2018-359-Minutes for Meeting July 18,2018 Recorded 8/31/2018BOARD
qqRD O
p F
COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(5 41 ) 388-6570
1:30 PM
Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2018-359
Nancy Blankenship County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal 08/31/2018 3:11:01 PM
!il�Grl 2018-359
WEDNESDAY, july 180 2018 ALLEN CONFERENCE ROOM
Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Phil Henderson and Anthony DeBone. Also present were
Tom Anderson, County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; and Sharon Keith, Board Executive
Assistant. Several citizens and representatives of the media were in attendance.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 1:33 p.m.
ACTION ITEMS
1. 9-1-1 Update
Sara Crosswhite, Interim Director and Tim Bueschlin of 911 presented.
County Administrator Anderson spoke on the items of the update and noted
the User Board meeting yesterday. Ms. Crosswhite explained dim Ramsey of
Harris was able to replicate the data of the miscommunications. The data
will be reviewed to monitor traffic. Discussion on the trouble areas and the
service coverage areas. The acting technical manager duties have fallen on
the shoulders of Ms. Crosswhite as well. Commissioner DeBone suggested
targeting each of the problem areas to help the agencies receive service
levels they need. Commissioner DeBone asked who the technical questions
should be directed to and would like to have the reporting system recorded
on paper right now maybe in the form of handouts showing the topics we
POCC WORK SESSION JULY 18, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 7
are currently researching. Commissioner Henderson suggested a goal sheet
of the problems and a map showing the missed calls. Commissioner
Henderson suggested hiring out for a map showing the geography of missed
calls to not have to put all of the pressure on Ms. Crosswhite and Mr.
Bueschlein. Commissioner Henderson inquired if other sites need to be
researched.
Commissioner Henderson prepared a document with highlights from the
User meeting minutes since 2016. Commissioner Henderson feels the
management of the district should fall on the County Administrator as well.
Commissioner Baney inquired what we are paying ADCOMM to do? The
Board is in the position of getting things done and if ADCOMM is not getting
things accomplished we need a better communication ability. County
Administrator Anderson stated with the lack of technical services ADCOMM is
working directly with staff to help where they can. Commissioner Henderson
inquired on ADCOMMs status for a proposal on in -building stuff. Ms.
Crosswhite reported on the in -building issues and their plan is to help with
additional equipment. Ms. Crosswhite mapped the in -building issues.
Commissioner Baney felt that Harris should be doing that and is concerned
they are not mapping out strategies. Commissioner Baney wants to ensure
everyone has the tools and support they need.
County Administrator Anderson noted Ms. Crosswhite prepared a first draft
of the radio based strategic plan that itemizes the areas that need to be
addressed. County Administrator Anderson stated a group of candidates
have been identified for the technical manager position.
Commissioner Baney asked to know what ADCOMM is actually providing and
what we should be expecting from them and are they providing what we
need. Commissioner DeBone stated the service needs to be provided to the
user group agency. Commissioner Henderson stated ADCOMM is not
informing the Board of their goals to accomplish the improvements.
Commissioner Henderson suggested an advisory committee or task force to
assist with problem solving. Commissioner Baney inquired if the User Board
group would have. Commissioner DeBone sees it as project management
and customer service skills and what we can invest in to make this better
with strategic problem solving. Commissioner Baney reminded Ms.
Crosswhite to lean on the Board if there are items that need assistance.
BOCC WORK SESSION JULY 18, 2018 PAGE 2 OF 7
There were 24 applicants for the Deputy Director position. The application
window is opened until the position is closed. Interviews will be scheduled
for either August 10 or 16. The Board expressed interest in participating in
reviewing the applications the interviews. County Administrator Anderson
will send the applications to the Board for their review and rating for
candidates to interview.
Bend Police Chief Porter was present and spoke on the need for clear project
management. This data should be easily available for review. He feels
project management is lacking here. Chief Porter reported on other
communities in the country covered by similar radio systems and their tower
coverage based on topography, coverage areas, and the numbers of towers.
Chief Porter spoke on the great efforts of Ms. Crosswhite and her work in
covering the interim director's position.
Commissioner Henderson spoke on the Overturf site and wonders if it is
going to be the best site for a tower. Chief Porter commented he is
concerned we don't have a good set of eyes to review what is working and
what is not working. Ms. Crosswhite feels we should bring ADCOMM and
Harris back to the conversation. The Board agrees. Commissioner Baney
also suggested expanding the service of ADCOMM to alleviate some of the
work. Joe Sadony, Information Technology Director was present and joined
the discussion if adding his services as Project Manager he would request a
conversation with Ms. Crosswhite. Commissioner DeBone inquired if there is
a possibility of contracting out for temporary project management.
Commissioner Baney suggested a list of questions could be created for
research. Commissioner Henderson suggested coming back to a Work
Session next week. Chief Porter stated Bend Police Department will provide
assistance and support to find solutions. Commissioner Henderson asked
County Counsel Doyle if he had any input. Doyle noted that ADCOMM is not
presently tasked with project management and if the Board wants ADCOMM
to fill that role, Tom or Sara needs to have that discussion ASAP. He also
noted that the generic P25 digital system is produced and marketed by both
Harris and Motorola. One is Coke, one is Pepsi. They are the same system.
Chief Porter will share research materials with Ms. Crosswhite and Joe
Sadony will assist with the project of creating a strategic plan.
BOCC WORK SESSION JULY 18, 2018 PAGE 3 OF 7
Commissioner Henderson inquired what Ms. Crosswhite needs from the
Board. Commissioner Baney explained that she can lean on the Board for
any help.
2. Preparation for Public Hearing on Appeal of a Hearing's Officer Denial
for a Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Surface Mining to
Residential
This portion of the agenda was audio recorded. Cynthia Smidt, Community
Development Department presented this item in preparation of the public
hearing scheduled for July 25. The hearing's officer denied the plan
amendment and zone change from surface mining to residential as
proposed byTumalo Irrigation District based on a transportation related
factor. Tumalo Irrigation District and Central Oregon LanclWatch filed a
timely appeal. Ms. Smidt reviewed the basis of the appeal.
Discussion held on time limits for next week's hearing.
Discussion held on demonstrating comprehensive plans and policies. Ms.
Smidt will send a link to the full record to the Board.
3. Preparation for Housekeeping Text Amendments Public Hearing
This portion of the agenda was audio recorded. Tanya Saltzman, Community
Development Department presented this item in preparation of the public
hearing scheduled foriuly 23. This item went through the Planning
Commission and was recommended to the Board for approval. Ms.
Saltzman reviewed the history of the amendments. Commissioner Baney
inquired on the accessory dwelling unit portion. Ms. Saltzman reported the
amendment will mirror state law.
OTHER ITEMS:
• The Public Hearing for the Marijuana Text Amendments will be held on
Tuesday, August 28t"
BOCC WORK SESSION JULY 18, 2018 PAGE 4 OF 7
• Community Development Department reported on another item (Transect)
requesting a brand new zone code change is being considered for a
development opportunity on the west side that would allow higher density of
2'Y2 acre parcels for 170+ developable units. They will be applying for Goal
14 exception. The developer wants to market this development as a
sustainable resource community. The developer is interested in an
aggressive schedule on this matter. The Board spoke on the current housing
issues. CDD staff will brief the Board individually on this issue including
necessary participation of the City of Bend.
• Nick Lelack reported on receiving an invitation for him to join the Committee
Council of Legislative Policy and Research Office to have a work force
meeting at the capital for discussing Deschutes County MJ regulations on
time, place, and manner.
COMMISSIONERS UPDATES:
• Commissioner Henderson spoke on new brochures available for Project
Wildfire.
• Commissioner Henderson asked for input on the invoice received from
Eastern Oregon Counties. Generally we pay 12.15% of the regular bill.
Commissioner Henderson reported on the Blue Mountain Forest Plan.
Commissioner DeBone stated the Blue Mountain Forest Plan is not
Deschutes County's domain. Commissioner DeBone and Baney support
$800. Commissioner Henderson will deliver the check.
BAN EY: Move approval of the dues and the $800 of support.
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: BANEY: Yes
HENDERSON: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
BOCC WORK SESSION JULY 18, 2018 . PAGE 5 OF 7
• Commissioner Baney reported on changes at Association of Oregon Counties
with Mike McArthur, Executive Director leaving his position.
• Commissioner Henderson suggested a fly over of the wildfire areas to get a
closer look of what has burned up in the fires.
• Commissioner DeBone attended the Lairds Ribbon Cutting
• Commissioner Baney reported on the NACO conference in Nashville and on
a meeting in the recent transportation meeting Portland regarding tolling.
• Commissioner DeBone reported on the MPO meeting yesterday and
transportation options that were reviewed.
• Commissioner Henderson stressed the importance of having some help
available for 911. County Administrator Anderson noted the proposed
design information from Harris Corporation should also be reviewed. The
Board feels Ms. Crosswhite needs some additional assistance with the radio
project. Commissioner Henderson feels we should be able to use the talent
within Deschutes County to assist as a priority.
RECESS: At the time of 4:24 p.m. a recess was taken and reconvened at 4:26 p.m.
• Whitney Hale, Public Information Officer presented the Board with an update
for the State of the County Address that is scheduled for July 31 st. Bend
Chamber of Commerce would like the Board to participate in promoting the
participation by interviews with the various media partners. The Supper Club
invite for all three commissioners from Central Oregon Daily would be this
Monday evening from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. to Balthazars. Ms. Hale will
create a list of reference points. A draft of the presentation at the Chamber
Event is being circulated.
• Whitney Hale, Public Information Officer reported on the Harper Bridge work
continuation. Prior administrative intern Chris Ogren compiled information.
Ms. Hale inquired on the Board's consideration of next steps. The Board
BOCC WORK SESSION JULY 18, 2018 PAGE 6 OF 7
spoke on safety. Commissioner Henderson commented on the road
expansion areas in the Mt. Hood area that allows overflow for cross country
skiing.
County Administrator Anderson reported on two recent resignations in the
Health Services Department Melissa Rizzo, Behavioral Health Program
Manager and DeAnn Carr, Health Services Deputy Director requiring the
process of hiring to cover the positions.
• County Administrator Anderson reported that the FOPPO union wants to
meet face-to-face with the Board to present a counter proposal.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: None
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:43 p,m.
DATED this _ Day of 2018 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
IATTE,ST:
ANTHONY DEBONE, CHAIR
BOCC WORK SESSION JULY 18, 2018 PAGE 7 OF 7
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.org
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1:30 PM, WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2018
Allen Conference Room - Deschutes Services Building, 2ND Floor - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend
Work Session, which are open to the public, allow the Board to gather information and give direction to staff.
Public comment is not normally accepted. Written minutes are taken for the record
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
ACTION ITEMS
1. 9-1-1 Update - Sara Crosswhite, Deputy Director
2. Preparation for Public Hearing on Appeal of a Hearings Officer Denial for a Plan
Amendment and Zone Change from Surface Mining to Residential - Cynthia Smidt,
Associate Planner
3. Preparation for Housekeeping Text Amendments Public Hearing -Tanya Saltzman,
Associate Planner
COMMISSIONER'S UPDATES
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At any time during the meeting an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS
192.5660(2)(e); real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h) litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor
Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Wednesday, July 18, 2018 Page 1 of 2
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 public.
OTHER ITEMS
These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners with to discuss as part of the
meeting pursuant to ORS 192.640.
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. If you have question, please call (541) 388-6572.
Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Wednesday, July 18, 2018 Page 2 of 2
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 Work Session of July 18, 2018
DATE: July 12, 2018
FROM: Sara Crosswhite, 9-1-1 Operations, 541-322-6111
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
9-1-1 Update
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
This item is for information only.
ATTENDANCE: Sara Crosswhite, Interim 9-1-1 Director
SUMMARY: See attached staff memo.
ES
L -U
TO: Board of Commissioners
FROM: Sara Crosswhite, Interim Director
DATE: July 10, 2018
SERVICE T SUBJECT: 911 Update - Radio System Status/Commissioner
Questions
Pride
Prof e s s i o n a I ism This memorandum is intended to provide an update on the current
D e d i c a t i o n status associated with the 911 radio system. I have also provided
responses to questions posed at the BOCC work session on July 11,
2018. 1 will come to deliver an update in person at the Board's Work
Session on July 18.
Mailing Address
Post Office Box 6005 1. Radio Ticket Report
Bend, Oregon 97708 Missed Audio: Harris has had an engineer on site since Tuesday, July 10tH
Tim Beuschlein, Public Safety Systems Specialist, has set all other work aside
to focus on the missing audio with Harris.
Street Address
20355 Poe Sholes Drive, #300
Bend, Oregon 97703 Bend Police Department Radios: Bend PD was provided a report with
suggested solutions for addressing their current issues. The report was a
Phone (541) 388-0185 collaborative effort from Day Wireless (Motorola Vendor), DC 9-1-1,
Fax (541) 382-5767 ADCOMM, and Motorola engineers. BPD has started a testing process with
the new recommended settings and firmware updates. Bend PD, Day
www.deschutes.org/911 Wireless, ADCOMM and 911 staff have a follow up conference call
scheduled next week so that we can assist Bend PD with more structured
testing process, planned for Wednesday, July 18.
In Building: ADCOMM is prepared to meet and discuss next steps in regards
to in building coverage. We would like to focus on the two big-ticket items
first which is the missing audio and the BPD audio. While that is occurring,
we will be sitting down the Joe Blaschka to develop a plan for in building
issues. We are continuing to document locations that appear to have
significant issues for our first responders and will prioritize those moving
forward.
2. Deputy Director Hiring Update
As of 07/10/2018 we have received 24 applications and are reviewing the
applications. Please let me know if you would like to be involved in the first
round of video interviews and/orthe second round on in-person interviews.
3. Draft RFQ (Request for Qualifications) for After Action on Radio System
After discussion with David Givans we had made the decision to proceed with an RFQ for the after
action on the radio system. A draft RFQ will be ready by next week for review.
4. Internal Review Process
After speaking with Larry Hatch, retired Deputy Director from the Washington County
Consolidated Communications Agency (WCCCA), he has determined that he is too busy to assist
us with our internal review. He is going to reach out to some colleagues that he thinks may be
able to help us with this process. If Mr. Hatch cannot find anyone available, I will look at other
options.
x.01 E S Co
��✓ ,
�a
Deschutes County 9-1-1
Radio Strategic Plan for 2018 — 2021
1 Primary Goals
1.1 Improve overall functionality of the radio system. (September 2018)
1.2 Evaluate system user needs and investigate population density effect on current coverage.
2 Objectives — Radio Systems
2.1 Identify and resolve missing audio radio transmissic
2.1.1 Harris engineering investigating. Issue succe
engineering working toward a solution/fix.,(
2.2 Optimize Bend PD Radio Audio Quality - (July 2018)
2.2.1 Testing Plan scheduled 7/25/18
2.3 Evaluate County -wide In Building Coverage- (Ongoir
2.3.1 Continue focused evaluation of in building co)
2.3.2 Develop operational and technical plans for c
identified by user agencies and 911 staff as re
2.4 Complete revie
2019)
2.5 Consider comp
with listed imp
2.5.1 Audio 11
2.5.2 Approp
2.5.3 Review
nd implementation
mmer 2018)
replicated July 2018. Harris
2018)
age needs (August 2018)
munications enhancement in areas
!ring improvement. (Fall 2018)
site on Bend's West Side (Fall
on of Harris Radio Project with increased annual preventative maintenance
ements achieved. (Summer 2018)
ling
;e radio site roaming
J design of permanent radio site for coverage on Bend's west side
2.6 Radio System Deplc
2.7 Explore inclusion of
for Fire (Fall/Winter 2018)
s on the radio system (Ongoing/In Progress)
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 Work Session of July 18, 2018
DATE: July 11, 2018
FROM: Cynthia Smidt, Community Development, 541-317-3150
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Preparation for Public Hearing on Appeal of a Hearings Officer Denial for a Plan
Amendment and Zone Change from Surface Mining to Residential
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Before the Board of County Commissioners
is an appeal of the Hearings Officer's decision denying a plan amendment and zone change
from Surface Mining to Residential and proposed by Tumalo Irrigation District. Tumalo
Irrigation District and Central Oregon LandWatch filed a timely appeal of the Hearings Officer's
decision. The July 18, 2018 work session is intended to prepare the Board for the July 25
public hearing.
See attached staff memorandum for further background information.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None
ATTENDANCE: Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Board of County Commissioners
Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner
July 11, 2018
Public Hearing on an appeal of Hearings Officer Decision on a Tumalo Irrigation
District Zone Change and Plan Amendment (247-17-000775-ZC, 247 -17 -000776 -PA)
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) is conducting a work session on July 18, 2018 in
preparation for a public hearing on July 25 to consider an appeal, filed by the applicant, Tumalo
Irrigation District (TID) and by Central Oregon LandWatch (LandWatch). The two appeals were
submitted in response to a Deschutes County Hearings Officer's (HO) decision denying the
applicant's request for a quasi-judicial plan amendment and zone change (Attachment 1).
I. BACKGROUND
TID submitted a request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the designation of the
541 -acre subject property from Surface Mine (SM) to Rural Residential Exception Area (Attachment
2). The request includes removing Surface Mining Site No. 357 from the County's Surface Mining
Mineral and Aggregate Inventory and adding it to the Non -Significant Mining and Aggregate
Inventory. The applicant also requests approval of a Zone Change from Surface Mining to Multiple
Use Agricultural (MUA) for the subject property. The removal of the SM zoning on the also would
remove the existing Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone (SMIA) zoning on surrounding
property located within one-half mile of the SM Zone.
11. HEARING OFFICER'S DENIAL
The HO denied the plan amendment and zone change applications based on the applicant's failure
to demonstrate that the proposed change would not have a significant impact on transportation
facilities. Specifically, the Hearing Officer was concerned about traffic impacts from potential
conditional uses following the plan/zone change, such as a cluster development.
1 1 7 NVV La(ayetie Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
Qr r
(5�l1 j 33�s G..�7_� @ cddCNdr_achiites .oig @ \AA1VW.C](',,,d U.rtes.org/cc
111. TUMALO IRRIGATION DISTRICT APPEAL
The applicant/appellant, TID, appeals the HO decision and describes several assignments of error
in their notice of appeal (Attachment 3). The following mentions their concerns:
1. The Hearings O fficer erroneously concluded that Applicant failed to satisfy OAR 660-012-
0060' and DCC 18.136.020(C).
The traffic analysis plainly identified that it utilized an exceedingly conservative estimation of
trip generation for a mining operation on 540 acres. Using a moderate estimation of trip
generation, which was outlined in the submitted traffic analysis along with applicable trip
generation rates, the trip generation of a mining operation on 540 acres exceeded that of a
maximum worst case development scenario under the MUA-10 zoning. Accordingly, there
were no significant impacts on transportation systems for purposes of the transportation
planning rule and there was sufficient evidence in the record to make such a determination.
2. OAR 660-012-0060 requires the County to estimate traffic impacts under a reasonable "worst-
case" scenario.
See Barnes v. City of Hillsboro, 2010 WL 2655127, at *15. The hearings officer erroneously
concluded that 74 dwelling units on the subject property, which is only achievable if TID seeks
and obtains 9 separate conditional use approvals and 9 separate subdivision approvals, is a
reasonable worst-case scenario. Even if the 74 dwellings were a reasonable worst-case
scenario, the hearings officers had to be equally "reasonable" in determining the trip
generation potential of the mining use and applied the moderate or maximum trip generation
estimates identified in the transportation analysis.
3. The Hearings Of indicates that in the decision that it is "likely that the applicant can
demonstrate compliance" with the criteria that formed the bases of the denial.
Staff Comment: The HO decision makes an unusual finding regarding the Transportation Planning
Rule (TPR), basing the decision on something other than mobility standards. This could then set
precedent regarding required traffic analyses for plan amendment/zone changes. In the decision,
the HO sites two cases, Jaqua v City of Springfield and Willamette Oaks, LLC, v City of Eugene. In Jaqua
v City of Springfield, 193 Or App 573, 593, 91 P3d 817 (2004) the court held that the TPR does not
permit deferral of a determination of whether the proposal would significantly impact
transportation facilities. This was reaffirmed and perhaps extended in Willamette Oaks, LLC, v City of
Eugene, 232 Or App 29, 220 P.3d 445 (2009). This effectively overruled a line of LUBA cases holding
that it was permissible in some instances to condition a plan amendment or zone change to prohibit
development that could significantly impact a transportation facility. The court made it clear that
there must be a finding on this issue at the plan amendment/zone change stage.
OAR 660-012-0060, transportation planning for "Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments."
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA Page 2 of 5
IV. CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH APPEAL
LandWatch describes several assignments of error that are summarized in their notice of appeal
and below (Attachment 4):
1. The Board of County Commissioners must hear the appeal de novo because a goal exception
is required.
a. DCC 22.28.030
b. Goal 3• the subject property is agricultural land for which no goal exception has been
taken in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan.
...The subject property is agricultural land and an exception to Goal 3 is required to
redesignate the land to any designation other than EFU. The soils of the subject property
are classified as U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Class I-0, and
therefore the subject property is agricultural land by definition.
The County's Comprehensive Plan has never taken an exception to Goal 3 for the subject
property. The applicant seeks a designation of Rural Residential Exception Area. Therefore,
an exception to Goal 3 is required to approval the application, and the Hearings Officer
erred in deciding otherwise.
Staff Comment: According to LandWatch, the application requires goal exceptions, in particular
exception to Goal 3. DCC 22.28.030(C) states that the Board shall hear zone changes and plan
amendments that require an exception to the goals or concerning lands designated agricultural use
without the necessity of filing an appeal of the Hearings Officer's decision. Staff understands
LandWatch to be seeking a refund of appeal fees under this argument.
