central Oregon
HENDERSON: Move approval
BAN EY: Second
VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes
BAN EY: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
BOCC BUSINESS MEETING APRIL 23, 2018 PAGE 2 OF 7
S. Presentation of Natural Resource Land Stewardship Award
County Forester Ed Keith presented this item. This award was a
recommendation of the Noxious Weed Advisory Board and was inspired by
the Put -A -Shine on La Pine group that focuses on preventing spotted
knapweed. Kent Pressmen has dedicated and volunteered a lot of his time
for noxious weed control.
Commissioner Baney spoke on both the nuisance side and economic piece of
noxious weeds. Mr. Keith explained multiple names were put forward for
consideration of the award. The Noxious Weed Advisory Board meets
monthly but takes time off in the field season and their focus is to raise
outreach and education to the community regarding noxious weeds. Mr.
Pressman spoke on his battles with knapweed in both Montana and Oregon.
Commissioner DeBone spoke on the efforts on the battle on noxious weeds.
6. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-219, Agreement
Related to Construction, Operation and Maintenance of the Quail Road
Extension Project
Public Works Director Chris Doty and Dave Palmer, Crooked River Ranch Club
and Maintenance President presented this agreement for consideration.
This is a four party agreement between Deschutes County, Jefferson County,
the Crooked River Ranch Special Road District, and the Crooked River Ranch
Club and Maintenance Association. This project involves a one mile
extension to provide a secondary access. The road will be maintained and
operated by the Crooked River Ranch special road district.
Our involvement has been to obtain the right of way permit from the BLM.
As permit holder, Deschutes County will transfer/assign liability to Jefferson
County. Mr. Palmer appreciates Deschutes County involvement.
Commissioner Baney commented on concerns heard regarding the costs
associated to the home owners association and inquired on engaging the
community through education on the secondary access. This project started
BOCC BUSINESS MEETING APRIL 23, 2018 PAGE 3 OF 7
decades ago and the estimated annual increase is $20 per year per property.
Each county is providing financial support of $100,000 and the remainder of
the project cost will be acquired by the road district through a loan. This has
been approved by the HOA and special road district and will be presented
next to Jefferson County.
HENDERSON: Move approval
BAN EY: Second
VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes
BAN EY: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
County Administrator Anderson asked for the explanation of the annexation
process. Mr. Doty reviewed the process.
7. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-220, Deschutes
County Jefferson County IGA Regarding Alternative Access to Crooked
River Ranch
Public Works Director Chris Doty presented this item for consideration. The
draft of this agreement was presented to the Board on January 10, 2018 and
is related to the prior item. Commissioner Baney spoke on the importance
of creating the second access road for evacuations during the threat of fires
in the area.
BANEY:
HENDERSON:
VOTE: BAN EY:
Move approval
Second
HENDERSON:
DEBONE:
Yes
Yes
Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
BOCC BUSINESS MEETING APRIL 23, 2018 PAGE 4 OF 7
8. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of an Administrative Approval for a Church
Community Development Department, Will Groves presented the hearing
procedures. The applicant is proposing a church on the subject property. No
conflicts were disclosed by the Board and hearing no challenges from the
audience, Commissioner DeBone opened the hearing. Carol MacBeth of
Central Oregon LandWatch contested the hearing procedure from the
audience and feels the appellant should go first or requests their fee
reimbursed. Mr. Groves noted both the applicant and appellant had paid the
appellant fees and are both able to speak. Mr. Groves explained the
application that includes proposal for weddings and church functions on the
subject property.
John Shepherd, applicant noted this process has taken six years and
commented on the history of his application through the County. He asks
that previously agreed to seasonality and frequency restrictions be
withdrawn. Mr. Shepherd stated there is a cattle and poultry operation on
the property. Discussion held on the church origination. Commissioner
Baney raised a question on the application being submitted by an individual
rather than a 501 c3 entity. Mr. Shepherd spoke on not only serving as a
wedding officiant but he also provides counseling.
Carol MacBeth attorney for Central Oregon LandWatch gave testimony. She
agrees that no law applies to this use that keeps people from worshiping in
their own home. Ms. MacBeth noted state law and that the County follows
state law. This is a commercial event venue. Commissioner Henderson
asked for clarification on using a house for a church. Ms. MacBeth noted the
state law and the state's interpretation. She stated this is a commercial event
venue and if you look at their website it says "discover the family behind the
venue" and they are operating under a church permit. Commissioner
Henderson asked for clarification on the definition of a church. Ms. MacBeth
noted Mr. & Mrs. Shepherd are not a church. Ms. MacBeth stated the farm
management plan has not been implemented and reapplication of a farm
dwelling has certain income requirements to be in compliance. Ms. MacBeth
explained the Shepherds are out of compliance based on the LUBA decision
of 2013. Ms. MacBeth urges the Board to not issue the permit and keep the
record open for seven days. Ms. MacBeth spoke on the applicants not truly
being a 501 c3 entity. Commissioner Henderson stated it is up to the church
to operate according to the 501 c3 status. The church is not the applicant.
BOCC BUSINESS MEETING APRIL 23, 2018 PAGE 5 OF 7
Commissioner Baney asked for the clarification of the concept of having 25
people worshiping in a home verses coming in as a church vs individuals
would cause difference on event venues. Question whether the Shepherds
are applying as individuals or as representative for the entity?
John Shepherd provided rebuttal and written documentation. Mr. Shepherd
stated the LanclWatch has been attacking his operation for five years.