2. DCC 22 20 015: denial isoppropriate because the subject property is in violation cf applicable
land use regulations.
The Hearings Officer erred in finding that the subject property is not in violation of applicable
County land use regulations. Hearings Officer Decision page 9. The subject property is in
violation because the road that passes through the subject property (Bill Martin Road) was
constructed in violation of DCC 17.16. 105 [Footnote 1 removed] and remains in violation of
that code section....
Staff Comment: DCC 22.20.015 may prevent approval of the present application if the property is
in violation of other land use regulations. In the record below, LanclWatch references pending
litigation - Blischke et al. v Tumalo Irrigation District, Deschutes County District Court Case No.
16CV21940 - that involves Bill Martin Road as the violation of applicable land use regulations.
3. Comprehensive Plan Section 2.10 Surface Mining
a. The subject property should not be placed on the non-significant mining and aggregate
inventory.
The existence of the Non -Significant Mining and Aggregate Inventory at Comprehensive
Plan Table 5.8.2 is an error in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Only inventoried
significant Goal 5 mineral and aggregate resources may be mined. See OAR 660-023-0180.
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA Page 3 of 5
As Table 5.8.2 has no legal value in the County's program to achieve the requirements of
Goal 5, placing the subject property on Table 5.8.2 with the comment "potential reservoir
site" is a meaningless action. The Hearings Officer erred when deciding that Table 5.8.2
should be amended to include the subject
b. DOGAMI's certification of the duality of reclamation of the site renders the site usable only
for the post -mining use of "open space/range."
The Hearings Officer erred in ignoring DOGAMI's reclamation certification, which certified
all acreage of the former mining site on the subject property for the post -mining use of
"open space/range," and did not certify any acreage on the subject property for any other
post -mining uses, which include "agriculture, recreation, wildlife/wetlands, or
housing/construction. " Hearings Officer Decision page 12. The Hearings Officer was correct
in noting that "the designation on the DOGAMI application is the responsibility of the
applicant. " Hearings Officer Decision page 13. The Hearings Officer erred, however, by then
deciding that the designation on the DOGAMI application, which is the responsibility of the
applicant is irrelevant to the applicant's future development plans. If the applicant has the
responsibility to reclaim the subject property to a standard appropriate for a certain post -
mining use designation, then the applicant cannot seek to use the subject property for any
other use.
Staff Comment: As noted by LanclWatch, DCC 18.52.200 governs post -mining uses of surface
mining sites. That section states, "...the property shall be rezoned to the subsequent use zone
identified in the surface mining element of the Comprehensive Plan." In this case, however, the
Comprehensive Plan does not identify a subsequent use zone for the subject property.
4. Natural hazards.
a. Goal 7• an exception to Goal 7 Natural Hazards is required.
Evidence in the record indicates the applicant did not fill mined areas on the property in
a manner that permits subsequent use of the property for housing development. The
record indicates improperly filled areas on the property may place those who access the
property in danger.
The County had no way of knowing prior to the hearing that the proposed use is
inconsistent with the way the applicant filled in the mined areas on the property. Now
that the County knows there are conditions on the property so potentially hazardous that
the proposed land use may put the public at risk, the Hearings Officer erred in not
recommending that the County conduct an evaluation of the risk of sinkholes from
improper fill. One such sinkhole already occurred on Bill Martin Road, The Hearings
Officer should have recommended that the County identify the nature of the dire natural
hazard on the property and plan for it, as provided in Goal 7 (supra). As explained in the
Goal 7 implementation guidelines...
b. Several Com-prehensive Plan policies relating to natural hazards have not been met.
The application should be denied on the additional grounds of not meeting several
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Goal 1 of the Comprehensive Plan Section 3.5
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA Page 4 of 5
Natural Hazards Policies is to "protect people, property, infrastructure, the economy and
the environment from natural hazards." Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.5.5 states that
"development should be designed to minimize alteration of the natural landform in areas
subject to slope instability, drainage issues or erosion." Policy 3.5. 11 directs the County to
"review and revise County Code as needed to ... minimize erosion from development and
ensure disturbed or exposed areas are promptly restored to a stable, natural, and/or
vegetated condition using natural materials or native plants," Policy 3.5. 1 1(d), and "ensure
drainage from development or alterations to historic drainage patterns do not increase
erosion on-site or on adjacent properties." Policy 3.5.11(e). As thoroughly documented in
the record, the subject property has experienced substantial drainage problems, slope
instability, and erosion over the past several years. To the extent that the Hearings Officer
decided that the proposed plan amendment and zone change complied with any of these
goals and policies, the Hearing Officer erred.
Staff Comment: As noted by LanclWatch, the Comprehensive Plan Section 3.5, Natural Hazards,
only identifies wildland fire, severe winter storms, flooding, volcanic eruption, and earthquake.
Other hazards such as sinkholes are not identified since they are not a typical hazard for the county.
The County Zoning Ordinance implements those policies of the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan.
V. RECORD
Background information on the record to date is available for inspection at the Planning Division
and at the following link: https://dial.deschutes.org/Real/DevelopmentDocs/1 50758. Moreover, the
complete record will be available at the public hearing.
Attachments
1. Hearings Officer's decision
2. Map of subject property
3. Tumalo Irrigation District appeal
4. Central Oregon LandWatch appeal
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA Page 5 of 5
Staff Memorandum
Attachment 1
Hearings Officer's Decision
Mailing Date:
Friday, February 23, 2018
HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION
FILE NUMBERS: 247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA
HEARING DATE: December 12, 2017, 6:00 p.m.
APPLICANT/OWNER: Tumalo Irrigation District
c/o Bryant, Lovlien & Jarvis, P.C.
591 SW Mill View Way
Bend, Oregon 97702
ATTORNEY: Garrett Chrostek
Bryant, Lovlien & Jarvis, P.C.
591 SW Mill View Way
Bend, Oregon 97702
REQUEST: The applicant requests a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
change the designation of the subject property from Surface Mine
to Rural Residential Exception Area, and a Zone Change from
Surface Mining to Multiple Use Agricultural.
STAFF:
The request includes removing Surface Mining Site No. 357 from
the County's Surface Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory,
adding Site No. 357 to the Non -Significant Mining and Aggregate
Inventory, and removing the associated Surface Mining Impact
Area Combining Zone.
Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner
HEARINGS OFFICER: Dan R. Olsen
SUMMARY OF DECISION: DENIED
APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 18.32. Multiple Use Agricultural Zone
Chapter 18.52. Surface Mining Zone
Chapter 18.56. Surface Mining Combining Zone
Chapter 18.136. Amendments
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 2, Resource Management
Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management
Chapter 5, Supplemental Sections
Appendix C, Transportation System Plan
Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660
Division 12, Transportation Planning
Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
Division 23, Procedures and Requirements for Complying with Goal 5
BASIC FINDINGS:
A. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 19300 and 19310 Tumalo Reservoir
Road, Bend and is identified on Deschutes County Assessor's map 16-11 (index map)
as tax lots 10300 and 10400 and map 16-11-36D as tax lot 100.
B. LOT OF RECORD: Pursuant to Hearings Officer's decision in file ZC-08-4, Belveron,
legal lot of record status is not applicable to a rezoning application. However, Deschutes
County has recognized the three tax lots — 100, 10300, and 10400 — that make up the
subject property as one legal Lot of Record based on land use development permits
(e.g. CU -08-81).
C. ZONING AND PLAN DESIGNATION: The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
designates the subject property as Surface Mine. Additionally, the subject property is
zoned Surface Mining (SM). The mine is designated as Site No. 357 in the County's
Goal 5 Surface Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory.
A small region in the northeastern corner of tax lot 10400 is also within the Landscape
Management (LM) Combining Zone associated with Highway 20. The proposal is not
subject to the LM site plan review as no development is proposed. The County will
review compliance with LM Zone regulations when development is proposed.
D. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property, as shown below in Figure 1, is comprised of
three tax lots equaling 541.23 total acres. Tax lots 10300 and 10400 (index map 16-11)
are approximately 40 acres and 424.56 acres, respectively. Tax lot 100 (map 16-11-
36D) is approximately 76.67 acres. The property has varying terrain that rises to Laidlaw
Butte in the northern region. Previously developed with mine Site No. 357, the surface
mine is no longer active and was ultimately reclaimed as documented in a September
2011 letter from Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI).
Since the property was previously used as a surface mine, most of it is devoid of
vegetation except in the northeast and southwest regions where native vegetation of
juniper trees, sagebrush, and groundcover exist. In addition, some of the disturbed areas
have been revegetated. The property does not contain water rights. At the top of Laidlaw
Butte, the site is developed with three wireless telecommunication towers and ground
equipment. Tumalo Reservoir Road and Mock Road are adjacent to the property's
southern and western boundaries. Mock Road intersects with Pinehurst Road near the
northwestern corner of the property. Bill Martin Road travels generally in a north to south
direction through the property. Access to the property appears to be taken from Tumalo
Reservoir Road, Mock Road, and Bill Martin Road. According to the Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM) for Deschutes County and the National Wetlands Inventory,
respectively, the subject property is not located in the 100 -year flood plain and contains
no mapped wetlands.
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 2
x map 16-11-00
Tax lot 10300
SUBJECT
PROPERTIES
15
Tax map 16-11-00
Tax lot 10400 Tax map 16-11-36D
Tax lot 100
2
f
J `,;
O
}
t7' -
FIGURE 1. Subject Property, consisting of three tax lots
E. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The area surrounding the subject property is a mixture
of Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10) properties and two
districts within the Tumalo Urban Unincorporated Community Zone. Farm -zoned parcels
are located to the northeast, southwest, north, and across Tumalo Reservoir Road to the
south. Residential properties, zoned MUA-10, are located to the northwest, southeast,
and further north beyond the farm -zoned parcels. Adjacent to the eastern boundary are
two zoning districts — Residential 5 -acre minimum (TuR5) and Research and
Development (TuRE) — that are within the Tumalo Urban Unincorporated Community
Zone. Tumalo Reservoir Road is adjacent to the property's southern boundary. Mock
road is adjacent to the western boundary and intersects with Pinehurst Road near the
northwestern corner of the property. Bill Martin Road travels through the property in a
north to south direction.
The applicant's burden of proof statement provides the following description of the
development pattern in the area surrounding the subject property:
South of the Subject Property, but north of Tumalo Reservoir Road are several
MUA-10 properties along Coyote Run Ln. and Quail Dr. These properties are all
in residential uses and are roughly 5 acres or smaller in size. Properties to the
immediate south, but across Tumalo Reservoir Road are zoned EFU-TRB.
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 3
These properties exhibit a mix or irrigated and un -irrigated farming activities with
most properties less than 40 acres in size.
To the west and along the southern half of the Subject Property are EFU-TRB
properties north of Tumalo Reservoir Rd. There are no apparent agricultural uses
at these properties and these properties were previously part of mining
operations (Site Nos. 355 and 356). Along the northern half of the western
boundary are MUA-10 properties that are 5 to 10 acres in size. Some of these
properties demonstrate the use of irrigation, but most of the immediately adjacent
parcels are dry.
Immediately adjacent parcels to the north are zoned EFU-TRB. These properties
are 10-20 acres in size with only one adjacent parcel evidencing any irrigated
agriculture. Further north are properties zoned MUA-10 that are in a mix of
agricultural and residential uses. To the northeast is another SM zoned property
owned by Deschutes County.
Properties to the east and along the northern half of the Subject Property are un-
irrigated EFU-TRB parcels including property owned by the Applicant. Along the
southern portion of the eastern boundary are TUR5 parcels. Further east is the
Bend Research, Inc.'s Tumalo Site in the Tumalo Research and Development
District. Even further east is the unincorporated community of Tumalo.
F. SOILS: According to Soil Resource Inventory for Deschutes National Forest, there are
ten soil units mapped on the subject property, which are identified in the following table.
Mapping Unit Symbol
Mapping Unit Name
31 B
Deschutes sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes
34C
Deschutes-Stukel complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes
36A
Deskamp loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes
67A
Houstake sandy loam, very gravelly substratum, 0 to 3
percent slopes
72C
Laidlaw sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes
101D
Redcliff-Lickskillet-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 30
percent south slopes
141C
Stu kel-Desch utes-Rock outcrop complex, 0 to 15 percent
slopes
151 D
Tetherow-Clovkamp complex, 8 to 50 percent slopes
152A
Tumalo sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
152B
Tumalo sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes
A small portion of 31 B, together with the 67A and 72C areas, is similar in shape to the
existing Surface Mining area. The 72C soil mapping units are nonhigh value soils. The
31 B and 67A soil is considered high value when irrigated.
G. SURFACE MINE DESIGNATION HISTORY: The subject property (approximately
541.23 acres) was identified as mining mine Site No. 357 on the County's Surface
Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory, and the site was zoned for surface mining in
1990 through the adoption of Ordinances 90-014, 90-025, 90-028, and 90-029. All four
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 4
ordinances established an effective date of July 16, 1990. The applicant provides the
following site and mining history for the property:
The vesting deed is attached as Exhibit 3. The Applicant's predecessor
Deschutes County Municipal Improvement District acquired a very large tract of
land, including what is now the Subject Property, in the early 1900's. There have
been numerous deeds conveying out portions of the original acquisition leaving
the present configuration of approximately 541 acres.
Initial County Zoning Maps show the Subject Property as zoned SM. In the late
1980's the Land Conservation and Development Commission's (LCDC's)
acknowledgement of the County's Comprehensive Plan provisions addressing
mineral and aggregate resources under Goal 5 was reversed and remanded by
the Court of Appeals in Coats v. LCDC, 67 Or App 504 (1984). Pursuant to a
subsequent LCDC order, the County undertook a lengthy process to inventory
mineral and aggregate resources in the County, to develop a plan to preserve
and protect those resources, and to amend the County's Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Ordinance to adopt the inventory and measures to protect sites.
These plans were implemented through several ordinances that (i) listed Site No.
357 on the Goal 5 inventory, (ii) adopted a site-specific ESEE (Economic, Social,
Environmental and Energy) analysis for Site No. 357, and (iii) imposed the SM
and SMIA zoning (Ordinance Nos. 90-014, 90-025, 90-028, and 90-029). In
1993, the County adopted Ordinance Nos. 93-021 and 93-022 to correct an error
in the acreage of Site No. 357.
Aside from the communications tower described above, the property has only
been used for mining purposes. In September of 2011, the Department of
Geology & Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) closed the permit (No. 09-0009) to Site
No. 357 following successful reclamation of the Subject Property. In total, 312.75
acres were reclaimed, which included re -contouring the disturbed area, adding 1
foot of topsoil, and drill -seeding the area with grasses.
H. PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change
the designation of the subject property from Surface Mine (SM) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA). The request includes removing Surface Mining Site No. 357
from the County's Surface Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory and adding it to the
Non -Significant Mining and Aggregate Inventory. The applicant also requests approval of
a Zone Change from Surface Mining to Multiple Use Agricultural for the subject property.
The removal of the SM zoning on the subject property also would remove the existing
Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone (SMIA) zoning on property located within
one-half mile of the SM Zone.
Regarding the request to move Site No. 357 to the Non -Significant Mining and
Aggregate Inventory, the applicant states the following:
Applicant anticipates that a portion of the Subject Property may be used as a
recharge reservoir for the various irrigation piping projects applicant is pursuing
in the area. A recharge reservoir assists in ensuring that there is sufficient water
pressure in irrigation pipe to supply water to all connections during periods of
joint use. To ensure applicant can construct and maintain these facilities, should
they be developed in the future, applicant desires to add Site No. 357 to the Non-
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 5
Significant Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory contained within Table 5.8.2
of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. (Footnote omitted) The
construction of irrigation reservoirs in the MUA-10 zone requires conditional use
approval. If applicant moves forward with developing the recharge reservoir,
applicant will seek conditional use approval.
1. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice to several
agencies and received the following comments:
1. Deschutes County Transportation Planner: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation
Planner, submitted the following comments on November 29, 2017.
1 have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247-17-000775-ZC/776-PA,
which proposes changing the zoning from Surface Mining (SM) to Multiple
Use Agricultural (MUA-10) for approximately 541 acres at 19300 and 19310
Tumalo Reservoir Road, aka 16-11-00, Tax Lots 10300 and 10400 and 16-
11-36D, Tax Lot 100. I agree with the submitted traffic study's methodology,
conclusions, and recommendations. The submittal complies with the
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) and demonstrates the land use would
have no significant effect upon Bill Martin Road, a local access road. The
study also complies with the requirements of Deschutes County Code (DCC)
18.116.310.
2. Deschutes County Road Department: Cody Smith, County Engineer, submitted the
following comments on November 29, 2017.
I have reviewed the application materials for the above -referenced file
numbers, requesting a Zone Change, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and
changes to the County's Surface Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory for
Tax Lots 10300 and 10400 on Tax Map 16-11 and Tax Lot 100 on Tax Map
16-11-36D. The subject properties have frontage to Tumalo Reservoir Road,
Mock Road, and Bill Martin Rd. Tumalo Reservoir Rd is a County -maintained
rural collector road, while Mock Rd is a County -maintained rural local road.
Bill Martin Rd is local access road under County jurisdiction but not County -
maintained.
Deschutes County Road Department has no comments regarding the burden
of proof findings or traffic study submitted by the applicant.
3. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW): The following comments were
submitted by Andrew Walch, Wildlife Habitat Biologist, on November 16, 2017.
The Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFVIO is submitting the following
comments regarding Tumalo Irrigation District's applications (File #247-17-
000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA), located at 19300 and 19310 Tumalo
Reservoir Rd, Bend, OR 97701.
The area of the proposed Zone Change and Comprehensive Plan
Amendment is located just outside of the Wildlife Area Combining Zone, but
within biological winter range for mule deer. ODFW is concerned about the
continued loss and development of open spaces on biological winter range.
Due to multiple factors, including habitat loss/alterations, the Tumalo mule
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 6
deer herd, the herd potentially affected by this proposal, is estimated at 28%
of its population management objective as of spring 2017.
Development of a 541.23 -acre property into 10 -acre minimum rural
residential properties would lead to miles of new fencing on the landscape.
To reduce impact to wildlife, ODFW urges Deschutes County planners to
ensure that any new fences constructed on the property are wildlife -friendly,
as outlined in county code 18.88.070.
As per ODFW wildlife damage policy, we will not respond to any wildlife
damage complaints within this potential rural residential development due to
the change in land use.
4. The following agencies did not respond or had no comments: Bend Fire Department,
Central Electric Cooperative, Deschutes County Assessor, Deschutes County Road
Department, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of
Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI), Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development, PG&E Gas Transmission NW, Pacific Power and
Light, and Watermaster — District 11.
J. NOTICE REQUIREMENT: The applicant complied with the posted notice requirements
of Section 22.23.030(B) of Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 22. The applicant
submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit, dated November 15, 2017, indicating the
applicant posted notice of the land use action on November 15, 2017.
Notice of the public hearing was sent to all property owners within 750 of the subject
property on November 6, 2017. Notification of the public hearing was posted in the Bend
Bulletin newspaper on November 12, 2017.
K. REVIEW PERIOD: The applications for 247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA were
submitted to the Planning Division on September 21, 2017. According to Deschutes
County Code (DCC) 22.20.040(D), the review of the proposed quasi-judicial plan
amendment application is not subject to the 150 -day review period.
L. HEARING: The hearing was opened at 6:00 pm. on December 12, 2017. 1 provided the
required statutory disclosures. I indicated that I had no conflicts of interest and had had
no ex parte contacts. I did not conduct a site visit. I asked for but received no procedural
or other objections to my conducting the hearing. A request to keep the written record
open was received and granted as follows, with all submittals to be actually received by
the County at close of business:
December 22, 2017 New submittals
January 2, 2018 Materials submitted in response to submittals during the
first open record period.
January 12, 2018 Applicant's final rebuttal but no new evidence.
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 7
Ill. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
A. Chapter 22.20 Review of Land Use Action Applications
1. Section 22.20.015 Code Enforcement and Land Use
A. Except as described in (D) below, if any property is in violation of
applicable land use regulations and/or conditions of approval of any
previous land use decisions... the County shall not.-
1.
ot.1. Approve any application for land use development;
2. Make any other land use decision, including land divisions
and/or property line adjustments;
3. Issue a building permit...
C. A violation means the property has been determined to not be in
compliance either through a prior decision by the County or other
tribunal, or through the review process of the current application...
D. A permit or other approval... may be authorized if.•
1. It results in the property coming into full compliance...
2. It is necessary to protect the public health or safety...
FINDING: Several commenters have alleged that the property is in violation of
applicable land use regulations or conditions of approval and, therefore, I am precluded
from approving any application or making a land use decision.
As I understand it, properties adjacent to the northern boundary of the subject property
were partitioned and sold. The current owners have filed an action in circuit court against
Deschutes County and TID alleging, among other things, that the partitions were, or
should have been, processed as a subdivision. Accordingly, Bill Martin Rd., should have
been constructed to County standards and accepted by the County for maintenance
pursuant to DCC 17.16.105. Central Oregon Landwatch (COLW) asserts that failure of
either TID or Deschutes County to maintain Bill Martin Rd., therefore, a violation. See
e.g., Jan. 2, 2018 submittal at 3-4, Holt hearing submittal H-4.
Bill Martin Road crosses a portion of the subject property. The County considers it to be
a local access road not maintained by the County. The County has not flagged the
subject property as a violation.