LandWatch continues to assert that the uses are not that of a church; Mr.
Shepherd further explained his history as a minister and his representation
of the church. Mr. Shepherd explained his approval of a 501 c3 status.
Commissioner Baney spoke on the challenge of this 501 c3 status that should
be an entity and clarification and importance of the status needs to be
explained. Mr. Shepherd stated he could revise that portion of the
application. Mr. Shepherd noted his understanding and intent that it is
Shepherdsfield Church not justJohn Shepherd applying. Mr. Shepherd
spoke on the ability to apply on behalf of the church. Mr. Shepherd spoke on
land ownership and status of churches. Mr. Shepherd explained the
commercial activity on the property. Regarding the farm management plan
accusations, Mr. Shepherd stated it is untrue that they are out of compliance.
Commissioner Henderson stated he would like to see from both Mr.
Shepherd and of Central Oregon LanclWatch clarification on LUBA ruling and
compliance of the subject property farm management plan.
Mr. Shepherd stated he is willing to revise the application where needed and
cautioned the County from ruling on state law. Mr. Shepherd explained the
process leading up to this application.
Mr. Groves provided staff response. The Board is supportive of leaving the
written record open. Mr. Groves reviewed uses that are permitted on the
property that are either typical or accessory. Commissioner Baney
requested more information regarding the use of the property.
Commissioner Henderson inquired on the distinction of a church building
and if needs to be separate from a residential building. Commissioner
DeBone commented on the impacts of land use and the need to maintain
the determinations under that consideration. Commissioner Baney
requested a copy of the farm management plan.
BOCC BUSINESS MEETING APRIL 23, 2018 PAGE 6 OF 7
Commissioner DeBone closed the oral portion of the hearing. The record will
be kept open for the 7-7-7 period. The first week will be for additional
written testimony, the second week is for rebuttal, and the third week will be
for final arguments from the applicant. Mr. Groves explained the deadline
process for materials to be submitted.
OTHER ITEMS: None were identified.
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m.
DATED this Day o P 2018 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
TTET:
C_
-�
ANTHONY DEBONE, CHAIR
BOCC BUSINESS MEETING APRIL 23, 2018 PAGE 7 OF 7
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 — www.deschutes.org
BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
10:00 AM, MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2018
Barnes and Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center — 1300 NW Wall Street — Bend
This meeting is open to the public. To watch it online, visit www. deschutes. orgImeetings. Business Meetings are
usually streamed live online and video recorded.
Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the main topics that are anticipated to be considered or
discussed. This notice does not limit the Board's ability to address other topics.
Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
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.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Consideration of Resolution No. 2018-009, Annual CAFFA Assessment and Taxation
Grant
2. Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2018-027, to Dispose of Surplus
Property
Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Monday, April 23, 2018 Page 1 of 3
3. Consideration of Board Signature on Document No. 2018-195, Lease Agreement,
DCSO Livestock Rescue Ranch
4. Consideration of Board Signature of Letter Appointing Michelle Cermak to the
Investment Advisory Committee
ACTION ITEMS
5. Presentation of Natural Resource Land Stewardship Award - Ed Keith, Forester
6. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-219, Agreement Related to
Construction, Operation and Maintenance of the Quail Road Extension Project - Chris
Doty, Public Works Director
7. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-220, Deschutes County -
Jefferson County IGA Regarding Alternative Access to Crooked River Ranch - Chris
Doty, Public Works Director
8. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of an Administrative Approval for a Church - William
Groves, Senior Planner
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)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor
negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), 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.
Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Monday, April 23, 2018 Page 2 of 3
ADJOURN
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.
FUTURE MEETINGS:
Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.org/meetingcalendar
Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Allen Room at 1300 NW Wall St.
Bend unless otherwise indicated. If you have question, please call (541) 388-6572.
Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Monday, April 23, 2018 Page 3 of 3
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners Business Meeting of April 23, 2018
DATE: April 10, 2018
FROM: Ed Keith, Natural Resources - Forestry, 541-322-7117
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Presentation of Natural Resource Land Stewardship Award
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Present award to Mr. Pressman
CONTRACTOR: Kent Pressman
AGREEMENT TIMEFRAME: Starting Date: N/A Ending Date: N/A
INSURANCE:
Insurance Certificate Required: No
Insurance Review Required by Risk Management: No
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Deschutes County Noxious Weed Advisory Board first presented a Land Stewardship
award to the Put a Shine on La Pine group for their work on noxious weeds. Since that time
the Noxious Weed Advisory Board has decided that they will seek out other individuals or
groups working on land stewardship related to noxious weeds and present them with this
award annually to hold them up as positive examples that others may follow. Kent Pressman
has donated many hours of volunteer time to assist in pulling and control of spotted knapweed
and other noxious weeds in the China Hat Road area and other areas of Deschutes County
and was selected to receive the Land Stewardship Award.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None
ATTENDANCE: Ed Keith, County Forester and members of the noxious weed board including
Spring Olsen, chair and Christina Veverka, vice -chair.
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners Business Meeting of April 23, 2018
DATE: April 18, 2018
FROM: William Groves, Community Development, 541-388-6518
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of an Administrative Approval for a Church
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Conduct the Public Hearing.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Before the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) is an appeal filed by applicant John
Shepherd and opponent Central Oregon LandWatch. File Nos. 247 -17 -000573 -AD and 574 -
SP (247-18-000179-A and 182-A). The appeal is submitted in response to a February 9, 2018
administrative approval for a proposed church and associated church events in the Exclusive
Farm use zone.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: none
ATTENDANCE: Will Groves, Legal
E S
44j
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 10, 2018
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Will Groves, Senior Planner
RE: BOCC hearing of the Applicant's appeal of an administrative decision. File Nos.