County Counsel responded to staff that there has been no decision that TID violated any
County land use regulation or approval. Further, neither the County nor TID believe any
violation occurred. He also states that the existence of a pending lawsuit does not
constitute a violation that would justify rejection of the current application.
I agree with COLW that DCC 22.20.015 generally authorizes the review authority to
determine whether a violation exists regardless of the County's position. But, for the
reasons stated below, I find that this provision does not preclude me from deciding the
application before me.
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 8
As I understand it, the land use application(s) that are the subject of the lawsuit involve
adjacent property that happened to be owned by TID. Dec. 22, 2017 staff
memorandum. The lawsuit alleges numerous positions, including that the County did in
fact, establish Bill Martin Road as a county road and that the county had accepted
maintenance responsibility. It also alleges that TID has responsibility for maintenance or
had a duty to inform purchasers that they must maintain the road. It seeks a declaratory
ruling that TID must maintain the road and that the County had a non -discretionary duty
to treat the partition approvals as a subdivision and either maintain the road or require
TID to do the maintenance. As near as I can tell, it does not seek to invalidate the
partition approvals. See, Fourth Amended Complaint.
DCC 22.20.015 only references the property, which almost certainly means the subject
property. The subject property was not the one allegedly improperly divided. This section
does not appear to extend to other property owned by the applicant. To the extent, if
any, that a property is in violation it is the property now owned by plaintiffs and they do
not allege that they are unable to obtain building or other permits. At least some of the
allegations appear to be a collateral attack on the partition approvals which as far as I
can tell were not appealed and became final. To the extent, if any, that the IGA
referenced in the pleadings or some other source outside the Development Code
imposed a duty on TID or the County, that is beyond the scope of DCC 22.20.015. To
the extent the County, as alleged, breached some duty, that also is not within the scope
of this provision. Further, is not at all clear that I have jurisdiction on this issue given the
circuit court filing, otherwise, there could be two competing conclusions from two
different bodies. Finally, the record is not complete enough for me to reach a conclusion
— the allegedly improper land use decisions, for example, are not in the record. It is not
clear to me that the Code envisions the applicant's burden in this proceeding to extend
to proving the absence of a violation at least under these facts. Thus, it also appears that
the opponents have not raised this issue with enough specificity for me to decide. For
these reasons, I conclude that this section does not bar me from issuing a decision.
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Before I may consider the zone change, the applicant must first demonstrate that it has
met its burden in satisfying the criteria for the requested plan amendment. COLW contends
that the applicant must apply for and obtain an exception to Goals 3, 4 and 14 and,
therefore, this application must be denied as no exception is sought. Accordingly, I am
reordering staff's approach to first address these issues.
A. CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
1. Section 2.1 Introduction
Purpose
The concept of sustainability is that resources used today should be managed
so that there are still resources available for future generations. Sustainability
encourages balancing economic, environmental and social concerns. The
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan has long acknowledged this through
policies that require new development to consider the carrying capacity of
environment.
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 9
The purpose of the Resource Management chapter is to effectively manage
Deschutes County's agricultural, forest, natural and cultural resources to meet
the needs of today while retaining their value for future generations. These
resources include:
Other Resources
■ Goal 5 Overview (Section 2.4)
■ Mineral and Aggregate Resources (Section 2.10)
2. Section 2.4 Goal 5 Overview
Purpose of Goal 5
The purpose of identifying Goal 5 related lands is to effectively manage
Deschutes County's natural and cultural resources to meet the needs of today
while retaining their value for future generations....
Goals and Policies
Goal 1 Protect Goal 5 resources.
Policy 2.4.4 Incorporate new information into the Goal 5 inventory as
requested by an applicant or as County staff resources allow.
FINDING: The applicant is proposing to remove Surface Mining Site No. 357 from
the County's Surface Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory.
The request is based on new information regarding the reclamation of Site No. 357.
In addition, the request includes adding Site No. 357 to the Non -Significant Mining
and Aggregate Inventory.
3. Section 2.10 Surface Mininq
Background
Surface mining provides non-renewable resources, such as pumice, cinders,
building stone, sand, gravel and crushed rock. The extraction of these
materials provides employment as well as products important to local
economic development. Yet mining of mineral and aggregate resources
creates noise, dust and traffic and potential pollution that can conflict with
neighboring land uses, particularly residential uses. This conflict can be
aggravated by delayed or incomplete reclamation of the land. Surface mining
is protected through Statewide Planning Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic
and Historic Areas and Open Spaces and the associated Oregon
Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-023 (this rule replaced 660-016 in 1996). Mineral
and aggregate resources are included on the list of Statewide Goal 5 resources
that the County must inventory and protect...
Goals and Policies
Goal Protect and utilize mineral and aggregate resources while
minimizing adverse impacts of extraction, processing and
transporting the resource.
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 10
Policy 2. 10.1 Goal 5 mining inventories, ESEEs and programs are retained and
not repealed.
Policy 2.10.2 Cooperate and coordinate mining regulations with the Oregon
Department of Geology and Mineral Industries.
Policy 2.10.3 Balance protection of mineral and aggregate resources with
conflicting resources and uses.
Policy 2.10.5 Review surface mining site inventories as described in Section
2.4, including the associated Economic, Social, Environmental
and Energy (ESEE) analyses.
Policy 2.10.6 Support efforts by private property owners and appropriate
regulatory agencies to address reclamation of Goal 5 mine sites
approved under 660-016 following mineral extraction.
FINDINGS: Staff states that an aggregate resource site may be placed on the non-
significant mining and aggregate inventory when the resource does not meet the
Goal 5 significance criteria listed in OAR 660-023-0180(3). Staff concluded that the
site is eligible to be removed from the Goal 5 inventory and placed on the non-
significant resource inventory.
The applicant states that the mining resources at Site No. 357 "have been
exhausted." The applicant submitted a geotechnical reconnaissance by Siemens &
Associates dated August 22, 2016. The report provides an "assessment of the type,
quality and quantity of the mineral resources that have been extracted from Site
357," which includes a review of the cinders, pumice, and crushed sand and gravel
extracted from the site. According to the report, mining activities occurred between
1993 and 2005.
The geotechnical reconnaissance evaluated the significant and non-significant
resources available at the site. The resources identified at Site No. 357 include
cinders, pumice, and sand and gravel ("S & G"). The report indicates that cinders
and pumice, are not considered significant (OAR 660-023-0180), because they "fail
to meet the identified ODOT specification for base rock since the particles are
weak...." Therefore, the identified significant resource for the site would be sand and
gravel. The following is the applicant's summary of the reconnaissance analysis:
Despite the indication of significant sand and gravel in the Goal 5 Inventory,
Mr. Siemens concludes that the geology of the Subject Property could only
have yielded trace amounts of sand and gravel. This conclusion is consistent
with mining activities as no significant sand and gravel was harvested from
the site despite the large percentage of the property subject to mining
activities.
Even if the pumice and cinders met ODOT standards, a sufficient amount of
these materials has been removed such that the site does not possess the
500,000 -ton significance threshold for sites outside of the Willamette Valley.
Based on aerial photographs, site geology, and on-site investigations, Mr.
Siemens estimates that approximately one million cubic yards of cinder and
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 11
more than 2.8 million tons on pumice have been extracted from the site. This
is all of the cinder and substantially more of the pumice than was originally
thought to be contained at the site by the Goal 5 Inventory. To the extent the
site ever met the OAR 660-023-0180(3)(a) standard for significance, all
significant material has been removed such there is no longer a "deposit" on
the site.
The Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries formally closed the
permit for Site No. 357 on September 13, 2011, after reclamation to DOGAMI
specifications was completed on the property.
The Holt's, COLW and others note that the September 13, 2011, DOGAMI report
designated post -mining use as Open Space/Range compared to the other choices
such as agriculture, recreation, wildlife/wetlands, or housing/construction. They
argue that a comprehensive plan amendment/zone change to something other than
open space or range would be inconsistent with that determination.
The Holt's also expressed concern about the environmental hazards such as "sink
holes and cave ins" that have occurred in the reclaimed area. Significant erosion and
sink holes where documented during the reclamation process (see DOGAMI
September 30, 2008 onsite inspection report). However, three years later, DOGAMI
issued a letter indicating reclamation was completed.
I do not find any evidence in the record contradicting the applicant's position that the
significant resource no longer exists. COLW, Nunzie Gould and others argue that
there must be significant resources left because the applicant intends to excavate a
portion of the property for a reservoir. I can find nothing, however, indicating that
such excavation necessarily means that a resource is present. It is likely that will be
removed is non -resource material. More importantly, the applicant is not applying for
a new mining operation or development of a reservoir. Any such proposal will need
conditional use approval if the requested plan amendment and zone change are
granted. As DOGAMI noted in its Dec. 19, 2017 email, sites previously mined could
be mined again with the appropriate land us approvals and permits, assuming there
is commodity available.
COLW asserts that termination of the Surface Mining Zoning and Surrounding
Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone may preclude mining for the reservoir,
citing Beaver State Sand and Gravel v Douglas County, 187 Or App 241 (2003). See
Dec. 22, 2017 submittal. That case interpreted ORS 215.298 and concluded that the
statute, in conjunction with the administrative rules, precluded use of a non-
significant aggregate site in county comprehensive plans. It also held that LUBA was
not premature in determining that nonsignificant aggregate sites are ineligible for a
conditional use permit under ORS 215.298(2). The applicant responds in its Third
Supplemental Burden of Proof that ORS 215.298(2), and Beaver State only apply to
EFU lands. I concur with the applicant. Beaver State involved EFU land. I do not
think the title of the statute is particularly relevant, but the statute expressly
references ORS 215.213 (2) and 215.283(2) which govern uses on EFU land. It must
be read in context with those statutes. I do not see how Beaver State precludes
listing non-EFU land on a nonsignificant inventory. Further, the facts in that case
clearly involved the ability to mine in the future. Although it appears that being on the
non-significant resource inventory for some reason is a prerequisite to excavation for
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 12
a reservoir under the Deschutes Code, I have been cited to nothing that makes such
a proposal ipso facto mining. To be clear, COLW may be correct that listing the
property on the non-significant inventory may preclude the applicants potential use
for a reservoir, but nothing in Beaver State or the statute requires me to reach that
issue or a basis for denial. That is an issue for the applicant to address if or when it
seeks approval of such a use.
Regarding the DOGAMI open space/range classification, staff notes that the
designation on the DOGAMI application is the responsibility of the applicant. The
applicant submitted a December 19, 2017 email from DOGAMI confirming that
DOGAMI considers that to be related to reclamation standards, it is "not a restriction
on future use of the reclaimed property." Rather, DOGAMI acknowledges that the
decision on appropriate zoning and future uses is "solely vested" in the local
government. I have been cited to no authority in state law, administrative rules or the
Plan that is inconsistent with that position.
As staff notes, it appears that the Holt's and others have legitimate concerns about
continued subsidence, sink holes and related problems with the site. But DOGAMI
issued a reclamation determination and has not moved to revoke or otherwise exert
authority over the site. The applicant coordinated with DOGAMI and obtained final
closure. Again, any such issues would need to be addressed when actual
development is proposed.
The applicant and COLW appear to agree that this Non -Significant Mining Mineral
and Aggregate Inventory is not a Goal 5 provision. The County has retained it
apparently to address potential use for reservoirs which may or may not require
"mining" or extraction. COLW argues that the property must remain on the Significant
Resource inventory for reservoir excavation to occur. Other commenters are
concerned that placement on the Non -Significant Inventory will permit reservoir
excavation to which they object.
There do not appear to be any express criteria for inclusion on the Non-significant
inventory. As discussed above, the applicant has met its burden of demonstrating
that the Significant designation should be terminated. Any future proposal for a
reservoir will at a minimum require development review. I do not have a proposal for
such excavation before me and he issue of whether a new reservoir may be
excavated on a property not listed as a Significant Resource will be addressed if
such development is sought.
These Plan Policies have been met.
B. CHAPTER 3 RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT
1. Section 3.1 Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of the Rural Growth Management chapter is to coordinate with
other chapters of this Plan to maintain the quality of life enjoyed by rural
residents.
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 13
2. Section 3.3 Rural Housing
Background
Housing is a basic need that provides not just shelter, but connection to a
wider community. A variety of housing types and price points ensures options
for people at different life stages and needs. Oregon's statewide planning
program directs cities to retain an adequate amount of land to accommodate
residential growth. Generally counties are directed to protect farms, forests
and other rural resources like wildlife while limiting new rural development.
This section of the Plan looks specifically at housing on existing and potential
new parcels and how the County can support a diverse and affordable housing
supply.
Goals and Policies
Goal Maintain the rural character and safety of housing in
unincorporated Deschutes County.
Policy 3.3.1 The minimum parcel size for new rural residential parcels shall
be 10 acres.
Policy 3.3.3 Address housing health and safety issues raised by the public,
such as:
a. The number of large animals that should be permitted on
rural residential parcels; or
b. The properties south of La Pine, in Township 22S, Range 10E,
Section 36, many of which are not in compliance with
planning and building codes.
Policy 3.3.4 Encourage new subdivisions to incorporate alternative
development patterns, such as cluster development, that
mitigate community and environmental impacts.
FINDING: The applicant is requesting to change the zone of the property from SM to
MUA-10. The MUA-10 provides alternative development patterns, such as cluster
development, that mitigate community and environmental impacts. The applicant is
not proposing a subdivision.
Policy 3.3.5 Maintain the rural character of the County while ensuring a
diversity of housing opportunities, including initiating
discussions to amend State Statute and/or Oregon
Administrative Rules to permit accessory dwelling units in
Exclusive Farm Use, Forest and Rural Residential zones.
FINDING: These policies are implemented by the zone change and development
standards in the County Zoning Ordinance. Future development on the property will
be subject to the applicable code restrictions. The applicant is proposing a zone
change from SM to MUA-10 and asserts that the MUA-10 Zone "best meets the
objectives of this policy as it maintains a more rural appearance while allowing
limited housing opportunities." Providing the option for additional housing appears to
further these policies, provided that all relevant criteria are met.
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 14
Goal Support agencies and non -profits that provide affordable
housing.
Policy 3.3.6 Support Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority and other
stakeholders to meet the housing needs of all Deschutes County
residents.
a. Assist as needed in coordinating and implementing housing
assistance programs.
b. Support efforts to provide affordable and workforce housing
in urban growth boundaries and unincorporated
communities.
Policy 3.3.7 Utilize block grants and other funding to assist in providing and
maintaining low and moderate income housing.
FINDING: The policies identified under Goal 2 are not applicable to this application.
No one contends otherwise.
3. Section 3.4 Rural Economy
Background
Economic development is critically important to maintaining quality of life.
When the Statewide Planning system was initiated, farming and forestry were
strongly protected because they were the State's primary economic drivers.
Statewide Planning Goal 9, Economic Development and Oregon Administrative
Rule (OAR) 660-009 apply to areas inside urban growth boundaries and are
intended to ensure an adequate land supply for business and employment
growth. The Rule defines the preparation of Economic Opportunity Analyses
(EOA) to identify and promote a diverse economy.
Goal and Policies
Goal Maintain a stable and sustainable rural economy, compatible
with rural lifestyles and a healthy environment.
Policy 3.4.1 Promote rural economic initiatives, including home-based
businesses that maintain the integrity of the rural character and
natural environment.
a. Review land use regulations to identify legal and appropriate
rural economic development opportunities.
FINDING: The applicant provided the following response to this policy.
The Subject Property was previously capable of supporting rural economic
opportunities and the County complied with the provision by imposing the SM
zoning and designation. Now that the significant resource is exhausted it
cannot support such opportunities. Given the surrounding residential and
EFU lands and the Landscape Management overlay, it is not an appropriate
site for either rural commercial or rural industrial uses. The MUA-10 zone
allows for home occupations in accordance with this policy.
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 15
Policy 3.4.2 Work with stakeholders to promote new recreational and tourist
initiatives that maintain the integrity of the natural environment.
Policy 3.4.3 Support a regional approach to economic development in
concert with Economic Development for Central Oregon or
similar organizations.
Policy 3.4.4 Support regional educational facilities and workforce training
programs.
Policy 3.4.5 Support renewable energy generation as an important economic
development initiative.
Policy 3.4.6 Support and participate in master planning for airports in
Deschutes County.
FINDING: The policies identified above are not applicable to this application. No one
contends otherwise.
Policy 3.4.7 Within the parameters of State land use regulations, permit
limited local -serving commercial uses in higher -density rural
communities.
FINDING: The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from surface mining to
residential. The subject property and the surrounding area is not a higher -density
rural community. These Policies have been met.
C. CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS
1. Section 5.1 Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a glossary, list all acknowledged
Goal 5 resources in one location (see Section 2.4) and list all Goal Exceptions
and Goal 5 inventories. The final section in this Chapter is a table to track all
amendments to this Plan. This table will ensure a clear legislative history is
maintained.
2. Section 5.8 Goal 5 Inventory Mineral and Aggregate Resources
Background
This section contains information from the 1979 Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan as revised. It lists the surface mining resources in
Deschutes County. These inventories have been acknowledged by the
Department of Land Conservation and Development as complying with Goal 5.
No changes have been proposed for the 2010 Comprehensive Plan update.
Table 5.8.1 — Deschutes County Surface Mining Mineral and Aggregate
Inventory
# Taxlot Name Type Quantity* Quality Access/Location
357 male h e s 4-M joi�sea Rsa�
4033W trrigatien male
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 16
FINDING: As discussed above, the applicant has met its burden of demonstrating
that the property is eligible to be removed from this inventory.
Table 5.8.2 — Deschutes County Non -Significant Mining Mineral and Aggregate
Inventory
#
Taxlot
Name
Type
Quantity*
Quality
Access/Location
161136 -DO -00100,
.... ....
Tumalo
Not
.....
357
Johnson Road/
357
161100-00-10400,
Irrigation
Cinders
1 M
10300
Tumalo
FINDING: As discussed above, the applicant has met its burden of demonstrating
that the property is eligible to be removed from this inventory.
Table 5.8.2 — Deschutes County Non -Significant Mining Mineral and Aggregate
Inventory
#
Taxlot
Name
Type
Quantity*
Quality
Access/Location
161136 -DO -00100,
161136 -DO -00100,
Tumalo
Not
Potential reservoir
357
Johnson Road/
357
161100-00-10400,
Irrigation
Cinders
1 M
10300
Tumalo
10300
161136 -DO -00100,
Tumalo
Not-
161136 -DO -00100,
Tumalo
161100-00-10400,
Irrigation
S & G
significant
357
161100-00-10400,
Irrigation
S & G
500,000
Good
10300
Tumalo
Not-
Potential reservoir
357
161100-00-10400,
161136 -DO -00100,
Tumalo
significant
site**
10300
357
161100-00-10400,
irrigation
Pumice
500,000
Good
10300
In its First Supplemental Burden of Proof, the applicant raises a valid concern
regarding staffs proposed additions to this Table. Simply transferring the quantity
and quality figures from Table 5.8.1 is inaccurate and misleading as the property no
longer contains significant resources. The reconnaissance performed by Siemens &
Associates concludes that the site probably does not have and never had significant
sand and gravel resources and that the cinder and pumice largely are depleted.
Further, the proposed table does not follow the format of the existing table.
Accordingly, I find that Table 5.82 should be amended as follows:
#
Taxlot
Name
Type
Quantity*
Comments
161136 -DO -00100,
Tumalo
Not
Potential reservoir
357
161100-00-10400,
irrigation
Cinders
significant
site.**
10300
161136 -DO -00100,
Tumalo
Not-
Potential reservoir
357
161100-00-10400,
Irrigation
S & G
significant
site**
10300
161136 -DO -00100,
Tumalo
Not-
Potential reservoir
357
161100-00-10400,
Irrigation
Pumice
significant
site**
10300
** Subject to land use approval.
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 17
D. APPENDIX C, TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN
Executive Summary
Deschutes County adopted its original Transportation System Plan (TSP) in
August 1998, encompassing 1996-2016. In the intervening years, the County and
its cities saw rampant population growth and associated increases on the State
highways and County road segments, particularly those near Bend and Redmond.
The County began a TSP update in 2007, incorporating changes in population,
traffic volumes, rise of non -automotive modes, and diminishing available funding
at the federal, state, and local levels for projects. The TSP update spans 2010-2030
and lists $306.2 million in projects.
The TSP provides a roadmap to meet the needs of air, automobile bicycle, freight,
pedestrian rail, transit and other modes. A combination of technical analysis,
coordination with Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), coordination
with the four cities within the County, public outreach, and local knowledge
identified those needs. The TSP prioritizes projects into high (0-5 years), medium
(6-10 years) and low (11-20 years) categories and provides planning -level cost
estimates....
The goals and policies to coordinate and implement the TSP are as follows:
ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROAD PLAN
Goal Establish a transportation system, supportive of a geographically
distributed and diversified economic base, while also providing a
safe, efficient network for residential mobility and tourism.
Policy 4.4 Deschutes County shall consider roadway function, classification
and capacity as criteria for plan map amendments and zone
changes. This shall assure that proposed land uses do not exceed
the planned capacity of the transportation system.
FINDING: This policy requires the County to consider the roadway function,
classification, and capacity as criteria for plan map amendments and zone changes. The
applicant has submitted a transportation impact analysis (TIA) with the application. The
TIA was reviewed by the County Transportation Planner, who agreed with the traffic
study's methodology, conclusions, and recommendations and concluded that it
demonstrated compliance with the TSP. See, discussion below.
Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660
A. DIVISION 12, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING (OAR 660-012)
1. OAR 660-012-0060. Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments
(1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive
plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly
affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local
government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this
rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumato Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 18
rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a
transportation facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned
transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an
adopted plan);
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this
subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the
planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating
projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated
within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment
includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably
limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation
demand management This reduction may diminish or completely
eliminate the significant effect of the amendment.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the
functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
facility;
(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation
facility such that it would not meet the performance standards
identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation
facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance
standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
(2) Where a local government determines that there would be a significant
effect, compliance with section (1) shall be accomplished through one or a
combination of the following:
(a) Adopting measures that demonstrate allowed land uses are consistent
with the planned function, capacity, and performance standards of the
transportation facility.
(b) Amending the TSP or comprehensive plan to provide transportation
facilities, improvements or services adequate to support the proposed
land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; such
amendments shall include a funding plan or mechanism consistent with
section (4) or include an amendment to the transportation finance plan
so that the facility, improvement, or service will be provided by the end
of the planning period.
(c) Altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to
reduce demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through
other modes.
(d) Amending the TSP to modify the planned function, capacity or
performance standards of the transportation facility.
(e) Providing other measures as a condition of development or through a
development agreement or similar funding method, including
transportation system management measures, demand management or
minor transportation improvements. Local governments shall as part of
the amendment specify when measures or improvements provided
pursuant to this subsection will be provided.
(3) Notwithstanding sections (1) and (2) of this rule, a local government may
approve an amendment that would significantly affect an existing
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 19
transportation facility without assuring that the allowed land uses are
consistent with the function, capacity and performance standards of the
facility where:
(a) The facility is already performing below the minimum acceptable
performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan on
the date the amendment application is submitted;
(b) In the absence of the amendment, planned transportation facilities,
improvements and services as set forth in section (4) of this rule would
not be adequate to achieve consistency with the identified function,
capacity or performance standard for that facility by the end of the
planning period identified in the adopted TSP;
(c) Development resulting from the amendment will, at a minimum, mitigate
the impacts of the amendment in a manner that avoids further
degradation to the performance of the facility by the time of the
development through one or a combination of transportation
improvements or measures;
(d) The amendment does not involve property located in an interchange
area as defined in paragraph (4)(d)(C); and
(e) For affected state highways, ODOT provides a written statement that the
proposed funding and timing for the identified mitigation improvements
or measures are, at a minimum, sufficient to avoid further degradation
to the performance of the affected state highway. However, if a local
government provides the appropriate ODOT regional office with written
notice of a proposed amendment in a manner that provides ODOT
reasonable opportunity to submit a written statement into the record of
the local government proceeding, and ODOT does not provide a written
statement, then the local government may proceed with applying
subsections (a) through (d) of this section.
FINDING: Surface mining activities have ceased on the site and, thus, the traffic -
generated impacts associated with surface mining activities no longer exist. The
applicant is not proposing any development.
The applicant has submitted a transportation impact analysis. The TIA was reviewed
by the County Transportation Planner, who agreed with the report's methodology
and conclusions. Staff concluded that proposal is consistent with the identified
function, capacity, and performance standards of the County's transportation
facilities in the area, will not change the functional classification of any existing or
planned transportation facility or change the standards implementing a functional
classification system, not allow types or levels of land uses, which would result in
levels of travel or access, which are inconsistent with the functional classification of
nearby transportation facilities and will not reduce the performance standards of the
facility below the minimum acceptable level the County's transportation system plan.
As the applicant acknowledges in its initial burden of proof statement, the threshold
question is whether the proposal allows uses that would have a more significant
impact on a transportation facility than the uses allowed under the current plan and
zone designations. The applicant relies on its traffic analysis which concluded that
the "worst case scenario" for future development would be 54 dwellings generating
potentially 54 peak p.m. trips. In comparison development under the existing surface
mining designations would generate somewhere between 54 and 61 p.m. trips.
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 20
Application at 20. The applicant correctly notes that the comparison is between the
property assuming use under its current designations and its maximum development
under the proposed designations. The applicant and staff appear to rely exclusively
on the conclusion that this proposal does not trigger the "threshold" for a significant
impact.
There is no contrary evidence regarding the impact of generating 54 trips and I find
that development at 54 dwelling units does not significantly impact transportation
facilities.
COLW notes that the MU -10 zone provides for cluster development as a conditional
use at one dwelling per 7.5 acres, for a total of 72 dwelling units and 72 p.m. peak
trips. See generally, Mason v. City of Corvallis, 49 Or LUBA 199 (2005) (Must
assume most traffic -intensive use allowed.) DCC 18.32.040 states that cluster and
planned development may have a density equivalent to one unit per seven and one-
half acres but DCC 18.128.200 limits each cluster development to 10 dwelling units
and 10 new lots. The applicant concedes that 74 dwellings are possible, but argues it
is not reasonable to assume that such development will occur because, the applicant
asserts, it would require 9 separate cluster conditional use approvals. See, PA -98-12
(1999) page 17. There is information in the record suggesting that the disturbed
nature and other features of this site make it a feasible, perhaps desirable, subject
for cluster or planned development housing. Absent more, I cannot conclude that it is
unreasonable to assume cluster or planned development approvals.
Counsel for the applicant also asserts in his Third Supplemental Burden of Proof that
the current designations really allow up to 2,418 p.m. peak trips. This is based on a
wide range of peak trips per acre resulting in the potential of 2,418 p.m. peak trips
from the site. As one lay person considering another lay person's traffic analysis, I
find this questionable. More importantly it is not the analysis used or endorsed by the
traffic expert.
Since the applicant and staff found that the threshold had not been triggered, there is
no information in the record, other than staff's conclusions, that I can find regarding
the carrying capacity of the impacted facilities or the minimum acceptable
performance standards. There is some accident data in the traffic study but no
information about the condition of the transportation facilities other than the
numerous comments that Bill Martin Rd. is in poor condition. In short, there is
nothing providing a basis for me to determine whether 72 trips, in fact, has a
significant impact. I suspect that it does not, but my supposition is insufficient to
support a finding that the applicant has met its burden on this issue. See generally,
Downtown Canby v City of Canby LUBA No. 2012-097 (2013) (Further and more
technical analysis is usually necessary to determine if the amendment significantly
affects a transportation facility and, if so, whether and what measures may be
required.)
In Jaqua v City of Springfield, 193 Or App 573, 593, 91 P3d 817 (2004) the court
held that the TPR does not permit deferral of a determination of whether the proposal
would significantly impact transportation facilities. This was reaffirmed and perhaps
extended in Willamette Oaks, LLC, v City of Eugene, 232 Or App 29, 220 P.3d 445
(2009). This effectively overruled a line of LUBA cases holding that it was
permissible in some instances to condition a plan amendment or zone change to
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 21
prohibit development that could significantly impact a transportation facility. The court
made it clear that there must be a finding on this issue at the plan amendment/zone
change stage.
find that, on this record, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal
will not have a significant impact on transportation facilities as a conditional use
approval may authorize more trips than the existing trips relied on by the applicant
(4) Determinations under sections (1)—(3) of this rule shall be coordinated with
affected transportation facility and service providers and other affected
local governments.
FINDING: Notice of the proposed plan amendment and zone change was sent to
several public agencies. Those agencies include Deschutes County Road
Department and County Transportation Planner, Bend Fire Department, Central
Electric Cooperative, Pacific Power, PG&E Gas Transmission NW, Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries and the Oregon Water
Resources Department — District 11. The submitted responses are listed in the
foregoing Basic Findings section. Staff believes that this notice complies with the
requirement noted above. I concur.
B. DIVISION 15, STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS (OAR 660-015)
1. Goal 1: Citizen Involvement
To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for
citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
FINDING: During the plan amendment and zone change process, public notice of
the proposal was provided to affected agencies and property owners in the
surrounding area. Planning staff mailed and published notice of the proposal and
public hearing. The County held a public hearing before the County hearings officer.
Goal 1 is met.
2. Goal 2: Land Use Planning
To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for
all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate
factual base for such decisions and actions.
FINDING: In accordance with Goal 2, the applicant applied for the plan amendment
and zone change. Staff believes the proposed plan amendment and zone change
satisfies this goal because the proposal has been reviewed in accordance with the
County's acknowledged planning review process. I concur, and no one argues
otherwise.
3. Goal 3: Agricultural Lands and Goal 4 Forest Lands
To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 22
FINDING: The subject property is not identified as agricultural lands on the
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan map. It is identified as Surface Mine under
the County Comprehensive Plan.
COLW argues that an exception to Goal is required. As this was not sought, I either
do not have jurisdiction to issue a decision or must deny the applications. See,
December 12 and 22, 2017 submittals.
COLW contends that the soils on the site are rated by the NCRS as Class VI without
irrigation and Class III and IV when irrigated, so they are "categorically agricultural
lands." It provided evidence that DOGAMI has reported that 21% of mined lands
have been restored to agricultural use and that approximately 35% of the property
was not mined, so is undisturbed agricultural land. It states that the property is not
included on the Exceptions Area Maps produced by the County in 1977 or anywhere
else in the comprehensive plan.
The application states that the property is an exception area for purposes of Goal 3
and 4. This appears to be at least technically incorrect as there is no evidence of a
Goal 3 or 4 exception. More importantly, the applicant asserts that the property is not
agricultural land because it was planned and zoned for mining and has been since
the inception of County zoning.
The applicant cites Caldwell v Klamath County, 45 LUBA 548 (No. 2003-115, 2003)
for the proposition that Goal 3 does not apply to a post-acknowledgement plan
amendment to change the existing zone to another designation even if it is later
discovered that the property meets the definition of agricultural land. In Caldwell, the
County approved a plan map amendment from Non -Resource to Rural Residential
and a zone change from Non -Resource to Rural Residential-10. It was undisputed
that the property contained predominately Class II-IV lands and was partially
irrigated. No exception was taken during acknowledgment. LUBA affirmed, holding
that although the county and LCDC may have erred during acknowledgement, that
question may not be revisited and, therefore, Goal 3 was not implicated.
In its January 2, 2018 submittal COLW argues that Caldwell is inapplicable because
Klamath County had expressly designated the property as non-resource and that
designation was acknowledged. It argues that the subject property was never
designated non-resource in an acknowledged plan and that the surface mining
designations are transitional or temporary.
To my knowledge, nothing in the comprehensive plan references the Surface Mining
or zoning designations as temporal or anything other than alternates to other plan
and zone designations. In its ESEE Findings and Decision for this site the Board
found that it was "committed to surface mining" although the Board noted that
agricultural uses are allowed as they can occur without irretrievably committing the
property to uses other than surface mining. The Surface Mining Zone is not an
overlay, it is just as much a zone as any other. It is not clear to me how the
distinction cited by COLW makes Caldwell inapplicable. The fact is that the County
designation was acknowledged as something other than agricultural land.
DCC 18.52.200 states that "the property shall be rezoned to the subsequent use
zone identified in the surface mining element of the Comprehensive Plan." The
247-17-000775-ZC and 247-17-000776-PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 23
County did not adopt a subsequent zone. One can argue that, had the County done
so, it and LCDC may have had a future exception area to review during
acknowledgement. But that did not occur and LCDC acknowledged this property as
something other than agricultural land and it appears that decision may not be
revisited.
COLW also notes the plan language in Section 3.3, Residential Housing, which
states under the heading "Rural Residential Exception Areas" that:
In 1979 the County assessed that there were over 17,000 undeveloped Rural
Residential Exception Area parcels, enough to meet anticipated demand for new
rural housing. As of 2010 any new Rural Residential Exception Areas need to be
justified through taking exceptions to farm, forest, public facilities and services
and urbanization regulations, and follow guidelines set out in the OAR.
COLW states, essentially, that this means what it says, and an exception is required.
It cites Cascade Pumice PA-02-8/ZC-02-04 which involved a plan amendment and
zone change from SM to EFU. The Hearings Officer questioned why the applicant
had not sought MUA-10 zoning as the applicant indicated an intent to apply for non-
farm dwellings. He noted, however, that there was significant opposition to that
option because of the large number of potential lots that could be created and stated
that such rezoning "would require a goal exception." The applicant declined to file for
MUA-10 zoning.
I concur with the applicant that this is, at best, dicta. It is clear that no one raised, and
the Hearings Officer did not consider the issues raised herein. The Hearings Officer
does not cite Section 3.3. Further, this decision was issued before Caldwell was
decided.
The applicant relies on PA -11-02 and ZC-11-2 a comprehensive plan text and map
amendment and zone change from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area
and EFU to MUA-10. The Hearings Officer addressed Section 3.3 at length. He first
noted that is not a policy. He concluded that is a statement of how the County
desires to handle future conversion of agricultural land to designations that allow
rural residential development. (Emphasis added) He concluded that the applicant
had met its burden of demonstrating that the property was not, in fact, agricultural
land. Accordingly, no exception was required. The Board of Commissioners upheld
the decision. It is not clear to me whether the record contains the entire Board
decision (It is marked page 3 of 7) and the Board did not expressly address the
discussion of Section 3.3 in the pages in the record. But it did adopt Hearings
Officer's conclusions except as specifically amended. It is difficult to see how the
Board could have affirmed if it disagreed and, therefore, this appears to be the
interpretation and application endorsed by the Board.
That decision involved land designated agricultural that was found not to be, in fact,
agricultural. The present matter involves land not designated agricultural, but which
may, in fact, be agricultural. Under Caldwell, however, the result is the same — this is
not an application to go from agricultural to MUA-10 so Section 3.3. does not apply.
I find that an exception to Goal 3 is not required.
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 24
4. Goal 4: Forest Lands
To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the
state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest
practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree
species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management
of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for
recreational opportunities and agriculture.
FINDING: The subject property is not identified as forest lands on the Deschutes
County Comprehensive Plan map. As indicated previously, the subject property is
identified as Surface Mine under the County Comprehensive Plan. COLW asserts a
Goal 4 exception is required but provides no authority or analysis. No one has
provided evidence that this property is or ever has been suitable for forest use. This
Goal is met, and no exception is required.
5. Goal 5: Natural Resources Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces
To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open
spaces.
FINDING: Goal 5 resources are listed in the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan.
There is an identified Goal 5 resource on the site.
Mineral and aggregate resources: The applicant's proposal includes removing
Surface Mining Site No. 357 from the County's Surface Mining Mineral and
Aggregate Inventory and adding it to the Non -Significant Mining and Aggregate
Inventory. Compliance with OAR 660-023 is addressed below in this decision. The
benefits of rezoning the property to MUA-10, including potential additional homesites,
may accrue to the property and area.
Energy sources: The subject property is not known to have significant energy
resources, such as natural gas, oil, coal, or geothermal heat.
Fish and wildlife habitat: The subject property is located outside of and approximately
950 feet north of the County's Wildlife Area Combining Zone. The site has no
designated fish habitat. There are no identified threatened or endangered species
present at the site. Although the subject property is outside of the WA Zone, ODFW
did submit comments of concern regarding the proposed zone change and future
development. The area is within a "biological winter range for mule deer," according
to ODFW, and thus there is concern regarding continued loss from the development
of open spaces within this range. Rezoning the property to MUA-10 will not affect the
quality of the mule deer biological winter range. However, future development may
have impacts with deer travel and therefore, ODFW requests future development use
wildlife -friendly fencing (see DCC 18.88.070).
Ecologically and scientifically significant natural areas, including desert areas: There
are no identified ecologically or scientifically significant areas present on the subject
property.
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 25
Outstanding scenic views: Nothing about the property indicates it has a significantly
better view than other sites in the vicinity.
Water areas wetlands, watersheds, and groundwater resources: There are no
wetlands or watersheds within the subject site. There are no identified groundwater
resources present at the site. Some residents expressed concerns regarding wells
and water use. Neither the Oregon Water Resources Department nor the
watermaster expressed concerns. The applicant will need to address water in any
residential development application.
Wilderness areas: The subject property does not meet the definition of "wilderness
areas" as described within the Oregon State Goals and Guidelines.
Historic areas, sites, structures, and objects: The subject property does not have
structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places. No structures or places
of historical significance have been determined to exist on the property. The closest
historically significant sites are centrally located within the boundaries of the Tumalo
UUC and include the Laidlaw Bank and Trust, Tumalo Community Church, and
Pickett's Island, all of which are approximately 0.5 miles east of the property.
Cultural areas: The site has no known cultural resources. See, finding above.
6. Goal 6: Air Water and Land Resources Quality
To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the
state.
FINDING: The subject surface mine has been reclaimed and mining activities have
ceased. Further, the applicant does not propose a use for the property. Rezoning the
property to MUA-10 will not affect the quality of the air, water, and land resources.
7. Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards
To protect people and property from natural hazards.
FINDING: The site does not include areas subject to flooding or landslide activity.
The natural hazard of wildfire for the site is the same as other properties in this
geographic area. The subject property is not located in a known natural disaster or
hazard area. The Holt's and others expressed concerns regarding hazards (e.g. sink
holes) that have occurred in the reclaimed area of the property. In the decision of file
nos. ZC-08-1 and PA -08-1, the Hearings Officer found that environmental concerns
"can be addressed through compliance with applicable state health and
environmental quality regulations, or through compliance with the county's
development standards." I concur. The conditions were created by development.
They can, and likely only will, be addressed through future development.
8. Goal 8: Recreational Needs
To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and,
here appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities
including destination resorts.
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 26
FINDING: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed plan amendment and
zone change do not reduce or eliminate any opportunities for recreational facilities
either on the subject property or in the area.
9. Goal 9: Economic Development
To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of
economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's
citizens.
FINDING: This Goal is to provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a
variety of economic activities. It is met because the subject property no longer
constitutes a significant mineral and aggregate resource, and thus by allowing it to
be re -designated and rezoned for rural residential development, it will not have
adverse economic impacts.
10. Goal 10: Housing
To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
FINDING: The plan amendment and zone change do not reduce or eliminate any
opportunities for housing on the subject property or in the area. This goal is not
applicable. To the extent it is, the proposal provides the opportunity for additional
housing.
11. Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services
To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public
facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural
development.
FINDING: The proposal will have no adverse effect on the provision of public
facilities and services to the subject site and will not result in the extension of urban
services to the subject site.
12. Goal 12: Transportation
To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation
system.
FINDING: This goal is implemented through OAR 660-012, commonly known as the
Transportation Planning Rule, which is addressed in a previous finding. See
discussion above in which I concluded that, although it is likely that the applicant can
demonstrate compliance, it has failed to do so in this record. This Goal is not met.
13. Goal 13: Energy Conservation
To conserve energy.
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 27
FINDING: Planning Guideline 3 of this Goal states "land use planning should, to the
maximum extent possible, seek to recycle and re -use vacant land...." Surface mining
activities have ceased on the subject property and it has been vacant for some
years. The applicant proposes re -use of the land consistent with this guideline, and
thus this proposal is consistent with Goal 13.
14. Goal 14: Urbanization
To provide for orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban use, to
accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth
boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable
communities.
FINDING: COLW asserts that the proposals violate Goal 14 as the potential for up to
72 units of housing is a "significant urbanization of land." This appears to be more of
an argument with what the zone may allow. The comprehensive plan and zone
designations sought were acknowledged. The Mixed Use Agricultural Zone is just
what the name implies — one that permits a mixture of agricultural and relatively low-
density rural housing. As discussed above, the County has concluded that the "rural
residential exception area" plan designation does not require an exception to permit
MUA-10 development. The subject property is not in or near an urban growth
boundary. COLW provides no facts, authority or significant analysis in support of its
contention. The proposal complies with Goal 14 and no exception is required.
15. Goal 15: Willamette River Greenway
Goal 16: Estuarine Resources
Goal 17: Coastal Shorelands
Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes
Goal 19: Ocean Resources
FINDING: These Goals are not applicable because the proposed amendment and
zone change area is not within the Willamette Greenway, and does not possess any
estuarine areas, coastal shorelands, beaches and dunes, or ocean resources.
C. DIVISION 23, PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLYING WITH GOAL
5 (OAR 660-023)
1. OAR 660-023-0250. Applicability
(1) This division replaces OAR 660, division 16, except with regard to cultural
resources, and certain PAPAs and periodic review work tasks described in
sections (2) and (4) of this rule. Local governments shall follow the
procedures and requirements of this division or OAR 660, division 16,
whichever is applicable, in the adoption or amendment of all plan or land
use regulations pertaining to Goal 5 resources. The requirements of Goal 5
do not apply to land use decisions made pursuant to acknowledged
comprehensive plans and land use regulations.
(2) The requirements of this division are applicable to PAPAs initiated on or
after September 1, 1996. OAR 660, division 16 applies to PAPAs initiated
prior to September 1, 1996. For purposes of this section "initiated" means
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 28
that the local government has deemed the PAPA application to be
complete.
(3) Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a
PAPA unless the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this
section, a PAPA would affect a Goal 5 resource only if.
(a) The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an
acknowledged plan or land use regulation adopted in order to protect a
significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5;
FINDING: The requested plan amendment and zone change application is
considered a post -acknowledgment plan amendment or "PAPA," which will amend
the County's Goal 5 resource list. Therefore, the rules provided in OAR 660, Division
23 are applicable to this application. Moreover, since the County has not amended
its plan or land use regulations to incorporate the Goal 5 rules, per OAR 660-023-
0250(5), the rules apply directly to the subject application.
In the zone change and plan amendment decision for files ZC-98-6 and PA -98-12,
the Hearings Officer held that the provisions of OAR 660-023-0180, concerning
mineral and aggregate resources, apply to requests for de -listing and rezoning SM
sites to the extent they reasonably can be applied to a decision to remove a site from
the County's adopted inventory. The Hearings Officer further found OAR 660-023-
180(3) identifies the pertinent standards for determining "significance," addressed
below. I concur.
2. OAR 660-023-0180. Mineral and Aggregate Resources
(2) Local governments are not required to amend acknowledged inventories or
plans with regard to mineral and aggregate resources except in response
to an application for a post acknowledgement plan amendment (PAPA) or
at periodic review as specified in section (9) of this rule. The requirements
of this rule modify, supplement, or supersede the requirements of the
standard Goal 5 process in OAR 660-023-0030 through 660-023-0050, as
follows:
(b) Local governments shall apply the criteria in section (3) or (4) of this
rule, whichever is applicable, rather than OAR 660-023-0030(4), in
determining whether an aggregate resource site is significant;
(3) An aggregate resource site shall be considered significant if adequate
information regarding the quantity, quality, and location of the resource
demonstrates that the site meets any one of the criteria in subsections (a)
through (c) of this section, except as provided in subsection (d) of this
section:
(a) A representative set of samples of aggregate material in the deposit on
the site meets applicable Oregon Department of Transportation (OD07)
specifications for base rock for air degradation, abrasion, and
soundness, and the estimated amount of material is more than
2,000,000 tons in the Willamette Valley, or more than 500,000 tons
outside the Willamette Valley;
(b) The material meets local government standards establishing a lower
threshold for significance than subsection (a) of this section; or
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 29
(c) The aggregate site was on an inventory of significant aggregate sites in
an acknowledged plan on September 1, 1996.
(d) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of this section, except for an
expansion area of an existing site if the operator of the existing site on
March 1, 1996, had an enforceable property interest in the expansion
area on that date, an aggregate site is not significant if the criteria in
either paragraphs (A) or (B) of this subsection apply.
(A) More than 35 percent of the proposed mining area consists of soil
classified as Class I on Natural Resource and Conservation Service
(NRCS) maps on June 11, 2004; or
(B) More than 35 percent of the proposed mining area consists of soil
classified as Class 11, or of a combination of Class H and Class I or
Unique soil, on NRCS maps available on June 11, 2004, unless the
average thickness of the aggregate layer within the mining area
exceeds:
(i) 60 feet in Washington, Multnomah, Marion, Columbia, and Lane
counties;
(ii) 25 feet in Polk, Yamhill, and Clackamas counties; or
(iii)17 feet in Linn and Benton counties.
FINDING: Staff provided the following analysis of this criterion.
The aggregate resource is significant if it meets any of the three criteria. Subsection
(b) is not applicable because the local government has not established lower
standards. The subject SM Site No. 357 appears to meet subsection (c) above
because it is included in the County's inventory of significant mineral and aggregate
sites and the inventory and site were acknowledged prior to the effective date of the
Goal 5 administrative rules in 1996. However, in the finding noted below by the
Hearings Officer, subsection (c) is not applicable to this PAPA because of the
requested removal of the site from the acknowledged inventory.
In the Hearings Officer's decision for files ZC-98-6 and PA -98-12, the Hearings
Officer made the following finding.
The subject site is included in the county's inventory of significant mineral and
aggregate sites. The Hearings Officer is aware this inventory was
acknowledged prior to the effective date of the new Goal 5 administrative
rules. Therefore, I find the subject site falls within the "significant" standard in
paragraph (c). Arguably that finding would end the inquiry since under this
provision a site is considered "significant" if it meets any of the three criteria.
However, I find such a result would create a "Catch-22" where, as here, the
applicant is seeking to remove a site from the inventory as no longer
"significant." Consequently, I find the "significant" standard in paragraph (c)
should not be applied to PAPAs requesting removal of a site from an
acknowledged inventory....
Thus, for the subject site to be `significant" it must meet the criterion in
paragraph (a) requiring that the resource consist of at least 100,000 tons of
material meeting ODOT specifications for road construction base rock. As
discussed above, the site was included in the inventory based upon the
previous owners' information that it contained 750,000 cubic yards of `good"
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 30
quality rock. The applicant submitted evidence consisting of seven
documents and testimony in support of his argument that the quantity and
quality of the resource on the subject site no longer meets the administrative
rule standard....
concur that, as in ZC-98-6 and PA -98-12, subsections (b) and (c) are not
applicable. Therefore, the aggregate resource is significant only if it meets all the
criteria in subsection (a).
The applicant submitted a geotechnical reconnaissance by Siemens & Associates,
which provides an assessment and review of the cinders, pumice, and crushed sand
and gravel extracted from the site. Stated previously, in part, the applicant provides
the following conclusion regarding subsection (a) and the aggregate resource on the
property.
The material at the site never satisfied the OAR 660-023-0180(3)(a) standard
for significance. According to the memo attached as Exhibit 8 from J.
Andrew Siemens of Siemens & Associates, a registered engineer specializing
in geologic engineering who performed material testing at the site when it
was operation, cinders and pumice are too brittle to meet ODOT standards.
This determination is consistent with prior decisions. See PA-02-8/ZC-02-4,
p.6 ("The Hearings Officer is aware that pumice does not meet ODOT
standards for base rock.'; "In Central Oregon, aggregate resources meeting
ODOT standards typically consist of basalt').
Despite the indication of significant sand and gravel in the Goal 5 Inventory,
Mr. Siemens concludes that the geology of the Subject Property could only
have yielded trace amounts of sand and gravel. This conclusion is consistent
with mining activities as no significant sand and gravel was harvested from
the site despite the large percentage of the property subject to mining
activities.
Even if the pumice and cinders met ODOT standards, a sufficient amount of
these materials has been removed such that the site does not possess the
500,000 -ton significance threshold for sites outside of the Willamette Valley.
Based on aerial photographs, site geology, and on-site investigations, Mr.
Siemens estimates that approximately one million cubic yards of cinder and
more than 2.8 million tons on pumice have been extracted from the site. This
is all of the cinder and substantially more of the pumice than was originally
thought to be contained at the site by the Goal 5 Inventory. To the extent the
site ever met the OAR 660-023-0180(3)(a) standard for significance, all
significant material has been removed such there is no longer a "deposit" on
the site. (Footnote omitted)
Regarding subsection (d), the subject property does not contain any Class I, Class II,
or Unique soils as shown on the soil map included with the application materials.
The applicant is proposing to remove Surface Mining Site No. 357 from the County's
Surface Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory. In addition, the applicant requests
to move Site No. 357 to the Non -Significant Mining and Aggregate Inventory. Based
on the information above and elsewhere in this decision regarding the aggregate
resource being depleted and not meeting the Goal 5 significance criteria listed in
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 31
OAR 660-023-0180(3), staff believes the site is eligible to be placed on the non-
significant resource inventory.
Except as discussed regarding excavation for the reservoir, no one has provided any
substantial evidence or argument to the contrary. Accordingly, I concur with staff that
this site is eligible for removal.
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance.
A. CHAPTER 18.52. SURFACE MINING ZONE
1. Section 18 52.200. Termination of the Surface Mining Zoning and Surrounding
Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone.
A. When a surface mining site has been fully or partially mined, and the
operator demonstrates that a significant resource no longer exists on the
site, and that the site has been reclaimed in accordance with the
reclamation plan approved by DOGAM/ or the reclamation provisions of
DCC 18, the property shall be rezoned to the subsequent use zone
identified in the surface mining element of the Comprehensive Plan.
FINDING: The applicant has requested to rezone the subject property from SM to
MILIA -10.
Subsection (A) above requires the operator to demonstrate that 1) the site has been
fully or partially mined; 2) a significant resource no longer exists on the site; and 3)
that the site has been reclaimed in accordance with the reclamation plan approved
by DOGAMI or DCC 18.52.0130 standards. The applicant asserts that all three
conditions are satisfied.
The site has been fully or partially mined:
According to the applicant, the mining resources at Site No. 357 "have been
exhausted." The geotechnical reconnaissance discussed above provides an
"assessment of the type, quality and quantity of the mineral resources that have
been extracted from Site 357," which includes a review of the cinders, pumice, and
crushed sand and gravel extracted from the site. According to the report, mining
activities occurred between 1993 and 2005. Staff found that based on the evidence
in the report, it appears that the site has been fully or partially mined and I concur.
A significant resource no longer exists on the site:
The significant and non-significant resources at the site were evaluated in the
geotechnical reconnaissance. The resources identified at Site No. 357 include
cinders, pumice, and sand and gravel ("S & G"). The report indicates that cinders
and pumice, are not considered significant (OAR 660-023-0180), because they "fail
to meet the identified ODOT specification for base rock since the particles are
weak...." Therefore, the identified significant resource for the site would be sand and
gravel. The applicant's summary of the reconnaissance analysis quoted above
supports this conclusion.
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 32
Based on the evidence in the report, staff found that the applicant has demonstrated
that the significant resource no longer exists on the site. I concur as discussed
previously.
The site has been reclaimed according to DOGAMI specifications:
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries formally closed the permit for
Site No. 357 on September 13, 2011, after reclamation to DOGAMI specifications
was completed on the property. The DOGAMI documentation was provided by the
applicant.
According to DCC 18.52.200, the property shall be rezoned to the subsequent use
zone identified in the surface mining element. The surface mining element and the
ESEE analysis for Site No. 357 do not identify a subsequent use zone. The applicant
indicates that the property "can support some resource uses, but not any form of
commercial agriculture or forestry."
For the reasons discussed under Section 2.10 Surface Mining, this criterion is met.
B. Concurrent with such rezoning, any surface mining impact area combining
zone which surrounds the rezoned surface mining site shall be removed.
Rezoning shall be subject to DCC 18.136 and all other applicable sections
of DCC 18, the Comprehensive Plan and DCC Title 22, the Uniform
Development Procedures Ordinance.
This is more of a directive than a criterion. Staff states that, if the plan amendment
and zone change requests are approved, the surrounding Surface Mining Impact
Area Combining Zone should be removed as part of the adoption of Ordinances to
affect the changes. I concur.
B. CHAPTER 18.136. AMENDMENTS
1. Section 18.136.010. Amendments.
DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for
text or legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by
a property owner for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished
by riling an application on forms provided by the Planning Department and
shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22.
FINDING: The applicant filed the appropriate applications for a plan amendment and
zone change. The proposal is being reviewed under the procedures of DCC Title 22.
2. Section 18.136.020. Rezoning Standards.
The applicant for a quasi-judicial rezoning must establish that the public
interest is best served by rezoning the property. Factors to be demonstrated
by the applicant are:
A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and the change is
consistent with the plan's introductory statement and goals.
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 33
FINDING: Staff notes that prior Hearings Officer's decision have concluded that
comprehensive plan goals and policies do not constitute mandatory approval criteria
for quasi-judicial zone changes. Instead, the goals and policies are implemented
through the zoning ordinance, and thus if the proposed zone change is consistent
with the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance it also will be consistent with
the plan. Further, I made findings regarding the relevant plan policies and Goals
above.
B. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with
the purpose and intent of the proposed zone classification.
FINDING: The applicant is proposing a zone change from SM to MUA-10. According
to DCC 18.52.200, the property shall be rezoned to the subsequent use zone
identified in the surface mining element. As noted previously, the surface mining
element and the ESEE analysis for Site No. 357, probably erroneously, do not
identify a subsequent use zone. Therefore, the change in classification will be
reviewed for consistency with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone
classification.
The purpose of the MUA-10 Zone, set forth at DCC 18.32.010
The purposes of the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone are to preserve the
rural character of various areas of the County while permitting
development consistent with that character and with the capacity of the
natural resources of the area; to preserve and maintain agricultural
lands not suited to full time commercial farming for diversified or part
time agricultural uses; to conserve forest lands for forest uses; to
conserve open spaces and protect natural and scenic resources; to
maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of
the County; to establish standards and procedures for the use of those
lands designated unsuitable for intense development by the
Comprehensive Plan, and to provide for an orderly and efficient
transition from rural to urban land use.
The applicant provides the following comments regarding how the zone change is
consistent with the purpose statement
The MUA Zone is appropriate for the Subject Property because it is capable
of supporting some agricultural uses but will never be high quality agricultural
ground that could support full time commercial farming. Given the rural
character of the Tumalo area, a zoning designation that allows for more
intensive development would not be appropriate. The MUA-10 Zone provides
a middle ground between the EFU and Rural Residential zones by placing an
emphasis on agriculture, but not imposing regulations more appropriate for
high quality agricultural lands.
Although there is no development proposal at this time, it is anticipated that
the Subject Property will be developed with small scale agriculture, single-
family dwellings, and potentially irrigation infrastructure. These are permitted
or conditionally permitted uses within the MUA-10 Zone.
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 34
Staff concurs with the applicant. The proposed zone change is consistent with the
purpose statement because the redevelopment of the former surface mining site will
preserve the rural character of the area while permitting development consistent with
that character and capabilities of the land and resources.
As noted in previous Hearings Officer's decision such as ZC-08-1 and PA -08-1,
where the request included rezoning a former mining site:
To the extent existing conditions affect the carrying capacity of the land, air
and water, those issues can be addressed through compliance with
applicable state health and environmental quality regulations, or through
compliance with the county's development standards.
I concur. It is evident that the applicant must address the safety, dust and other
issues to obtain development approval for dwellings. Future development of the site
is the most likely way that those conditions will be resolved. The designation allows
for clustering or planned development to maximize flexibility to minimize, for
example, placing structures in unstable areas. It promotes open space and permits a
wide range of uses. This seems particularly suitable for a degraded site that likely
has development challenges.
Mr. and Mrs. Holt also commented on DOGAMI's reclamation designation for post -
mine use. As noted above, I find that the designation on the DOGAMI has little, if
anything to do with the County's land use code and development standards.
This criterion is met.
C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public health, safety and
welfare considering the following factors:
1. The availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services
and facilities.
2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the
specific goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan.
FINDING: COLW and others argue that this standard is not met because the site is
unsafe, and Bill Martin Rd. is in poor condition. The sinkholes appear to present a
safety issue for many uses, including agriculture, grazing, recreational and
residential. It is unlikely that the economics of agriculture and grazing would generate
sufficient revenues to correct these issues. In contrast, the MUA-10 zone does allow
the type of development that would both require, and likely make feasible, such work.
The MUA-10 zone certainly would not make the situation worse.
Regarding Bill Martin Rd., and perhaps others, I have found that the applicant failed
to meet its burden of demonstrating that there is no potential significant detrimental
impact on transportation facilities. I think this criterion has a somewhat different
focus. Adopting a zone that permits some level of development likely promotes the
provision of adequate facilities because it can be conditioned to make improvements
and it likely would be financially feasible to make those improvements. Nevertheless,
I find this criterion is not met regarding transportation because, as stated above,
there is insufficient information about the impacts of potential development, the
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 35
carrying capacity and condition of existing roads and what, if anything, can be done
to mitigate such impacts.
D. That there has been a change in circumstances since the property was last
zoned, or a mistake was made in the zoning of the property in question.
FINDING: The significant resources have been mined and no longer are present.
DCC 18.52.200, envisions such property being rezoned to provide for productive use
of land. I concur with staff that this change represents a change in circumstances
under this criterion. I also note that many of the nearby residents have expressed a
desire to have the property converted to something other than mining as there has
been significant rural residential development in the area. Except for the argument
that there must be resources, or the applicant would not be considering a reservoir,
which I rejected, no one has argued that circumstances have not changed. This
criterion is met.
IV. CONCLUSION:
Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, the applications are Denied for failure of
the applicant to meet its burden on the criterion identified above.
Dated this 22nd day of February 2018
Dan R. Olsen
Hearings Officer
THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL TWELVE DAYS AFTER MAILING UNLESS TIMELY
APPEALED.
247-17-000775-ZC and 247 -17 -000776 -PA, Tumalo Irrigation District - Hearings Officer Decision
Page 36
Staff Memorandum
Map of Subject Property
Deschutes County Files 247-17-000775-ZC & -000776-PA
19300 & 19310 Tumalo Reservoir Rd, Bend
1 Vlti ALO
BAILEY RD
Staff Memorandum
Attachment 3
ET79
Tumalo Irrigation District Appeal
Planning Division BuildingSaWy Division Enviroarnamal Soils Division
P,O. Box 6045 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 57708-6005
Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764
http://www,deschutes.org/cd
APPEAL APPLICATION
FEE: $5,073.75
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):
Tumalo Irrigation District, c/o Bryant, Lovlien & Jarvis, P.C.Phone: ( 541) 382-4331
Mailing Address: 591 SW MITI View Way City/State/Zip:
Land Use Application Being Appealed: 247-17-000775-ZC/ 776 -PA
Property Description: Township 16 Range 111
Appellant's Signature:
Bend, OR 97703
1611000010400, 1611000010300,161136DO00100
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
Quality Services Performed toitlt Pride
BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
247-17-000775-ZC/ 776 -PA
APPLICANT/OWNER:
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Tumalo Irrigation District
c/o Bryant, Lovlien & Jarvis, P.C.
591 SW Mill View Way
Bend, Oregon 97702
ATTORNEY: Garrett Chrostek
Bryant, Lovlien & Jarvis, P.C.
591 SW Mill View Way
Bend, Oregon 97702
LOCATION: 19300 Tumalo Reservoir Rd., Bend, OR 97701 and further
identified as Tax Lots 300 and 400 on Deschutes County
Tax Map 16-11-10 and Tax Lot 100 on Tax Map 16-11-
36D.
REQUEST: Applicant requests a Zone Change and Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment to rezone and re -designate 541.23
acres from Surface Mining to Multiple Use Agriculture -10
Acre Minimum/Rural Residential exception area, remove
Site No. 357 from the County's Surface Mining Mineral
and Aggregate Inventory (Comprehensive Plan Table
5.8.1), add Site No. 357 to the Non -Significant Mining
Mineral and Aggregate Inventory (Comprehensive Plan
Table 5.8.2), and remove the associated Surface Mining
Impact Area overlay.
I. STANDING:
Appellant Tumalo Irrigation District ("TID") is the Applicant in the matter that is the subject of
this appeal and appeared in proceedings below both in writing and at the public hearing.
Notice of Appeal
Page I of 3 (00525058-00925332;1 1
II. STATEMENT DESCRIBING SPECIFIC REASONS FOR APPEAL:
Appellants concur with a majority of the Hearings Officer's decision in these proceedings.
However, Appellants object to the basis of the denial. Accordingly, Appellants assert that the
decision is in error for the following reasons:
The Hearings Officer erroneously concluded that Applicant failed to satisfy OAR 660-
012-0060 and DCC 18.136.020(C). The traffic analysis plainly identified that it utilized
an exceedingly conservative estimation of trip generation for a mining operation on 540
acres. Using a moderate estimation of trip generation, which was outlined in the
submitted traffic analysis along with applicable trip generation rates, the trip generation
of a mining operation on 540 acres exceeded that of a maximum worst case development
scenario under the MUA-10 zoning. Accordingly, there were no significant impacts on
transportation systems for purposes of the transportation planning rule and there was
sufficient evidence in the record to make such a determination.
2. OAR 660-012-0060 requires the County to estimate traffic impacts under a reasonable
"worst-case" scenario. See Barnes v. City of Hillsboro, 2010 WL 2655127, at * 15. The
hearings officer erroneously concluded that 74 dwelling units on the subject property,
which is only achievable if TID seeks and obtains 9 separate conditional use approvals
and 9 separate subdivision approvals, is a reasonable worst-case scenario. Even if the 74
dwellings were a reasonable worst-case scenario, the hearings officers had to be equally
"reasonable" in determining the trip generation potential of the mining use and applied
the moderate or maximum trip generation estimates identified in the transportation
analysis.
3. The Hearings Officer indicates that in the decision that it is "likely that the applicant can
demonstrate compliance" with the criteria that formed the bases of the denial.
III. REQUEST FOR REVIEW:
For the foregoing reasons, TID requests that the Board of County Commissioners review the
subject decision de novo, but limit new evidence to the bases of denial and not the remainder of
the decision. TID also requests that the Board affirm all interpretations of the Comprehensive
Plan and Deschutes County Code except that the Board should expressly reaffirm the
interpretations of Bend Comprehensive Plan, Policy 3.3 set forth in PA -11-02 and ZC-11-2.
The Board is authorized under DCC 22.32.027(2) and (3) to conduct a de novo review and
pursuant to DCC 22.32.027(4) may limit the scope of review to the issues listed in this notice of
appeal. De novo review is appropriate to allow introduction of additional evidence related to
transportation impacts, including additional testimony from County staff who had concurred with
TID's submitted transportation analysis, to address the issues identified by the hearings officer.
The Board should hear the appeal because it will resolve plain error in the hearings officer's
decision, clarify application of Comprehensive Plan policies, allow the subject property to be put
to beneficial use, and facilitate the funding on water conservation projects by TID.
Notice of Appeal
Page 2 of 3 {00525058-00925332;1 }
IV. SCHEDULING
TID is willing to be flexible in the scheduling of any proceedings on appeal before the
Commissioners including affording additional time for the Commissioners to hear the appeal.
SUBMITTED this 711 day of March, 2018.
BRYANT, LOVLIEN & JARVIS, P.C.
GARRETT CHROSTEK, OSB#122965
Of Attorneys for Applicants
Notice of Appeal
Page 3 of 3 {00525058-00925332;1 }
Staff Memorandum
Attachment 4
ET77
Central Oregon LandWatch Appeal
APPEAL APPLICATION
FEE: $5,073.75
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.