247 -17 -000573 -AD and 574 -SP (247-18-000179-A and 182-A)
Before the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) is an appeal filed by applicant John
Shepherd and opponent Central Oregon LandWatch. The appeal is submitted in response to a
February 9, 2018 administrative approval for a proposed church and associated church events in
the Exclusive Farm use zone.
The BOCC agreed to hear this matter de novo on February 14, 2018, under Order No. 2018-011.
A public hearing is scheduled for April 23, 2018.
1. BACKGROUND
Both the property and the applicant's efforts to establish a church and associated events on the
property have an extensive land use history.
CU-00-65/MA-01-9/A-01-15 (Farm Dwelling) - Conditional use approval to establish a farm -
related dwelling on the subject property and to site the dwelling more than 300 feet from a public
or private road in the WA Zone (CU -00-65). This approval included a Wildlife and Farm
Management Plan.
CU -13-13/ MA -13-3 (Private Park) — Hearings Officer denial of conditional use approval to
establish a private park on the subject property to be called "Shepherdsfield Park." The park would
host weddings, wedding receptions, special events and recreational activities. Denial was based
on several issues, including that the application did not include a site plan review application.
247 -14 -000401 -MC and 454-A (Modification of the Wildlife Management Plan) - The
modification wholly removed the Wildlife Management Plan (WMP) required under the previous
Farm Dwelling decision and replaced it with six conditions of approval designed to protect and
enhance deer habitat on the property.
247 -14 -000228 -CU and 229 -SP (Private Park) — The applicant applied again for a second land
use permit to establish a private park. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals (276 Or App 282 2016)
affirmed LUBA's reversal of the County approval. The Court concluded that hosting weddings
and similar events did not qualify as a private park. The court cited the determination by the
County that not all events would have a ceremony and when there is a wedding ceremony, it
would last for just a fraction of the time in which the event is held.
247 -16 -000159 -SP and 161 -AD (Church and Church Events) — The applicant tried again for a
land use permit allowing a church on the subject property. LUBA reversed the Hearings Officer
decision approving the use. LUBA found that the proposed church is a prohibited use in the
Wildlife Area Combining Zone that governs the subject property. LUBA also found that
intervenor's arguments regarding the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(RLUIPA) were undeveloped. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion (A164877).
Following the Court's decision, the County initiated a text amendment to amending the
Comprehensive Plan and Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapter 18.88 to permit churches in
the Wildlife Area Combining Zone for several reasons, including ensuring compliance with
RLUIPA. The Board adopted amendments on January 3, 2018, which is the basis for the present
application.'
II. PROPOSAL
The applicants are seeking permission to use their home for church services. The maximum
attendance at any one service will be 25 persons. The church also plans to use the existing 1.6 -
acre lawn area and gazebo near the church/residence for weddings and church functions allowed
by ORS 215.441. The applicants are agree to impose a limit on events to 30 per calendar year.2
The events will conclude no later than 10:00 p.m. A limit of 250 event guests will be enforced by
the applicants. The church also plans to use a 1.5 acre graveled parking area near the
church/residence for guest parking.
111111. APPEAL
The administrative approval was appealed by the applicant John Shepherd and opponent Central
Oregon LandWatch.
Central Oregon LandWatch issues on appeal include:
The applicants are not applying on behalf of the church as church officers, but on their
own behalf as private citizens. The use that is allowed under DCC 18.16.025(C) is for
churches to operate as churches on farmland: the code does not permit individuals to
operate a for-profit event venue in the guise of a church on farmland. An application to
operate a church on farmland in an existing structure should come from the church, not
from a private individual on his own behalf.
• The church related to this matter is not a landowner in Deschutes County and is not the
applicant. The applicants are private individuals, one of which is an important employee
of a 501(c)(3) church. County and state code preclude events not associated with the
church. IRS code precludes proceeds of events accruing to an important employee, a
practice that will result in the loss of the 501(c)(3) status that is the basis for the approval.
• The decision misinterprets DCC 18.16.025 (C), which allows "churches and cemeteries in
conjunction with churches consistent with ORS 215.441 and OAR 660-033-0130(2) on
high value farmland." ORS 215.441 provides for the reasonable use of real property for
activities customarily associated with the practices of religious activity at nonresidential
1 Central Oregon LandWatch appealed Ordinance No. 2018-002 to LUBA. A decision is expected later this spring or
early summer.
2 This limitation is a change from the administrative approval and is self-imposed by the applicant to limit
infrastructure impacts.
-2-
places of worship. ORS 215.441 and DCC 18.16.025 do not apply to the farm dwelling
residence of the applicants. See Reed v. Jackson County, LUBA No. 2009-136 (2010)
and Bechtold v Jackson County, 42 Or LUBA 204, 211 (2002).
The proposed use of the property is properly characterized as a principal use for
commercial events. The proposed use for commercial events is on a much larger scale
than the associated church in terms of income and numbers of people. The County cannot
interpret its code to re -characterize the use as accessory to the church.
• The administrative decision did not note that the list of uses prohibited in winter range
relied upon in this decision is not acknowledged but is under appeal to the Land Use Board
of Appeals.
Under DCC 22.20.15, additional land use approvals for the property must wait until the
property comes into compliance with conditions of approval the County has already
issued. The applicant is in violation of the farm management plan that was required for
the dwelling.
Applicant issues on appeal include:
• Condition C limits "events" to the period of time between May 15th and Oct 15th. An
"event" is broadly defined in condition O as "any outdoor use of the property by non-
residents". Thus, condition C imposes a "seasonality" on religious freedom, something the
Commissioners specifically decided not to impose. There is no legal basis for this
restriction either in County code or State law.
Condition L reiterates the seasonal restrictions and adds a frequency restriction. Again,
there is no legal basis for such a restriction, either in County code or state law. The state
allows churches as a "use permitted outright", just like farming or ranching. The
Commissioners debated and agreed to add no restrictions on church use. Furthermore,
RLUIPA requires equal access and since similar restrictions are not imposed on similar
uses in Deschutes County EFU, they may not be imposed here either.
Condition M is unnecessary in that it defines "weekend day" as part of the restriction of
condition L. Since religious exercise should not be limited to weekends, this condition
should be removed.
• Condition P addresses the setup and take down of temporary structures. While it remains
the applicants intention and practice to complete any wedding setup the day before or the
day of the wedding and any cleanup the day of or immediately following the wedding, there
is no legal reason that this condition should be imposed.
Staff notes that the applicant provided a slight revision to the proposed operating characteristics
of the church in response to a meeting with staff in an email dated March 16, 2018 (attached).
IV. SECTION 22.20.040 AND THE 150 -DAY CLOCK
The 150th day for the County to take final action on this application is currently June 22, 2018.
(DCC Section 22.20.040), due to a 165 day toll of the 150 -day clock by the applicant.
-3-
Attachments:
1. Shepherd Email on operating characteristics dated March 16, 2018.
2. Full Record to Date (Will be attached to the Hearing Agenda Packet only)
Electronic Record available at: P:\CDD\Shepherd 2018\Record
-4-
William Groves
From: John Shepherd <shepherdsfield@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 11:09 AM
To: William Groves
Subject: Agreed upon conditions for church permit
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Thanks for running the meeting this morning, Will. I think it went well.
So, I'm willing to limit the number of outdoor gathering to 30 one day events per year, which constitutes 8% of
the days in a year, far below the 50% threshold for building and sanitation.
I'm also willing to have my domestic water system inspected and approved and will begin work with Jeff
Freund ASAP.
I think all the other concerns were addressed and resolved.
Is it possible to let me review your revised list of conditions before they become final? Specifically, I believe
that conditions C, L, M and P need to be either removed or revised. And you can add the condition about the
domestic water being tested and approved.
One more question: I want to submit written testimony and exhibits to the Commissioners to answer COLW's
charges before the April 23rd hearing. When is the deadline for written submissions?
Thanks,
John Shepherd
P,O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005
Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764
http://4wvw,deschutes.org/cd
APPEAL APPLICATION
FEE; 4 Z _0 X0
EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE:
1, A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal.
2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating
the reasons the Board should review the lower decision.
3. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request
for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de novo review as
provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22,
4. If color exhibits are submitted, black and white copies with captions or shading delineating the color
areas shall also be provided.
It is the responsibility of the appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22.32 of the County Code.
The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must include the items listed above. Failure to complete all of
the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be included on the Notice of Appeal.
Staff cannot advise a potential appellant as to whether the appellant is eligible to file an appeal (DCC Section
22.32.010) or whether an appeal is valid. Appellants should seek their own legal advice concerning those issues.
Appellant's Name (print): hIN s EplPhone:(a�Y I) 6-4/0 - `/dos
Mailing Address: 7// Zp ICaL� _ _._ _. .__ .._ City/State/Zip: "; s rEW �`Jrc
Land Use Application Being Appealed: 17 -
Property
7Property Description: Township lei Range � ( Section 00 Tax Lot,__.,_ , a
Appellant's Signature i 7_ - _
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.32.024, APPELLANT SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE
TRANSCRIPT OF ANY HEARING APPEALED, FROM RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES PROVIDED BY THE
PLANNING DIVISION UPON REQUEST (THERE IS A $5.00 FEE FOR EACH MAGNETIC TAPE RECORD).
APPELLANT SHALL SUBMIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN THE
CLOSE OF THE DAY FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FOR THE DE NOVO HEARING OR, FOR
ON -THE -RECORD APPEALS, THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN RECORDS.
(over)
10/15
Qu alily Sen)ices Perl''ormed 7vith 11'ride
RE: 247-17-OWS73 AD and 574 SP
Applicant and Owner- John and Stephanie Shepherd
Request- This letter hereby requests an appeal to the Deschutes County Commissioners of the decision rendered and mailed on Feb 12,
2018.
Dear Commissioners,
I appreciate all the work and thought the County and the Board has invested in my application for a church permit. I appreciate how
the Commissioners agreed to remove the prohibition of churches from the code and to Impose no restrictions on the operation and
ministry of churches, including auxiliary functions of the church, as permitted outright in State law.
First, some background: after the Oregon Appeals Court rejected Deschutes County appeal of my church permit, I was urged by Adam
Smith, County Counsel, to immediately reapply for a church permit several months ago so that County could see that I was acting in
good faith to fully comply with permit requirements. And then, while the Commissioners worked through the code amendment
process, I "tolled" my application, again at the urging of County Counsel. Logically, there was no reason for Planning to complete the
application review until the Commissioners finished their deliberation on the code amendment.