Appellants Name (print): Central Oregon LandWatch Phone: (541) 647-2930
Mailing Address: 50 SW Bond Street, Suite 4 City/State/zip: Bend/Oregon/97702
Land Use Application Being Appealed: 247-17-000775-ZC and 776 -PA
Property Description: Township16 Rangeii Section10/36 Tax Lot 1 61 1 00001 0400/1 61 1 0 0 0 01 0300/1 61 1 36D000100
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
OWTHE-RECORD APPEALS, THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN RECORDS.
(over)
10/15
Poll
gp
,� �'MA
NOTICE OF APPEAL
See attached letter.
(This page may be photocopied if additional space is needed.)
March 6, 2018
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
c/o Peter Gutowsky
Deschutes County Community Development Department
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97708-6005
Re: Appeal of Hearings Qfficer!v Decision: 247-17-000775-ZC, 776 -PA
Via Hand Delivery
Dear Chair DeBone and Commissioners:
Central Oregon LandWatch is appealing the Hearings Officer's decision (decision) for File
No.s 247-17-000775-ZC and 776 -PA. This decision was issued on February 23, 2018 and denied an
application for a plan amendment and zone change for failure to comply with the transportation
planning rule (TPR) at OAR 660-012-0060. LandWatch respectfully appeals other portions of the
decision, as outlined below, and urges the Board to uphold the decision denying the applications,
although for different reasons.
1. The Board of County Commissioners must hear the appeal de novo because a goal
exception is required.
a. DCC 22.28.030
Because the application requires goal exceptions, the Deschutes County Code requires that
the Board hear the appeal de novo. The Hearings Officer found that "an exception to Goal 3 is not
required." Hearings Officer Decision at 24. The Hearings Officer erred in making this
determination because the subject property was never designated by the County as non -resource
land, its soils make it agricultural land, and the application seeks to re -designate the property to the
designation of Rural Residential Exception Area. DCC 22.28.030(C) states that
Plan amendments and zone changes requiring an exception to the goals or concerning lands
designated for forest or agricultural use shall be heard de novo before the Board of County
Commissioners without the necessity of filing an appeal, regardless of the determination of
2
the Hearings Officer or Planning Commission. Such a hearing before the Board shall
otherwise be subject to the same procedures as an appeal to the Board under DCC Title 22.
Because the current application for a plan amendment and zone change requires goal exceptions, the
Board of County Commissioners (Board) must hear the appeal de novo, regardless of the
determination of the Hearings Officer that the application does not require goal exceptions.
DCC 22.28.030(D) states that
Notwithstanding DCC 22.28.030(0), when a plan amendment subject to a DCC 22.28.030(C)
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners has been consolidated for a hearing
before the hearings [sic] Officer with a zone change or other permit application not requiring
a hearing before the board under DCC 22.28.030(C), any party wishing to obtain review of
the Hearings Officer's decision on any of those other applications shall file an appeal. The
plan amendment shall be heard by the Board consolidated with the appeal of those other
applications.
The application denied by the Hearings Officer was a consolidated plan amendment and zone change
application. Pursuant to DCC 22.28.030(D), LandWatch is appealing the zone change decision, and
the Board must hear that appeal consolidated with the appeal of the plan amendment decision, which
must be heard de novo by the Board.
b. Goal 3; the subject property is agricultural land for which no goal exception has been
taken in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Flan.
The subject property is agricultural land and an exception to Goal 3 is required to re-
designate the land to any designation other than EFU. The soils of the subject property are classified
as U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Class I -VI, and therefore the subject
property is agricultural land by definition:
Agricultural Land -- in western Oregon is land of predominantly Class I, 11, 111 and IV soils
and in eastern Oregon is land of predominantly Class I, 11, III, IV, V and VI soils as
identified in the Soil Capability Classification System of the United States Soil Conservation
Service, and other lands which are suitable for farm use taking into consideration soil
fertility, suitability for grazing, climatic conditions, existing and future availability of water
for farm irrigation purposes, existing land -use patterns, technological and energy inputs
required, or accepted farming practices. Lands in other classes which are necessary to permit
farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands, shall be included as agricultural
land in any event.
3
Goal 3; OAR 660-015-0000(3). The County's Comprehensive Plan has never taken an exception to
Goal 3 for the subject property. The applicant seeks a designation of Rural Residential Exception
Area. Therefore, an exception to Goal 3 is required to approval the application, and the Hearings
Officer erred in deciding otherwise.
2. DCC 22.20.015; denial is appropriate because the subject property is in violation of
applicable land use regulations.
The Hearings Officer erred in finding that the subject property is not in violation of
applicable County land use regulations. Hearings Officer Decision page 9. The subject property is
in violation because the road that passes through the subject property (Bill Martin Road) was
constructed in violation of DCC 17.16.105' and remains in violation of that. code section. Neither
the applicant nor the County has taken responsibility for maintenance of Bill Martin Road through
the subject property, and thus the subject property is in violation of DCC 17.16.105. The Hearings
Officer noted that "the record is not complete enough for me to reach a conclusion — the allegedly
improper land use decisions, for example, are not in the record." Hearings Officer Decision page 9.
In its de novo appeal, the Board can accept additional materials into the record.
3. Comprehensive Plan Section 2.10 Surface Mining
a. The subject property should not be placed on the non-significant mining and
aggregate inventory.
The existence of the Non -Significant Mining and Aggregate Inventory at Comprehensive
Plan Tabte 5.8.2 is an error in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Only inventoried significant Goal
5 mineral and aggregate resources may be mined. See OAR. 660-023-0180. As Table 5.8.2 has no
legal value in the County's program to achieve the requirements of Goal 5, placing the subject
property on Table 5.8.2 with the comment "potential reservoir site" is a meaningless action. The
Hearings Officer erred when deciding that Table 5.8.2 should be amended to include the subject
"Access to Subdivisions. No proposed subdivision shall be approved unless it would be accessed by roads constructed
to County standards and by roads accepted for maintenance responsibility by a unit of local or state government. This
standard is met if the subdivision has no direct access to such a collector or arterial, by demonstrating that the road
accessing the subdivision from a collector or arterial meets relevant County standards and has been accepted for
maintenance purposes."
property. Whether or not the property is added to Table 5.8.2, the land cannot be mined unless it
qualifies as a significant Goal 5 resource.
b. DGGAMI's certification of the quality of reclamation of the site renders the site
usable only for the post -mining use of "open space/range. "
The Hearings Officer erred in ignoring DOGAMI's reclamation certification, which certified
all acreage of the former mining site on the subject property for the post -mining use of "open
space/range," and did not certify any acreage on the subject property for any other post -mining uses,
which include "agriculture, recreation, wildlife/wetlands, or housing/construction." Hearings
Officer Decision page 12. The Hearings Officer was correct in noting that "the designation on the
DOGAMI application is the responsibility of the applicant." Hearings Officer Decision page 13.
The Hearings Officer erred, however, by then deciding that the designation on the DOGAMI
application, which is the responsibility of the applicant, is irrelevant to the applicant's future
development plans. If the applicant has the responsibility to reclaim the subject property to a
standard appropriate for a certain post -mining use designation, then the applicant cannot seek to use
the subject property for any other use.
DCC 18.52.200 governs post -mining uses of surface mining sites, and states that "the
property shall be rezoned to the subsequent use zone identified. in the surface mining element of the
Comprehensive Plan." The Comprehensive Plan does not identify a subsequent use zone for the
subject property. The only post -mining use identified anywhere is the use of "open space/range"
identified by the applicant and DOGAMI on DOGAMI's reclamation certification form.
Accordingly, the subject property should not be rezoned to MUAI.0, and should be rezoned to a zone
and designation that comports with the quality of reclamation achieved on the site, which supports
only the uses of "open space/range," and the Hearing Officer erred in deciding otherwise.
4. Natural hazards.
a. Goal 7; an exception to Goal 7 Natural Mazards is required.
Compliance with Goal 7 is a principal issue in this case. The purpose of Goal 7 is to "protect
people and property from natural hazards." In planning for natural hazards, Goal 7 requires:
1. Focal governments shall adopt comprehensive plans (inventories, policies and
implementing measures) to reduce risk to people and property from natural hazards.
2. Natural hazards for purposes of this goal are: floods (coastal and riverine), landslides,I
earthquakes and related hazards, tsunamis, coastal erosion, and wildfires. Local governments
may identify and plan for other natural hazards. (Emphasis added.)
Evidence in the record indicates the applicant did not fill mined areas on the property in a
manner that permits subsequent use of the property for housing development. The record indicates
improperly filled areas on the property may place those who access the property in danger.
The County had no way of knowing prior to the hearing that the proposed use is inconsistent
with the way the applicant filled in the mined areas on the property. Now that the County knows
there are conditions on the property so potentially hazardous that the proposed land use may put the
public at risk, the Bearings Officer erred in not recommending that the County conduct an evaluation
of the risk of sinkholes from improper fill. One such sinkhole already occurred on Bill Martin Road.
The Hearings Officer should have recommended that the County identify the nature of the dire
natural hazard on the property and plan for it, as provided in Goal 7 (supra). As explained in the
Goal 7 implementation guidelines:
"When reviewing development requests in high hazard areas, local governments should
require site-specific reports, appropriate for the level and type of hazard (e.g., hydrologic
reports, geotechnical reports or other scientific or engineering reports) prepared by a licensed
professional. Such reports should evaluate the risk to the site as well as the risk the proposed
development may pose to other properties."
The County's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan chapter on Natural Hazards, Section 3.5,
lists only wildland fire, severe winter storms, flooding, volcanic eruption, and earthquake. It is
undisputed that sinkhole formation and other severe erosion have routinely occurred on the subject
property over the past several years. These types of hazards are not normal in Deschutes County,
and thus are not included in the County's acknowledged comprehensive plan. Because the subject
property is likely to experience these natural hazards again in the future, the County must evaluate
and protect the public against natural hazards the application procedure has revealed on the subject
property.
b. Several Comprehensive Plan policies relating to natural hazards have not been met.
The application should be denied on the additional grounds of not meeting several
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Goal I of the Comprehensive Plan Section 3.5 Natural
2
Hazards Policies is to "protect people, property, infrastructure, the economy and the environment
from natural hazards." Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.5.5 states that "development should be
designed to minimize alteration of the natural land form in areas subject to slope instability, drainage
issues or erosion." Policy 3.5.11 directs the County to "review and revise County Code as needed
to... minimize erosion from development and ensure disturbed or exposed areas are promptly
restored to a stable, natural, and/or vegetated condition using natural materials or native plants,"
Policy 3.5.11(d), and "ensure drainage from development or alterations to historic drainage patterns
do not increase erosion on-site or on adjacent properties." Policy 3.5.11(e). As thoroughly
documented in the record, the subject property has experienced substantial drainage problems, slope
instability, and erosion over the past several years. To the extent that the Hearings Officer decided
that the proposed plan amendment and zone change complied with any of these goals and policies,
the Hearing Officer erred.
COnCIUNion
Thank you for your consideration of this appeal. Enclosed please find a check for the appeal
fee in the amount of $5,073.7.5.2 LandWatch requests an on -the -record hearing. If several appeals
are filed, LandWatch requests that the fee be split among the appellants.
Thank you,
—T�— ��l
Rory Isbell
Staff Attorney
Central Oregon LandWatch
2 $2,665.00 appeal fee + 20%, or $2,408.75, of the original application fee ($12,043.75) _ $5,073.75.
Because the Board must hear the appeal pursuant to DCC 22.28.030(C), we don't believe we must
appeal the plan amendment. Accordingly, we request reimbursement of the portion of the 20% of the
original application fee that is for the plan amendment.
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 Work Session of July 18, 2018
DATE: July 12, 2018
FROM: Tanya Saltzman, Community Development,
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Preparation for Housekeeping Text Amendments Public Hearing
This work session is in preparation for a public hearing on July 23, 2018 to consider Ordinance 2018-
006, incorporating text amendments, hereafter referred to as "housekeeping amendments," correcting
minor errors in the Deschutes County Code.
File number: 247 -18 -000432 -TA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Tanya Saltzman, Associate Planner
DATE: July 12, 2018
SUBJECT: Housekeeping Text Amendments - Work Session
The Board of County Commissioners will conduct a work session on July 18, 2018 to consider
Ordinance 2018-006, incorporating text amendments, hereafter referred to as "housekeeping
amendments," correcting minor errors in the Deschutes County Code and Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed amendments and findings were provided to the Planning Commission for their June
14, 2018 work session,' and for the Planning Commission public hearing on June 28, 2018,2 during
which the amendments were accepted unanimously.
The proposed ordinance with corresponding exhibits and findings and a summary presentation
document are attached to this memorandum.
I. OVERVIEW
The Planning Division has compiled housekeeping text amendments based on recent experiences
with the current code language. The amendments are an effort to correct noted errors—primarily
typographical scrivener's errors and misdirected cross-references as well as changes reflecting
updates in state land use regulations and policies. These housekeeping amendments do not alter
the permitted uses or use standards of the code. In addition, no state statutes, rules, or land use
goals apply to these changes.
The findings to the ordinance explain the justification for each text amendment change and the
corresponding exhibits identify the proposed changes. Lastly, a presentation document is also
attached as an overview of the changes. This can be reviewed at the work session if the Board so
chooses.
1 https:Hdeschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1876&Inline=True
2 https:Hdeschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1889&Inline=True
11. SCHEDULE AND NEXT STEPS
A work session is scheduled with the Board of County Commissioners for July 18, 2018; a public
hearing will be scheduled for July 23, 2018.
Attachments
1: Housekeeping Text Amendments Summary Presentation
2: Ordinance 2018-006 with corresponding exhibits
Page 2 of 2
III
I p AV
R
W-bi
u
(3)
V)
0
u
C-6
>
V)
4-J
L/)
"
u
c
0
.0
V)
4-J
V)
E
4-J
0-0
4-J
D
4-J
U
M
4-J
4-J
U
0o
Ln
CL
0
(L)
(1)
u
cco
Qrf
4,
G
m
Z N vt y
100 0 Z >
Z� Z® •�
®® E Qu s
Q w w
—J n- w O 2❑ i Z
� u > O O E O
� Z�� u u u w
A AUl
®� Z O = w w C Q
—LIJ O (nL/)tn
Cc EL o oz
CL w z c ®❑ u w
H IA
�® O r -ZZ a)w
� L/) V) u .W .- Q Q 4-+ w
o13 J w O d
oQcid 00 sL. sr
CD r- N N u 0 :T oo u
--� tnNN yv/i
of 00 00 06 ® a)
-- N N
�I—T-�- i -NN i!1
$- " � O � --
w
M
� tN � v tV
uuuu j-duu i -u
cn
i Q
w p
vi ® <z
N i O
LU
1- L/) <( Z l�
zwOzi—
w N
p®� �cv0Zm7>Z
w LLu- Nw�w
❑ L/)V .__I 75; O (�
��O wwQ°_uQN
®�N NNwp>twi_�
U-
r) LL w w<wl
F- ryw V)N�❑LJ)CL
Q w D e w<
n 0- V) h-a—��QuZ
j V) m
u 00 D_
•�L.L �,f-- wLLU-u
4
4 O 4 "o uo o �r
�N 7Ur-ro Md klUI-000o
I� O 06 06 06 00 06 Co 06 06 06
LA
r, CL) os (3) a)vva)wv
o � y �� �czQ0-0-C
i -u i-uuu uuuuuu
w
r
1 7
i
CD
N
O0
u
0)
Ln
C:)
Ul
I'D
O
06
0
0
u N
a) Un
(A k.0
o6
4-J
U
E
0 0-
u Lj-
4-J
. C)
cn
:D
x
u
OE
E
0
V) U
4-
O O
U
c4- Ln
0
U
0
la-,
CD
6
00
06
O0
'Zz
flJ
V)
ON
CD
m
O
O
CD
V-
06
T-
C -
0
dJ
00
Ln
cr-I
0
Ou
E
0
U
(D
r -
C)
06
O0
,Z --
u
(1)
V)
E
O
4-J
0
X
(10
4-J
4�
u
o
u
Y
JN1
Ot
w°
iy
JSP
C
0
S
c
r6
O
V)
QJ
4-
C>
u
O
4-
O_
N
T
u
Vi
<C
S
to
a-+
O
u
i
O
V)
N
m
n
u--
O
to
OJ
i 0
LAu
❑
N
C
O
4-
v
U-
C
.�
Eu
n
D
u
v
v
°N'
®
v
D
D
CU
L
x
o
0
F
p
M.—
ro
u
u
4J
E.�'
4J
N
L
v
O
4
V
❑
vt
vt
V1
O
QJ
V)
r6
QI u
_
N
O
O
C
®
C
O
O
N
r6
N
QI
to
n
N
M
in
O
M
to
C
-
N
E
U
U
C
>
N
p
O
In
I-
V)
p
_O
p
_O
p
O_
O
m
> U)
�i
m
i3
I
w
t.0
b 0
�_
00
N
E
C
C
m
u Ln
w
W
W
O
u❑
m
iZ
Q
❑
1:j
v)
u
u�
V)
ry
Q❑❑
o
o
ci
o 0
OO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
d'
W
0 d
m
4
Ln
M
ch
M
d
Ln
N
N
O
w
o
O
—
O m
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
e-
O
O
O
to
d' DD
Ct
to
to
to
O
O
o
cn
cr)
LU
d•
O
o
N N
o
m
m
`t
Zr'
I -o
110
r�
oo
7
7
7
00
00
w
x
00
0o
w
w
co
co
0o
w
00
x
0o
00 co
O
O
O
OO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
u
u
uu
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u u
N
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
N
w
w
N
N
w
w
N w
V)
V)
V)
V)
V)
V1
V)
V)
cit
V)
V)
Vi
V)
V)
V)
V1 V)
Mo
4-J
C- >� "
0 " r-
■ 0 -.7,
V) U
V)
4-J
U
U
u
4- 0
V)
U U
0
u 4-)
4--1 M
4-J
-C Ln
C
ru ro
U
0
4-
(3) C)
oc- 0
■
4-J 4-d u
Ln 0
V) 0
X E a) "
(V 4-
rz
o
>
4-
U U ru
Q) C: bA
C:
0
u 0 u
-0 M
(L) 4- D (3)
-0 (3) U) _Q
4-J -0 4--)
LA C- V)
rz
E E
Ln U)
4-J
>
4- 0 '4-J
u u
< m
Ln
0
L-
0
4-
0
ro
0
4-
-0
0 >1
(A 0
Ln
V)
,u E (3)
u
ru u
0 ro
3:
0
4l--
V)
ro E
(U 0
(3) =
u
0 ro
0
U
4-J 4 V -j
)
u
M 4-J
V)
c:
0 0 4-
U L/)
4--J
-P 40J (>,,)
(13 _0 C
k4-- (1) M
0 3: L/)
0 4-J
L-
(3)
C rz >
(-
0 o 0
u
V) (3)
F, a)
,- (A 0
C:)
C:)
M■U
C)
�i
voc
9719
E
0
14--
(1)
Ln
ID
< LA
o (3)
4-J
w
El
4--J
0
L-
0
V)
4-J
E
u
ro
-0
4-J
(3)
V)
_0
C:
ro
_0
vi
4-J
C:
0
4-
v) E
C: W
o
u C7
(3)
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County
Code Titles 17, 18, 22, 23, the Deschutes County * ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes County
Zoning Map to Incorporate "Housekeeping" Changes
that Correct Errors, Incorporate Changes to State
Law, and Provide Clarification of Existing
Regulations, Procedures, and Policies.
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Community Development Department (CDD) initiated amendments
(File No. 247 -18 -000432 -TA) to the Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 17, Chapter 17.24, Final Plat; Title 18,
Chapters 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions; 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones; 18.32, Multiple Use
Agricultural Zone — MUA; 18.36, Forest Use Zone — F-1; 18.40, Forest Use Zone — F-2; 18.60, Rural Residential
Zone — RR -10; 18.65, Rural Service Center — Unincorporated Community Zone; 18.76, Airport Development
Zone — A -D; 18. 80, Airport Safety Combining Zone — AS; 18.84, Landscape Management Combining — LM Zone;
18.100, Rural Industrial Zone — R -I; 18.116, Supplementary Provisions; 18.124, Site Plan Review; 18.128,
Conditional Use; Title 22, Chapters 22.24, Land Use Action Hearings; 22.28, Land Use Action Decisions; Title
23, Chapter 23.01, Introduction; the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 5, Supplemental Sections;
and the Deschutes County Zoning Map to incorporate "housekeeping" changes to correct errors, incorporate
changes to state law, and provide clarification of existing regulations, procedures, and policies; and
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Planning Commission reviewed the proposed changes on June 28,
2018, and forwarded to the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board"), a
unanimous recommendation of approval; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners considered this matter after a duly noticed public
hearing on July 23, 2018, and concluded that the public will benefit from changes to the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan and Deschutes County Code (DCC); now therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC 23.01.010, Introduction, is amended to read as described in Exhibit
"A," attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined and deleted language
set forth in s+ri'��_.
Section 2. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 5, Supplemental Sections,
is amended to read as described in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, with new
language underlined and deleted language set forth in st fik, g=
Section 3. AMENDMENT. DCC 17.24, Final Plat, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "C,"
attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined and deleted language set forth
in sal eugl}.
PAGE 1 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Section 4. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions, is amended to read as described
in Exhibit "D," attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined and deleted
language set forth in strik gh.
Section 5. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones, is amended to read as described in
Exhibit "E," attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined and deleted
language set forth in stri„�, th g .
Section 6. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone - MUA, is amended to read as
described in Exhibit "F,” attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined and
deleted language set forth in s*fi�rraug.
Section 7. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.36, Forest Use Zone — F-1, is amended to read as described in
Exhibit "G," attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined and deleted
language set forth in strileugh.