After the Commissioners completed their work and the new code became effective, and again at the urging of County counsel, I
Immediately revised my application to reflect the new code and submitted the revised version to Will Groves, the planer who was
handling my application. I advised him that the revised application was coming. When I brought it down in person to hand it in, he told
me to give it to the desk planner, as he was unavailable. Thus, on Feb 1st, I gave it to Cynthia and informed her as well that this was a
revised version and asked her to give it to Will. I emailed Will again on Feb 5th and asked if he had any questions, i didn't hear back,
A week later, on Feb 12th, i received in the mail a decision from the County. The decision approved the permit for my church but
unfortunately included past restrictions on frequency and seasonality, conditions the Commissioners agreed NOT to impose. Naturally,
I was surprised and upset by this. After inquiry, I learned that Peter Gutowsky had taken over review of my permit application from Will
Groves and was unaware that the new application had been revised to omit conditions of frequency and seasonality. Peter explained
to me that he had based his decision on my old application, not the revised on.
So i am respectfully asking the Commissioners to strike and remove conditions C, L, M and P. I believe these were unintentionally
added as an oversight, not realizing that my revised application, In reflecting the revised code, neither offered nor requested these
conditions.
Condition C limits my "events" to the period of time between May 15th and Oct 15th. An "event" is broadly defined In condition 0 as
"any outdoor use of the property by non-residents". Thus, condition C imposes a "seasonality" on my religious freedom, something the
Commissioners specifically decided not to impose. Condition C would violate my religious rights and RLUIPA protections in that "equal
access" to year round activities is denied my church but granted to similar groups and institutions. For example, Condition C would
prevent my church from holding an outdoor Easter Sunrise Service on my private property. It would also prevent me from performing a
memorial service in April, as I performed a few years ago. There is no legal basis for this restriction either in County code or State law.
Condition L reiterates the seasonal restrictions and adds a frequency restriction. Again, there is no legal basis for such a restriction,
either in County code or state law. The state allows churches as a "use permitted outright", Just like farming or ranching. The
Commissioners debated and agreed to add no restrictions on church use. Furthermore, RLUIPA requires equal access and since similar
restrictions are not imposed on similar uses in Deschutes County EFU, they may not be imposed here either.
Condition M is unnecessary in that it defines "weekend day" as part of the restriction of condition L. Since religious exercise should not
be limited to weekends, this condition should be removed.
Condition P addresses the setup and take down of temporary structures. While it remains my intention and practice to complete any
wedding setup the day before or the day of the wedding and any cleanup the day of or immediately following the wedding, I see no
legal reason that this condition should be imposed.
For clarification, my intentions remain the same, to largely limit outdoor religious activities to the warm seasons between mid May and
mid October. it is neither practical nor desirable to hold outdoor events in the cold. My website says as much. But I respectfully request
that this intention not be imposed as a legal condition in that there is no legal basis to do so and in that I wish to retain the religious
right to hold an outdoor Easter service, or a Christmas service or a memorial service, or some such, at my discretion. Other similar
institutions, both present and future, (such as a hunting lodge, a business office and a prospective environmental center) have such
liberty. Why should churches in general and my church in particular, be denied that same liberty?
Sincerely,
John Shepherd
Pastor of Shepherdsfield Church
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safely Dimion EnvaonnleMai Sails Division
P.0, Box 6lli_;5, , N'Y'v Lafa ette A venue Fend, Oregon 9;,^3 6!,
Phone; '5 '1 :1ci5-C7i�
http:if�,vr,�.�;xiesch��tes,org,rcd
APPEAL APPLICATION
FEE: 250
EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE:
1. A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal.
2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating
the reasons the Board should review the lower decision.
3. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request
for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de novo review as
provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22.
4. If color exhibits are submitted, black and white copies with captions or shading delineating the color
areas shall also be provided.
It is the responsibility of the appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22.32 of the County Code.
The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must include the items listed above. Failure to complete all of
the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be included on the Notice of Appeal.
Staff cannot advise a potential appellant as to whether the appellant is eligible to file an appeal (DCC Section
22.32.010) or whether an appeal is valid. Appellants should seek their own legal advice concerning those issues.
Appellant's Name (print): Central Oregon LandWatch
Phone: ( 541) 647-2930
Mailing Address: 50 SW Bond Street, Suite 4 City/State/Zip: 97702
Land Use Application Being Appealed: 247 -17 -000573 -AD AND 574 -SP
Property Description: Township 17S Range 11 E Section 13 Tax Lot 820 824,828
Appellant's Signature:
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.32.024, APPELLANT SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE
TRANSCRIPT OF ANY HEARING APPEALED, FROM RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES PROVIDED BY THE
PLANNING DIVISION UPON REQUEST (THERE IS A $5.00 FEE FOR EACH MAGNETIC TAPE RECORD).
APPELLANT SHALL SUBMIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN THE
CLOSE OF THE DAY FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FOR THE DE NOVO HEARING OR, FOR
ON -THE -RECORD APPEALS, THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN RECORDS.
(over)
10/15
Qmdil y Services Periiii-med 114111 hide
NOTICE OF APPEAL
See attached letter.
(This page may be photocopied if additional space is needed.)
February 20, 2018
Peter Gutowsky
Deschutes County Community Development Department
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
Bend, OR 97708-6005
Re. Appeal of Administrative File Number: 247 -17 -000573 -AD, 574 -SP
Via Hand Delivery
Dear Hearings Officer:
Central Oregon LandWatch is appealing the administrative decision (decision)
for File No. 247 -17 -000573 -AD, 574 -SP. This letter is in support of our attached
appeal petition. LandWatch respectfully urges the Hearings Officer to reverse staffs
approval and deny the application.
1. DCC 18.16.025(C); DCC 18.04.030; "church " means an institution that has nonprofit
status as a church established with the Internal Revenue Service
The applicants' proposal for a church is reminiscent of their previous proposal for a
private park. Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County, 72 Or LUBA 61 (2015) affd, 276
Or App 282, 367 Pad 560 (2016) (reversing Deschutes County's decision approving a private
park on the property). The Court of Appeals wrote:
"[P]etitioners do not propose to establish a private park for use as a park; petitioners
propose to establish a private park solely for use as a commercial event venue. Because
petitioners' proposed use of their property is for a commercial event venue and not a
private park, LUBA did not err when it reversed the county's decision." LandWatch, 276
Or App at 295.
The applicants are not a church, they are private individuals who propose to use their
property as a church, whatever that means. Decision, 8 ("The applicants are proposing use of the
property as a church.") This is an obvious misinterpretation of applicable law. Only a church can
use a property as a church.
The awkward wording of the decision's Condition of Approval 21 illustrates the
confusion inherent in the decision:
2
"The applicants shall maintain its non-profit status with the IRS to qualify as a church."
The applicants do not qualify as a church and lack the requisite 501(c)(3) status for approval
under DCC. 18.04.030. The decision mistakenly allows use of applicants' property as a church
which allows applicants to hold commercial events on the property in contravention of otherwise
applicable law. The applicants are not applying on behalf of the church as church officers, but on
their own behalf as private citizens.
The use that is allowed under DCC 18.16.025(C) is for churches to operate as churches
on farmland: the code does not permit individuals to operate a for-profit event venue in the guise
of a church on farmland. An application to operate a church on farmland in an existing structure
should come from the church, not from a private individual on his own behalf.
2. 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3); DCC 18.04.030; tax exempt status cannot be maintained while
benefits inure to church insiders or while for-profit revenue exceeds nonprofit revenue
DCC l 8.04.030 defines a church as an institution with nonprofit status with the Internal
Revenue Service. The applicants, however, are John and Stephanie Shepherd. Neither the
Shepherds as individuals nor their commercial event venue business headquartered at the
property have nonprofit status with the Internal Revenue Service. The church where Mr.
Shepherd is a minister does not own the land and the church is not the applicant.
While the church where Mr. Shepherd is a minister is a 501(c)(3) organization now, it
cannot keep that status while the commercial events on the property move forward. This is
because a 501(c)(3) organization is prohibited from allowing its income or assets to benefit
insiders. Insiders include board members, officers, directors, and important employees, such as
the minister of a church. If an activity of a church or other 501(c)(3) benefits insiders beyond
incidentally, the insiders and the organization are subject to penalty excise taxes up to 200% of
the benefit, and if the practice continues the organization will lose its tax-exempt status.
The challenged decision allows 18 events per year that cost up to $3400 each. See
Attachments B, C (screenshots from the applicants' event venue website.) This is $61,200 per
year.z If the applicants as church insiders obtain these inurements as a private benefit through the
church, the church's nonprofit status will be lost.
' Attachment A, Oregon Secretary of State records for the applicants' event venue business headquartered at the
Foperty.
($34001event) * (18 events) = $61, 200.
Under 26 USC § 501(c)(3), tax exempt organizations are:
"Corporations ... organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific,
testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or
international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the
provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children
or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private
shareholder or individual ... "
As a matter of law a church cannot retain its nonprofit 501(c)(3) exempt status unless the
church serves a public rather than a private interest, because otherwise the church is not operated
exclusively for the above statutorily exempt purposes. 26 USC § 501(c)(3)4(d)(1)(ii).
This matter cannot be resolved by applying a condition of approval requiring the
applicants to maintain nonprofit status with the IRS. Decision, 34 ("The applicants shall maintain
its non-profit status with the IRS to qualify as a church.") First, the applicants are not a nonprofit
and have no status to maintain. Second, the burden is on the applicants to show the accessory
for-profit activities applicants request are not fatal to the nonprofit status on which approval of
the underlying church use is based. The applicants cannot meet this burden. The burden may not
be shifted to opponents to show that the for-profit activities requested are inconsistent with
nonprofit status. Third, the County has to impose conditions of approval that prohibit the
supposed nonprofit from conducting for-profit activities. Otherwise the County is providing a
monopolistic advantage to one for-profit event center that is denied to all other would-be event
centers that might wish to locate in the EFU zone.
Nor can the matter be resolved by careful wording in a mission statement. Decision, 2.
Loss of 501(c)(3) status will occur if there is a large difference between the organization's
charitable and noncharitable income streams. As explained below there is no charitable income
stream.
To summarize, the church related to this matter is not a landowner in Deschutes County
and is not the applicant. The applicants are private individuals, one of which is an important
employee of a 501(c)(3) church. If the sales of commercial events for as much as $3400 are not
associated with a church, then the proposed use cannot be approved because the commercial
events are only allowed because they are part of a church with nonprofit 501(c)(3) status.
Decision, 8. If on the other hand the sales of commercial events for as much as $3400 are
associated with a church, then the proposed use cannot be approved because the $3400 for each
In
event inures to an important employee, a practice prohibited under the Internal Revenue Code
that will result in the loss of the 501(c)(3) status that is the basis for the approval. Either way, the
application cannot be approved. Therefore the Hearings Officer should reverse the administrative
decision.