Section 8. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.40, Forest Use Zone — F-2, is amended to read as described in
Exhibit "H," attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined and deleted
language set forth in str-ik ug .
Section 9. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.60, Rural Residential Zone, RR -10, is amended to read as described
in Exhibit "I," attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined and deleted
language set forth in str4k gh.
Section 10. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.65, Rural Service Center — Unincorporated Community Zone, is
amended to read as described in Exhibit "J," attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, with new
language underlined and deleted language set forth in str4kethrough.
Section 11. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.76, Airport Development Zone — A -D, is amended to read as
described in Exhibit "K," attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined and
deleted language set forth in strik�gir.
Section 12. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone - AS, is amended to read as
described in Exhibit "L," attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined and
deleted language set forth in strik���.
Section 13. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining — LM Zone, is amended
to read as described in Exhibit "M," attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, with new language
underlined and deleted language set forth in strikedffetigh.
Section 14. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.100, Rural Industrial Zone — R -I, is amended to read as described
in Exhibit "N," attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined and deleted
language set forth in strip.
Section 15. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.116, Supplementary Provisions, is amended to read as described
in Exhibit "O," attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined and deleted
language set forth in st fik ug.
Section 16. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.124, Site Plan Review, is amended to read as described in Exhibit
"P," attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined and deleted language set
forth in str-ik�g h.
PAGE 2 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Section 17. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.128, Conditional Use, is amended to read as described in Exhibit
attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined and deleted language
set forth in striketh et g .
Section 18. AMENDMENT. DCC 22.24, Land Use Action Hearings, is amended to read as described in
Exhibit "R," attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined and deleted
language set forth in strileugh.
Section 19. AMENDMENT. DCC 22.28, Land Use Action Decisions, is amended to read as described
in Exhibit "S," attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined and deleted
language set forth in strik g h.
Section 20. AMENDMENT. The Deschutes County Zoning Map is amended to read as described in
Exhibit "T," attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
Section 21. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this decision attached to Ordinance
2018-006 as Exhibit "U" and incorporated by reference herein.
Dated this of , 2018 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ANTHONY DeBONE, Chair
PHIL HENDERSON, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary TAMMY BANEY, Commissioner
Date of 1" Reading: day of 12018.
Date of 2nd Reading: day of , 2018.
Record of Adoption Vote:
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Anthony DeBone
Phil Henderson
Tammy Baney
Effective date: day of , 2018.
PAGE 3 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
23.01.010. Introduction.
A. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2011-003
and found on the Deschutes County Community Development Department website, is incorporated
by reference herein.
B. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2011-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
C. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
D. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
E. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-016, are incorporated by reference herein.
F. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
G. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-009, are incorporated by reference herein.
H. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
I. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
J. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
K. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
L. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
M. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-021, are incorporated by reference herein.
N. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
O. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-021, are incorporated by reference herein.
P. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-029, are incorporated by reference herein.
Q. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-018, are incorporated by reference herein.
R. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-010, are incorporated by reference herein.
S. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
T. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-022, are incorporated by reference herein.
U. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
PAGE 1 OF 2 — EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
V. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
W. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-029, are incorporated by reference herein.
X. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2017-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
Y. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
Z The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-006 are incorporated by reference herein.
(Ord. 2018-006 § 1, 2018; Ord. 2018-002 § 1, 2018; Ord. 2017-007 § 1, 2017; Ord. 2016-029 § 1, 2016;
Ord. 2016-027 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2016-005 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2016-022 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2016-001 § 1, 2016;
Ord. 2015-010 §1, 2015; Ord. 2015-018 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2015-029 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2015-021 § 1,
2015; Ord. 2014-027 § 1, 2014; Ord. 2014-021 §1, 2014; Ord. 2014-12 §1, 2014; Ord. 2014-006 §2,
2014; Ord. 2014-005 §2, 2014; Ord. 2013-012 §2, 2013; Ord. 2013-009. §2, 2013; Ord. 2013-007 §1,
2013; Ord. 2013-002 §1, 2013; Ord. 2013-001 §1, 2013; Ord. 2012-016 §1, 2012; Ord. 2012-013 §1,
2012; Ord. 2012-005 § 1, 2012; Ord. 2011-027 § 1 through 12, 2011; Ord. 2011-017 repealed;
Ord.2011-003 §3, 2011)
Click here to be directed to the Comprehensive Plan (http://www.deschutes.org/compplan)
PAGE 2 OF 2 - EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Table 5.8.2 — Deschutes County Non -Significant Mining Mineral and Aggregate
Inventory
Site #
Taxlot
Name
Type
Quantity*
Comments
Whychus
Creek
15-10-4-314-700
Irrigation
Silt, sand,
200,000 cy
Reservoir Size is
100
District
& dirt
80 acres.
Watson
Reservoir 1.
Whychus
Creek
15-10-4-314-700
Irrigation
sand & dirt
600,000 cy
Reservoir size is
101
District—
40 acres.
Watson
Reservoir 11.
Whychus
Creek
14-11-33-500
Irrigation
Silt, sand,
100,000 cy
Reservoir size is
102
District—
& dirt
12 acres
McKenzie
Reservoir
Whychus
Creek
Irrigation
Sand &
250,000 to
Reservoir
103
14-11-33-500
District—
dirt
300,000 cy
expansion size is
McKenzie
20 acres
Reservoir
Expansion
* Quantity in cubic yards unless otherwise noted
Source: 1979 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan as revised
Page I of 8 - EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
SCctiow 59 CjoAI, 5 Iowe wtorU
Cu.ltu.ral, awd I-t%storLc Resources
Background
This section contains information from the 1979 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, as
revised. It lists the cultural and historic resources in Deschutes County. These inventories have
been acknowledged by the Department of Land Conservation and Development as complying
with Goal 5. One minor change has been made to acknowledge an already approved and
existing change to Number 29, the Tumalo Creek Diversion Dam and Headgate of the Feed
Canal.
Inventory
Highway 126 en White Reek R ead A,yest ef Redmend. Site 4REludes daft peRsteE ( and
peweFheuse. 15 12 14 TL 90 1.
- 12. _Cloverdale School: One Feeffi sEheel School building in Cloverdale, located near
68515 George Cyrus Road. First building built in Cloverdale. 15-1 1-7 TL 600.
4-.I 3, Easter r� Star Grange: Grange ha!! for earliest grange organized in Deschutes
County, located at 62850 Powell Butte Road. 17-13-19 TL 1900.
1-5-j 4. Enoch Cyrus Homestead Hay Station and Blacksmith Shop: The Enoch Cyrus
Homestead was the original homestead of Oscar Maxwell, built in 1892 and purchased in
1900 by Enoch Cyrus. Important stage/store stop for early travelers. The homestead
house, including a back porch and cistern, and the Blacksmith Shop are designated. 15-1 1-
10 TL 700.
I S. Fremont Meadow: A small natural meadow on Tumalo Creek in Section 34,
Township 17 South, Range I I East, lying within Shevlin Park. TL 5900. Campsite for 1843
Fremont expedition. 17-11-34 TL 5900.
Harper School: One -room schoolhouse, located west of South Century Drive,
south of Sunriver, moved halfway between the Allen Ranch and the Vandevert Ranch from
the former townsite of Harper. 20-11-17 TL 1900.
4-8-.17, Improved Order of Redmond Cemetery: Historic cemetery used by residents of
La Pine/Rosland area. Located on Forest Road 4270, east of Highway 97. A 40 -acre parcel
described as: The Southwest one-quarter of the Southeast one-quarter (SW -'/4; SE -'/4)
Section 7, Township 22 south, Range 11, East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes
County, Oregon.
4-9-.18.,—.–Laidlaw Bank and Trust: One of the few remaining commercial buildings from the
community of Laidlaw, located at 64697 Cook Avenue, Tumalo. 16-12-31A TL 2900.
Page 2 of 8 - EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
2D719. La PineCommercial Club: Building was built in 1912 as a community center,
serving as a regular meeting place for civic organizations and occasionally served as a
church. One of the oldest and continuously used buildings in La Pine. Located at 5 15 18
Morrison Street, La Pine. 22-10-15AA TL 4600.
2-4..20. Lynch and Roberts Store Advertisement: Ad advertising sign painted on a soft
volcanic ash surface. Only area example of early advertising on natural material. Lynch and
Roberts established mercantile in Redmond in 1913. Roberts Field near Redmond was
named for J. R. Roberts. Site includes the bluff. 14-12-00 TL 1505.
22:21. _ _ - Maston Cemetery: One of the oldest cemeteries in County. Oldest grave
marker is 1901. About one-half mile from site of Maston Sawmill and Homestead. Site
includes the gravestones and memorials and the entire tax lot, identified as 22-09-00 TL
1800.
23.22. _George Millican Ranch and Mill Site: Ranch established in 1886. Well dug at or
near that date. Remains of vast cattle ranching empire. 19-15-33 TLs 100, 300.
2� 23. __George Millican Townsite: Town established 1913. Site includes store and garage
buildings, which retain none of the architectural integrity from era. 19-15-33 TL 500.
.24. Petersen Rock Gardens: The Petersen Rock Gardens consist of stone replicas
and structures erected by Rasmus Petersen. A residence house and museum are part of
the site. The site has been a tourist attraction for over 60 years. Located at 7930 SW
77th, Redmond. Site includes entire tax lot. 16-12-11 TL 400.
26725.—Pickett's Island: After originally settling in Crook County, Marsh Awbrey moved
to Bend and then homesteaded on this island in the Deschutes River south of Tumalo. The
site was an early ford for pioneers. Located in Deschutes River near Tumalo State Park.
17-12-6 NE -'/4 TL 100. Portion between Deschutes River and Old Bend Road is
designated.
2.26. __Rease (Pauling Prairie) Cemetery: Historic cemetery on Elizabeth Victoria Castle
Rease and Denison Rease's homestead. Earliest known grave is of their son, George Guy
Rease, born in 1879, who was also a homesteader on Paulina Prairie. George Guy Rease
died of smallpox on the Caldwell Ranch on May 2, 1903. Other known burials are William
Henry Caldwell, 1841 -October 15, 1910, died on the Caldwell Ranch of injuries sustained
on a cattle drive; Melvin Raper, 1892-1914, died in a tent of tuberculosis; Addie Laura
Caldwell, 1909 -November 16, 1918, died of the Spanish influenza epidemic; and Emma
Nimtz Deedon, 1886 -April 15, 1915, died of complications from a pregnancy. There are
several unmarked graves. The cemetery is a county -owned one -acre parcel on the north
edge of Paulina Prairie, two miles east of Highway 97. 210-11-29, SE -'/4; NW -'/4 TL 99.
2-€27. _Terrebonne Ladies Pioneer Club:
has been a community -meeting place since
Terrebonne. 14-13-16DC TL 700.
The Club was organized in 1910. The building
1911. Located at 8334 11 th Street,
2,SQ& _Tetherow House and Crossing: Site is an excellent example of an early
Deschutes River crossing. Major route from Santiam Wagon Road to Prineville. Tetherow
House was built in 1878. The Tetherows operated a toll bridge, store and livery stable for
Page 3 of 8 - EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
travelers. Oldest house in County. Site includes house and entire tax lot. 14-12-36A TL
4500.
.29. _Tumalo Creek — Diversion Dam The original headgate and diversion dam for the
feed canal was constructed in 1914. The feed canal's purpose was to convey water from
Tumalo Creek to the reservoir. The original headworks were replaced and the original
94.2 ft low overflow weir dam was partially removed in 2009/2010 to accommodate a
new fish screen and fish ladder. The remaining original structure is a 90 foot (crest length)
section of dam of reinforced concrete. Tax Map 17-11-23, Tax Lot 1600.
4-:30. --Tumalo Community Church: The building is the oldest church in the County,
built in 1905. It stands in the former town of Laidlaw, laid out in 1904. Located at 64671
Bruce Avenue, Tumalo. 16-12-31 A TL 3900.
X31. _Tumalo Project Dam: Concrete core, earth -filled dam 75 feet high. First project
by State of Oregon to use State monies for reclamation project. On Tumalo Creek. 16-
11-29.
3..3-:32. __William P. Vandevert Ranch Homestead House: The Vandevert Ranch House
stands on the east bank of the Little Deschutes River at 17600 Vandevert Road near
Sunriver. The homestead was established in 1892, and has been recently relocated and
renovated. Vandevert family history in the area spans 100 years. 20-1 1-00 TL 1900.
34:33. __Kathryn Grace Clark Vandevert Grave: Kathryn Grace Vandevert, daughter of
William P. Vandevert, died of influenza during the epidemic of 1918. Her grave is located
across a pasture due south of the Vandevert House, 50 feet east of the Little Deschutes
River. Site includes gravestone and fenced gravesite measuring is approximately 15 feet by
25 feet. 20-1 1 -VV TL 190101.
35-34. Young School: Built in 1928, it is an excellent example of a rural "one -room"
school which served homesteaders of the 1920s. Located on Butler Market Road. 17-13-
19 TL 400.
-3635. Agnes Mae Allen Sottong and Henry J. Sottong House and Barn. House and barn
are constructed with lumber milled on the property in a portable sawmill run by the Pine
Forest Lumber Company in 1911. Henry was awarded homestead patent 7364 issued at
The Dalles on Dec I, 1904. Henry was president of the Mountain States Fox Farm. A
flume on the Arnold Irrigation District is named the Sottong Flume. The structures are
also associated with William Kuhn, a president of the Arnold Irrigation District; Edward
and Margaret Uffelman, who were part of the group that privatized and developed the
Hoo Doo Ski Resort; and Frank Rust Gilchrist, son of the founder of the town of Gilchrist
and Gilchrist Mill and president of the Gilchrist Timber Company from the time of his
father's death in 1956 to 1988. Frank R. Gilchrist served on the Oregon Board of Forestry
under four governors and was appointed by the governors to serve as a member of the
Oregon Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee. He served on the Oregon State
University's Forest Products Research Lab and was a director and president of the
National Forest Products Association. T 18 R 12 Section 22, 00 Tax lot 01600.
Inventory note: Unless otherwise indicated the inventoried site includes only the designated
structure. No impact areas have been designated for any inventoried site or structure.
Page 4 of 8 - EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
sect%ovl.5.22 Legisl,ative I-Fistor�
Background
This section contains the legislative history of this Comprehensive Plan.
Table 5.1 1.1 Comprehensive Plan Ordinance History
Ordinance
Date Adopted/
Chapter/Section
Amendment
Effective
All, except
Transportation, Tumalo
and Terrebonne
2011-003
8-10-1 1/ 1 1-9-1 1
Community Plans,
Deschutes Junction,
Comprehensive Plan update
Destination Resorts and
ordinances adopted in
2011
2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.10, 3.5,
Housekeeping amendments to
2011-027
10-31-1 1 / 1 1-9-1 1
4.6, 5.3, 5.8, 5.1 1,
23.40A, 23.40B,
ensure a smooth transition to
23.40.065, 23.01.010
the updated Plan
23.60, 23.64 (repealed),
Updated Transportation
2012-005
8-20-12/11-19-12
3.7 (revised), Appendix C
Svstem Plan
(added)
'
2012-012
8-20-12/8-20-12
4.1, 4.2
La Pine Urban Growth
Boundary
2012-016
12-3-12/3-4-13
3.9
Housekeeping amendments to
Destination Resort Chapter
Central Oregon Regional
2013-002
1-7-13/1-7-13
4.2
Large -lot Employment Land
Need Analysis
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2013-009
2-6-13/5-8-13
1.3
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan Map
2013-012
5-8-13/8-6-13
23.01.010
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Bend
Urban Growth Boundary
Newberry Country: A Plan
2013-007
5-29-13/8-27-13
3.10, 3.1 1
for Southern Deschutes
County
Page 5 of 8 - EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Page 6 of 8 - EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Comprehensive Plan Map
2013-016
10-21-13/10-21-13
23.01.010
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Sisters
Urban Growth Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Map
2014-005
2-26-14/2-26-14
23.01.010
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Bend
Urban Growth Boundary
2014-012
4-2-14/7-1-14
3.10, 3.1 1
Housekeeping amendments to
Title 23.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
2014-021
8-27-14/11-25-14
23.01.010, 5.10
property from Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Forest to Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Utility
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
2014-021
8-27-14/11-25-14
23.01.010, 5.10
property from Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Forest to Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Utility
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2014-027
12-15-14/3-31-15
23.01.010, 5.10
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Industrial
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2015-021
11-9-15/2-22-16
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Surface Mining.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2015-029
1 1-23-15/11-30-15
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Tumalo
Residential 5 -Acre Minimum
to Tumalo Industrial
2015-018
12-9-15/3-27-16
23.01.010, 2.2, 4.3
Housekeeping Amendments
to Title 23.
Page 6 of 8 - EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Page 7 of 8 - EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Comprehensive Plan Text and
2015-010
12-2-15/12-2-15
2.6
Map Amendment recognizing
Greater Sage -Grouse Habitat
Inventories
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2016-001
12-21-15/04-5-16
23.01.010; 5.10
designation of certain
property from, Agriculture to
Rural Industrial (exception
area)
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to add an
exception to Statewide
2016-007
2-10-16/5-10-16
23.01.010; 5.10
Planning Goal I I to allow
sewers in unincorporated
lands in Southern Deschutes
County
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment recognizing non -
2016 -005
11-28-16/2-16-17
23.01.010, 2.2, 3.3
resource lands process
allowed under State law to
change EFU zoning
Comprehensive plan
2016-022
9-28-16/11-14-16
23.01.010, 1.3, 4.2
Amendment, including certain
City Bend
property within of
Urban Growth Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2016-029
12-14-16/12/28/16
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from, Agriculture to
Rural Industrial
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2017-007
10-30-17/10-30-17
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan
2018-002
1-3-18; 1-25-18
23.01, 2.6
Amendment permitting
churches in the Wildlife Area
Combining Zone
Page 7 of 8 - EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
2018-006 17-23-18/7-23-18 23.01.010, 5.8, 5.9
Page 8 of 8 - EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Housekeeping Amendments
correcting tax lot numbers in
Non -Significant Mining Mineral
and Aggregate Inventory:
modifying Goal 5 Inventory of
Cultural and Historic
Resources
Chapter 17.24. FINAL PLAT
17.24.110. Conditions of Approval.
A. The Planning Director and Road Department Director shall determine whether or not the plat conforms
with the approved tentative plan and DCC Title 17. If the Planning Director and/or Road Department
Director does not approve the plant, they shall advise the applicant of the changes or additions that must
be made, and shall afford him an opportunity to make corrections. If the Planning Director and Road
Department Director determine that the plat conforms to all requirements and if, in the case of partitions,
they determine that all current taxes and assessments are paid, they shall recommend approval, provided
supplemental documents and provisions for required improvements are satisfactory. Recommendation
of approval of the plat does not constitute final approval, such authority for final approval being vested
with the governing body.
B. No plat of a proposed subdivision or partition shall be approved unless:
1. Streets and roads for public use are to be dedicated without any reservation or restriction.
2. Streets and roads held for private use and indicated on the tentative plan have been approved by the
County;
3. The plat contains provisions for dedication to the public of all common improvements, including, but
not limited to, streets, roads, parks, sewage disposal and water supply systems, if made a condition of
the approval of the tentative plan;
4. Explanations of all common improvements required as conditions of approval of the tentative plan
shall be recorded and referenced on the final plat.
(Ord. 2018-006 §3, 2018, Ord. 93-012 §29, 1993; Ord. 90-003 §1, Exhibit A, 1990; Ord. 81-043 §1, Exhibit
A, §3.050,1981).
17.24.120. Improvement Agreement.
A. The subdivider may, in lieu of completion of the required repairs to existing streets and facilities, and
improvements as specified in the tentative plan, request the County to approve an agreement between
himself and the County specifying the schedule by which the required improvements and repairs shall be
completed; provided, however, any schedule of improvements and repairs agreed to shall not exceed one
year from the date the final plat is recorded, except as otherwise allowed by DCC 17.24.120(F) below.
The agreement shall also provide the following:
1. A list of all the contractors who will construct or complete the improvements and repairs;
2. The cost of the improvements and repairs;
3. That the County may call upon the security for the construction or completion of the improvements
and repairs, upon failure of the subdivider to adhere to the schedule for improvements and repairs;
4. That the County shall recover the full cost and expense of any work performed by or on behalf of the
County to complete construction of the improvements and repairs, including, but not limited to,
attorneys and engineering fees;
5. That a one-year warranty bond shall be deposited with the County following acceptance of the
improvements and repairs. The bond shall be in the amount of 10 percent of the value of the
improvements.
(Ord. 2018-006 0, 2018; Ord. 2002-026 §1, 2002; Ord. 97-016 §1, 1997; Ord. 93-012 §30,1993; Ord. 90-
003 §1, Exhibit A, 1990; Ord. 81-043 §1, Exhibit A, §4.050, 1981).
Page 1 of 1 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Chapter 18.04. TITLE, PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS
18.04.030. Definitions.
As used in DCC Title 18, the following words and phrases shall mean as set forth in DCC 18.04.030.
"AASHTO Standards" refers to the road safety and design standards set forth in the publication
entitled American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Policy on Geometric
Designs of Highways and Streets, current edition.
"Accepted farming practice" means a mode of operation common to farms and ranches of a similar
nature, necessary for the operation of such farms and ranches with the intent to obtain a profit in
money, and customarily utilized in conjunction with farm use.
"Access" means the right to cross between public and private property allowing pedestrians and
vehicles to enter and leave property.