3. ORS 215.441; ORS 215.283; DCC 18.16.025; decision permits nonfarm uses at faun
dwelling limited by statute to nonresidential places of worship in the EFU zone
The decision misinterprets DCC 18. 16.025 (C), which allows "churches and cemeteries
in conjunction with churches consistent with ORS 215.441 and OAR 660-033-0130(2) on non -
high value farmland." ORS 215.441 provides for the reasonable use of real property for activities
customarily associated with the practices of religious activity at nonresidential places of worship.
ORS 215.441 and DCC 18. 16.025 do not apply to the farm dwelling residence of the
applicants. See Reed v. Jackson County, LUBA No. 2009-136 (2010):
"Petitioner misconstrues ORS 215.441. We agree with the hearings officer that ORS
215.441 allows weddings on EFU-land only if they are associated with 'a church,
synagogue, temple, mosque, chapel, meeting house or other nonresidential place of
worship' that is located on EFU-land. In other words, if there is a church located on EFU-
land, weddings can occur at the church, but if there is no church for the wedding to be
'customarily associated with the practices of,' then weddings are not allowed under ORS
215.441. Because there is no church or other place of worship on petitioner's property,
weddings are not permitted uses on petitioner's property under ORS 215.441."
Bechtold v Jackson County, 42 Or LUBA 204, 211 (2002):
"[W]e believe ORS 215.441 does provide context for interpreting ORS 215.283(i)(b) and
specifically provides contextual support for the hearings officer's view that the church
buildings that are allowable under ORS 215.283(1)(b) do not include buildings that serve
a significant residential function, as each of the rejected parts of the proposal do. ORS
215.441(1) refers to churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, chapels and meeting
houses as 'nonresidential place[s] of worship.' We have no reason to believe the word
'church' in ORS 215.441 means something different than the word'cburch' in ORS
215.283(1)(b)."
The County may not allow uses in EFU that are not allowed by the statute the County's
code implements. Id. at 211. Therefore the County should reverse the approval and deny the
application.
4. DCC 18.04.030; principal use is for commercial events
The term "accessory use" is defined in DCC 18.04.030 as follows:
"'Accessory use or accessory structure' means a use or structure incidental and
subordinate to the main use of the property, and located on the same lot as the main use."
The proposed use of the property is properly characterized as a principal use for commercial
events. The proposed use for commercial events is on a much larger scale than the associated
church in terms of income and numbers of people. The County cannot interpret its code to
recharacterize the use as a church. White v. Lane County, 68 Or LUBA 423 (2013).
Income from commercial events exceeds income from church.
The church generates no income. Attachment D (email from applicant to County stating
the associated church generates zero income.) The applicants' potential commercial event income
of $61,200 is neither incidental nor accessory to the income from the church.
Number of people for commercial events exceeds number of people far church.
The administrative decision allows 4,500 people per year on the property (250 people at
18 events.) By contrast the 501(c)(3) church has only 10 members apart from the applicants.
Attachment E (photograph of congregation.)
The use for commercial events is not an accessory, incidental, or subordinate use but the
principal use. According to the records of the Oregon Secretary of State the property is the
headquarters of the applicants' commercial event venue business. Attachments A, B, C. The
county's characterization of the proposed incidental use as a church cannot legitimize use as a
commercial event venue that is not otherwise allowed in the EFU zone. LUBA in Smalley v.
Benton County, 71 Or LUBA 172 (2015), stated:
"Filming that is incidental to a primary use of the property cannot legitimize that primary
use, if it is otherwise not allowed in the EFU zone, and such incidental filming cannot
bring that primary use within the scope of 'on-site filming.' "
5. Winter range prohibitions not acknowledged
The administrative decision did not note that the list of uses prohibited in winter range
relied upon in this decision is not acknowledged but is under appeal to the Land Use Board of
Appeals.
6
6. DCC 22.20.15; approval of additional land use applications at the property must await
compliance with conditions of approval already issued
Under DCC 22.20.15 additional land use approvals for the property must wait until the
property comes into compliance with conditions of approval the County has already issued.'
The County issued conditions of approval for a 2001 land use approval but the property has not
complied. The conditions of approval transferred to the applicant. MA -13-3, CU -13-13,
Attachment F.
In 2001 the County imposed a condition of approval on the property that any substantial
alteration in the farm management plan on which the 2001 decision was based would require
submittal of a new land use permit.
"Approval is based upon the farm management plan and the plot plan. Any substantial
alteration of the farm management plan or the plot plan shall require submittal of a new
land use permit." 4
LUBA stated in a 2015 decision that the farm management plan for the property has
never been implemented. LandWatch, 72 Or LUBA 61 (2015) ("The dwelling was approved in
2001 as a dwelling in conjunction with farm use, pursuant to a farm management plan that
proposed a commercial faun operation consisting of grazing cattle and raising hogs. However,
the farm management plan was not implemented.")
Not implementing the farm plan constitutes a substantial alteration that triggered the
requirement for submittal of a new land use permit. See also Shepherd v Deschutes County
Assessor, No. TC -MD 140333N (Or Tax 2014) (testimony from the applicant indicating he had
not irrigated, maintained fences on, raised livestock on, or farmed the property as of late 2014).5
Under DCC 18.16.067(B)(2) "the County shall determine that the farm management plan
has been implemented to the extent that the faun use has achieved the gross farm sales figure
required under DCC 18.16.050." The DCC 18.16.050 gross annual income test is:
e DCC 22.20.15(A) Except as described in (D) below, if any property is in violation of applicable land use
regulations, and/or the conditions of approval of any previous land use decisions or building permits previously
issued by the County, the County shall not:
1. Approve any application for land use development;
2. Make any other land use decision, including land divisions and/or property line adjustments ***
4 Attachment G, Deschutes County MA -10-9 (CU -00-65), July 5, 2001, Approval of Farm Dwelling
s Attachment H, Shepherd v. Deschutes County Assessor, No, TC -MD 140333N (Or Tax 2014)
"The subject tract is currently employed for a farm use, and that the farm operator earned
$32,500 in gross annual revenue in the last two years, three of the last five years, or based
on the average farm revenue earned on the tract in the highest three of the last five years."
DCC 18.16.050 also requires that a farm dwelling must be occupied by a person or
persons who will be principally engaged in the farm use of the land for production of farm crops
or livestock at a commercial scale. ORS 215.203(2) requires that the property of a farm dwelling
must be employed: "for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money by raising, harvesting
and selling crops or the feeding, breeding, management and sale of, or the produce of,
livestock...."
As LUBA explained in ONDA v. Harney County, 42 Or LUBA 149,167-168 (2002):
"[T]he county must evaluate the extent to which the occupants of the proposed dwelling
will be engaged in farm use of the property, as opposed to nonfarm uses, and allow the
dwelling only if the evidence shows at least one occupant will be 'principally engaged' in
farm use."
The defining characteristic of the 2001 farm management plan was its demonstration of
compliance with ORS 215.203(2), DCC 18.16.067, DCC 18.16.050, and related requirements,
including proof that the applicants' predecessor in interest was the intended occupant of the farm
dwelling and would be principally engaged in the farm use of the land at a commercial scale.
Without such compliance the farm management plan and the farm dwelling could not have been
approved. The farm management plan has been substantially altered but no new land use permit
for the dwelling has been submitted as required by the prior condition of approval.
The applicants occupy the dwelling but are not principally engaged in farm use such as
planting, harvesting, marketing, or caring for livestock at a commercial scale, and the property is
not employed for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money by farming or livestock
production. There is no evidence the applicants can meet the farm income test.
Under DCC 22.20.15 additional land use decisions must wait until the property comes
into compliance with the conditions of approval the County has already placed there.
6 Attachment 1, 2001 Farm Management Plan; see Attachment G 2001 Approval of Farm Dwelling
Conclusion
Thank you for your attention to these views. Enclosed please find a check for the $250
appeal fee.
Best regard~,
Caro) Macbeth
Staff Attorney
Central Oregon LandWatch
A-(T6 U-I Mery i %�
ATT � t 0 h�I\T\- L
William Groves
From: John Sh.phetd :shepherd.,�fieid( )ymak.corn>
Split fuesday, June 12 1, 2016 10:1 1 AM
TO: Jeff FI -E -Ord
Cc: William Grovf-s. Frit: mom,
Subject: Re: Shepherdsheld's water systerri
Dear Jeff,
Thanks for the infoirrnaflon and clarification.
Under our Private Park permit we agreed that guests, at events would provide their 01AM water, Which was out
practice all along. Either the caterer or the hi idal party brought bottle water, not to mention 111ore appeafili(l
liquid that carnes in kegs. Lot. 850, the OVC)IIS ShOUld not be counted as part of the 60 uses per year.
And our House Church servicos have never excecdc-d one Per week. So, at the utnio.st they w0jil(I only count 52
gathering per year. If, however, that ever changed, We would simply apply for the water systern perinit. Hook at
it this way: you don't need a drivers license until You actually start driving. When you are ready to drive, you
get a Iicense.
I'd be OK with providing an annual report on the number of gatherings per year, And/or pledging to limit the
gatherings to under 60, At this point, I'm trying to keep ni), costs under control. My House Church generates
zero income Lind this application alone, with 11MVCd R -CS, has COSt IUC iD excess of $12,500 so far, Not to
mention the fact that Transportation Dept wants to assess rrie $6000 In SIX"s,
Thanks for being reasonable,
John Shepherd
-T-
t41„�.ti x
JJJ
DECISION OF DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER
FILE NUMBERS: MA -13-3, CU -13-13
APPLICANT: John Shepherd
71120 Holmes Road
Sisters, Oregon 97759
PROPERTY OWNERS: John and Stephanie Shepherd
71120 Holmes Road
Sisters, Oregon 97759
APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY: Dave Hunnicutt
Oregonians in Action
P.O. Box 230637
Tigard, Oregon 97281
REQUEST: The applicant requests conditional approval to establish a
private park on an EFU-zoned parcel east of Sisters for the
purpose of hosting weddings, wedding receptions, special
events, and recreational activities.
STAFF CONTACT: Kevin Harrison, Principal Planner
HEARING DATES: July 2, September 10, and October 22, 2013
RECORD CLOSED: November 15, 2013
1. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
A. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
1. Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions
* Section 18.040.030, Definitions
2. Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use
* Section 18.16.031, Nonresidential Conditional Uses on Nonhigh Value
Farmland Only
* Section 18.16.040, Limitations on Conditional Uses
3. Chapter 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone
* Section 18.88.040, Uses Permitted Conditionally
* Section 18.88.060, Siting Standards
4. Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions
Shepard - MA-13-3/CU-13-13 Page 1 of 14
A �nq;�vt 7-