"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. Accessory uses include drilling
for, and utilization of, low -temperature geothermal fluid in conjunction with the main use of the
property.
"Adjoining" means contiguous; touching or connected, including tracts of land that only connect or
touch at a common point.
Affected persons (Repealed by Ord. 91-038, 199 1)
"Agricultural building or equine facility" means buildings and structures that are exempt
from the State of Oregon Structural Specialty Code as agricultural buildings and equine
facilities as described in ORS 455.315. A structural building permit is not required for
agricultural buildings or equine facilities located on the same lot or parcel receiving special
assessment for farm use.
"Agricultural Land" means lands classified by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRC S T T c Soil Co sen. ation ceFviee OSCS) as predominately Class I -VI soils, and other lands in
different soil classes which are suitable for farm use, taking into consideration soil fertility, suitability
for grazing and cropping, climatic conditions, existing and future availability of water for farm
irrigation purposes, existing land use patterns, technological and energy inputs required, and accepted
farming practices. Lands in other classes which are necessary to permit farm practices to be
undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands shall be included as agricultural lands in any event.
"Agricultural structure" means any structure considered to be an "agricultural building" under the
State Building Code (Section 326) as referenced in DCC 15.04.0 10 and is (1) located on a parcel that
is at least 20 acres in size and contains at least 8.5 irrigated acres, or (2) a parcel that is at least 80
acres in size, regardless of irrigation.
Page 1 of 2 - EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
"Vacation trailer" means a portable unit designed and built to be towed on its own chassis, comprised
of frame and wheels having sleeping cooking and plumbing facilities independent of external utility
connections and intended for use principally as a temporary recreational or vacation residence.
(Ord. 2018-006 �4, 2018; Ord. 2017-015§1, 2017; Ord. 2016-026§1, 2016; Ord. 2016-
015§1, 2016; Ord. 2016-006 §1, 2016; Ord. 2015-004 §1, 2015; Ord. 2014-009 §1, 2014;
Ord. 2013-008 §1, 2013; Ord. 2012-007 §1, 2012; Ord. 2012-004 §1, 2012; Ord. 2011-
009 § 1, 2011; Ord. 2010-022 § 1, 2010; Ord. 2010-018 3, 2010, Ord. 2008-007 § 1, 2008;
Ord. 2008-015 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2007-005 § 1, 2007; Ord. 2007- 020 § 1, 2007; Ord. 2007-
019 §1, 2007; Ord. 2006-008 §1, 2006; Ord. 2005-041 §1, 2005; Ord. Chapter 18.04 35
04/2015) 2004-024 §1, 2004; Ord. 2004-001 §1, 2004; Ord. 2003-028 §1, 2003; Ord.
2001-048 §1, 2001; Ord. 2001-044 §2, 2001; Ord. 2001-037 §l, 2001; Ord. 2001-033 §2,
2001; Ord. 97-078 §5, 1997; Ord. 97-017 §1, 1997; Ord. 97-003 §1, 1997; Ord. 96-082
§1, 1996; Ord. 96-003 §2, 1996; Ord. 95-077 §2, 1995; Ord. 95-075 §1, 1975; Ord. 95-
007 §1, 1995; Ord. 95-001 §1, 1995; Ord. 94-053 §1, 1994; Ord. 94-041 §§2 and 3, 1994;
Ord. 94-038 §3, 1994; Ord. 94-008 §§1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, 1994; Ord. 94-001 §§1, 2,
and 3, 1994; Ord. 93-043 §§1, IA and 1B, 1993; Ord. 93- 038 §1, 1993; Ord. 93-005 §§1
and 2, 1993; Ord. 93-002 §§ 1, 2 and 3, 1993; Ord. 92-066 § 1, 1992; Ord. 92-065 §§ 1 and
2, 1992; Ord. 92-034 § 1, 1992; Ord. 92-025 § 1, 1992; Ord. 92-004 1 and 2, 1992; Ord.
91-038 §§3 and 4, 1991; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 91-005 §l, 1991; Ord. 91-002 §11,
1991; Ord. 90-014 §2, 1990; Ord. 89-009 §2, 1989; Ord. 89-004 §1, 1989; Ord. 88- 050
§3, 1988; Ord. 88-030 §3, 1988; Ord. 88-009 §1, 1988; Ord. 87-015 §1, 1987; Ord. 86-
056 2, 1986; Ord. 86-054 § 1, 1986; Ord. 86-032 § 1, 1986; Ord. 86-018 § 1, 1986; Ord.
85-002 §2, 1985; Ord. 84-023 §!, 1984; Ord. 83-037 §2, 1983; Ord. 83-033 §!, 1983;
Ord. 82-013 §1, 1982)
Page 2 of 2 - EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Chapter 18.16. EXCLUSIVE FARM USE ZONES
18.16.010. Purpose.
18.16.020. Uses Permitted Outright.
18.16.023. Lawfully Established Dwelling Replacement
18.16.025. Uses Permitted Subiect to the Special Provisions Under DCC Section 18.16.038 or DCC
Section 18.16.042 and a Review Under DCC Chapter 18.124 where applicable.0 es
Permitted Subjeet to the Speeial Provisions Under DCC Seetion 18.16.038 and a Review
Under DCC rhnpt r- 18.124 For Mems C Thr-ough M.
18.16.030. Conditional Uses Permitted - High Value and Non -high Value Farmland.
18.16.031. Nonresidential Conditional Uses on Non -high Value Farmland Only.
18.16.033. Nonresidential Conditional Uses on High Value Farmland Only.
18.16.035. Destination Resorts.
18.16.037. Guest Ranch.
18.16.038. Special Conditions for Certain Uses Listed Under DCC 18.16.025.
18.16.040. Limitations on Conditional Uses.
18.16.042 Agri -Tourism and Other Commercial Events or Activities Limited Use Permit
18.16.043 Single Permit
18.16.050. Standards for Dwellings in the EFU Zones.
18.16.055. Land Divisions.
18.16.060. Dimensional Standards.
18.16.065. Subzones.
18.16.067. Farm Management Plans.
18.16.070. Yards.
18.16.080. Stream Setbacks.
18.16.090. Rimrock Setback.
18.16.020. Uses Permitted Outright.
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
A. Farm use as defined in DCC Title 18.
B. Propagation or harvesting of a forest product.
C. Operations for the exploration for minerals as defined by ORS 517.750. Any activities or
construction relating to such operations shall not be a basis for an exception under ORS
197.732(2)(a) or (b).
D. Accessory buildings customarily provided in conjunction with farm use.
E. Climbing and passing lanes within the right of way existing as of July 1, 1987.
F. Reconstruction or modification of public roads and highways, including the placement of utility
facilities overhead and in the subsurface of public roads and highways along the public right of
way, but not including the addition of travel lanes, where no removal or displacement of
buildings would occur, or no new land parcels result.
G. Temporary public road and highway detours that will be abandoned and restored to original
condition or use when no longer needed.
H. Minor betterment of existing public road and highway -related facilities such as maintenance
yards, weigh stations and rest areas, within a right of way existing as of July 1, 1987, and
contiguous public owned property utilized to support the operation and maintenance of public
roads and highways.
I. Creation, restoration or enhancement of wetlands.
Page 1 of 9 - EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
J. A lawfully established dwelling may be altered, restored or replaced, subject to DCC 18.16.023.
1. The replacement dwelling is subject to OAR 660-033-0130(30) and the County shall require
as a condition of approval of a single-family replacement dwelling that the landowner for the
dwelling sign and record in the deed records for the county a document binding the
landowner, and the landowner's successors in interest, prohibiting them from pursuing a
claim for relief or cause of action alleging injury from farming or forest practices for which
no action or claim is allowed under ORS 3 0.93 6 to 30.937.
K. A replacement dwelling to be used in conjunction with farm use if the existing dwelling is listed
on the National Register of Historic Places and on the County inventory as a historic property as
defined in ORS 358.480, and subject to 18.16.020(J)(1)above.
L. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation
District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050.
M. Utility facility service lines. Utility facility service lines are utility lines and accessory facilities
or structures that end at the point where the utility service is received by the customer and that
are located on one or more of the following:
1. A public right of way;
2. Land immediately adjacent to a public right of way, provided the written consent of all
adjacent property owners has been obtained; or
3. The property to be served by the utility.
N. The land application of reclaimed water, agricultural process or industrial process water or
biosolids or the onsite treatment of septaaprior to the land application of biosolids, for
agricultural, horticultural or silvicultural production, or for irrigation in connection with a use
allowed in an exclusive farm use zone, subject to the issuance of a license, permit or other
approval by the Department of Environmental Quality under ORS 454.695, 459.205, 46813.053
or 468B.055, or in compliance with rules adopted under ORS 46813.095, and with the
requirements of ORS 215.246 to 215.251. For the purposes of this section, onsite treatment of
septage prior to the land application of biosolids is limited to treatment using treatment facilities
that are portable temporary and transportable by truck trailer, as defined in ORS 801.580 during
a period of time within which land application of biosolids is authorized under the license, permit,
or other approval.
O. Fire service facilities providing rural fire protection services.
P. Operations for the exploration for and production of geothermal resources as defined by ORS
522.005 and oil and gas as defined by ORS 520.005, including the placement and operation of
compressors, separators and other customary production equipment for an individual well
adjacent to the wellhead. Any activities or construction relating to such operations shall not be
a basis for an exception under ORS 197.732(2)(a) or (b).
Q. Outdoor mass gathering described in ORS 197.015(10)(4), and subject to DCC Chapter 8.16.
R. Composting operations that are accepted farming practices in conjunction with and auxiliary to
farm use on the subject tract as allowed under OAR 660-033-0130(29).
S. Marijuana production, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330.
(Ord. 2018-006 §5, 2018; Ord. 2016-015 §2, 2016; Ord. 2014-010 §1, 2014; Ord. 2012-007 §2, 2012; Ord.
2010-022 §2, 2010; Ord. 2009-014 §1, 2009; Ord. 2008-001 §2, 2008; Ord. 2004-001 §2, 2004; Ord. 2001-
039 §1, 2001; Ord. 2001-016 §2, 2001; Ord. 98-030 §1, 1998; Ord. 95-007 §10, 1995; Ord. 92-065 §3, 1992;
Ord. 91-03 8 § § 1 and 2, 1991; Ord. 91-024 § 1, 1991; Ord. 91-020 § 1,1991; Ord. 91-005 §4,1991; Ord. 91-002
§3, 1991; Ord. 86-007 §1, 1986; Ord. 81-025 §1, 1981; Ord. 81-001 §1, 198 1)
Page 2 of 9 - EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
18.16.030. Conditional Uses Permitted -High Value and Non -high Value Farmland.
The following uses may be allowed in the Exclusive Farm Use zones on either high value farmland or non -
high value farmland subject to applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, DCC 18.16.040 and
18.16.050, and other applicable sections of DCC Title 18.
DD. Photovoltaic solar power generation facilities as commercial utility facilities for the purpose of generating
power for public use by sale, subject to OAR 660-033-0130. On high-value farmland only, photovoltaic
solar power generation facilities are subject to the provisions in ORS 215.447.
SEE. Commercial dog boarding kennel, or dog training classes or testing trials that exceed the
standards under DCC 18.16.025(K), subject to DCC 18.16.040(A)(1 and 2).
FF. Equine and equine -affiliated therapeutic and counseling activities, provided:
1. The activities are conducted in existing buildings that were lawfully constructed on the property
before the effective date of January 1, 2019 or in new buildings that are accessory, incidental and
subordinate to the fann use on the tract; and
2. All individuals conductingtherapeutic or counseling activities are acting within the proper scope of
any licenses required by the state.
(Ord. 2018-006 §5, 2018; Ord. 2014-010 §1, 2014; Ord. 2012-007 §2, 2012; Ord. 2009-014 §1, 2009; Ord.
2008-001 §2, 2008; Ord. 2004-001 §2, 2004; Ord. 2001-039 §1, 2001; Ord. 2001-016 §2, 2001; Ord. 98-030
§1, 1998; Ord. 95-025 §1, 1995; Ord. 95-007 §11, 1995; Ord. 94-008 §9, 1994; Ord. 92-065 §3, 1992; Ord.
91-038 §2, 1991; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 91-014 §1, 1991; Ord. 91-005 §5, 1991; Ord. 90-018 §1, 1990;
Ord. 90-014 §§23 and 31, 1991; Ord. 87-013 §1, 1987; Ord. 86-018 §3, 1986; Ord. 83-028 §1, 1983)
18.16.037. Guest Ranch.
A. A guest ranch may be established in conjunction with an existing and continuing livestock operation,
using accepted livestock practices that qualifies as a farm use under DCC 18.04.030, subject to the
applicable provisions set forth in DCC 18.16.040(A)(1), (2) and (3), the applicable provisions of DCC
18.128, and the provisions of the applicable Oregon Revised Statutes. A guest ranch shall not be located
within the boundaries of or surrounded by:
(1) A federally designated wilderness area or a wilderness study area:
(2) A federally designated wildlife refuge;
(3) A federally designated area of critical environmental concern; or
(4) An area established by an Act of Congress for the protection of scenic or ecological resources.
B. "Guest ranch" means a facility for overnight guest lodging units, including passive recreational activities
and food services, as set forth in ORS 215 that are incidental and accessory to an existing livestock
operation that qualifies as a farm use under DCC 18.04.030.
C. A guest lodging unit means a guest room in a lodge, bunkhouse, cottage or cabin used only for transient
overnight lodging and not for permanent residence accommodations.
D. For the purposes of DCC 18.16.037, "livestock" means cattle, sheep, horses, and bison.
E. A proposed division of land in an exclusive farm use zone for a guest ranch or a division of a lot or parcel
that separates a guest ranch from the dwelling of the person conducting the livestock operation shall not
be allowed.
Page 3 of 9 - EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
F. Notwithstanding DCC 18.16.055, a proposed division of land in an exclusive farm use zone for a guest
ranch shall not be allowed.
(Ord. 2012-007 §2, 2012; Ord. 2010-022 §2, 2010; Ord. 2009-014 §1, 2009; Ord. 2001-043 §1, 2001; Ord.
98-056 §1, 1998)
Note: DCC 18.16.037 will be repealed matt i -y 2, 20 QApril 15, 2020 (Ord. 2018-006 §5, 2018; Ord. 2012-
007 §2, 2012; Ord. 2010-017 §1, 2010).
18.16.040. Limitations on Conditional Uses.
A. Conditional uses permitted by DCC 18.16.030, 18.16.031, and 18.16.033 may be established subject to
ORS 215.296, applicable provisions in DCC 18.128, and upon a finding by the Planning Director or
Hearings Body that the proposed use:
1. Will not force a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices as defined in ORS
215.203(2)(c) on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest uses; and
2. Will not significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands
devoted to farm or forest use; and
3. That the actual site on which the use is to be located is the least suitable for the production of farm
crops or livestock.
B. A commercial activity allowed under DCC 18.16.030(E) shall be associated with a farm use occurring on
the parcel where the commercial use is proposed. The commercial activity may use, process, store or
market farm products produced outside of Deschutes County.
C. A power generation facility that is part of a commercial utility facility for the purpose of generating power
for public use by sale identified in DCC 18.16.030(1✓K) and:
1. That is located on high-value farmland, the permanent features of which shall not preclude more than
12 acres from use as a commercial agricultural enterprise unless an exception is taken pursuant to
ORS 197.732 a:.d OrA Adm:.^.2str2t.V. R,:les 660 Division 004
2. That is located on non -high-value farmland, the permanent features of which shall not preclude more
than 20 acres from use as a commercial agricultural enterprise unless an exception is taken pursuant
to ORS 197.732 and Oregon Administrative Rules 660, Division 4.
3. A power generation facility may include on-site and off-site facilities for temporary workforce
housing as allowed under OAR 660-033-0130(17) and (22).
E. No aircraft may be based on a personal -use airport identified in DCC 18.16.030(4L) other than those
owned or controlled by the owner of the airstrip. Exceptions to the activities permitted under this
definition may be granted through waiver action by the Oregon Department of Aviation in specific
instances. A personal use airport lawfully existing as of September 13, 1975, shall continue to be
permitted subject to any applicable rules of the Oregon Department of Aviation.
(Ord. 2018-006 §5, 2018; Ord. 2015-016 §2, 2015; Ord. 2014-010 §1, 2014; Ord. 2012-007 §2, 2012; Ord.
2009-014 §1, 2009; Ord. 2008-001 §2, 2008; Ord. 2006-008 §3, 2006; Ord. 2004-001 §2, 2004; Ord. 98-030
§1, 1998; Ord. 95-075 §1, 1995; Ord. 95-007 §14, 1995; Ord. 92-065 §3, 1992; Ord. 91-038 §1 and 2, 1991;
Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 91-011 §1, 1991)
Page 4 of 9 - EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
18.16.050. Standards for Dwellings in the EFU Zones.
Dwellings listed in DCC 18. 16.025 and 18.16.030 may be allowed under the conditions set forth below for
each kind of dwelling, and all dwellings are subject to the landowner for the property upon which the dwelling
is placed, signing and recording in the deed records for the County, a document binding the landowner, and
the landowner's successors in interest, prohibiting them from pursuing a claim for relief or cause of action
alleging injury from farming or forest practices for which no action or claim is allowed under ORS 30.936 or
30.937.
A. Farm -related dwellings on non -high value farmland. A dwelling customarily provided in conjunction
with farm use, as listed in DCC 18.16.030(A), may be approved if it satisfies any of the alternative tests
set forth below:
1. Acreage test.
a. On land not identified as high-value farmland, a dwelling, including a manufactured home in
accordance with DCC 18.116.070, may be considered customarily provided in conjunction with
farm use if:
i. The parcel on which the dwelling will be located is at least:
(a) One hundred sixty acres and not in the Horse Ridge East subzone; or
(b) Three hundred twenty acres in the Horse Ridge East subzone;
ii. The subject tract is currently employed for farm use, as defined in DCC 18.04.030, and which
is evidenced by a farm management plan;
iii. The dwelling will be occupied by a person or persons who will be principally engaged in the
farm use of the land, such as planting, harvesting, marketing or caring for livestock, at a
commercial scale;
iv. There is no other dwelling on the subject tract, except as allowed under DCC 18.16.020(K);
2. Median acreage/gross sales test.
a. On land not identified as high-value farmland, a dwelling, including a manufactured home in
accordance with DCC 18.116.070, may be considered customarily provided in conjunction with
nn �•
1Q1111 use : 11.
i. The subject tract is at least as large as the median size of those commercial farm or ranch
tracts capable of generating at least $10,000 in annual gross sales that are located within a
study area that includes all tracts wholly or partially within one mile of the perimeter of the
subject tract;
ii. The subject tract is capable of producing at least the median level of annual gross sales of
County indicator crops as the same commercial farm or ranch tracts used to calculate the tract
size in DCC 18.16.050(A)(2)(a)(i);
iii. The subject tract is currently employed for farm use, as defined in DCC 18.04.030, and which
is evidenced by a farm management plan, at a level capable of producing the annual gross
sales required in DCC 18.16.050(A)(2)(a)(ii). If no farm use has been established at the time
of application, land use approval shall be subject to a condition that no building permit may
be issued prior to establishment of the farm use capable of meeting the median income test.
iv. The subject lot or parcel on which the dwelling is proposed is at least 20 acres in size;
v. There is no other dwelling on the subject tract(1), except as allowed under DCC
18.16.020(K); and
vi. The dwelling will be occupied by a person or persons who will be principally engaged in the
farm use of the land, such as planting, harvesting, marketing or caring for livestock, at a
commercial scale.
b. For the purpose of calculating appropriate tract sizes and gross incomes to satisfy DCC
18.16.050(A)(2)(a)(i) and (ii), the County will utilize the methodology contained in Oregon
Administrative Rules 660-33-135(3) using data on gross sales per acre tabulated by LCDC
pursuant to Oregon Administrative Rules 660-33-135(4).
3. Gross annual income test.
Page 5 of 9 - EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
a. On land not identified as high-value farmland, a dwelling, including a manufactured home in
accordance with DCC 18.116.070, may be considered customarily provided in conjunction with
farm use if:
i. The subject tract is currently employed for a farm use, and that the farm operator earned
$3-2 59040,000 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.
ii. There is no other dwelling on the subject tract, except as allowed under 18.16.020(K);
iii. The dwelling will be occupied by a person or persons who produced the commodities which
grossed the income in DCC 18.16.050(A)(3)(a)(i); and
C. Accessory dwelling. A dwelling, including a manufactured home in accordance with DCC 18.116.070,
is considered to be an accessory farm dwelling customarily provided in conjunction with farm use when:
1. The accessory dwelling meets the following criteria:
a. The accessory farm dwelling will be occupied by a person or persons who will be principally
engaged in the farm use of the land and whose seasonal or year-round assistance in the
management of the farm use, such as planting, harvesting, marketing or caring for livestock, is
or will be required by the farm operator; and
b. The accessory farm dwelling will be located:
i. On the same lot or parcel as the primary farm dwelling; or
ii. On the same tract as the primary farm dwelling when the lot or parcel on which the accessory
farm dwelling will be sited is consolidated into a single parcel with all other contiguous lots
and parcels in the tract; or
iii. On a lot or parcel on which the primary farm dwelling is not located, when the accessory
farm dwelling is limited to only a manufactured home and a deed restriction substantially in
compliance with the form set forth in Exhibit A to DCC 18.16 is filed with the County Clerk.
The deed restriction shall require the manufactured dwelling to be removed when the lot or
parcel is conveyed to another party. The manufactured home may remain if it is reapproved
under DCC 18.16.050; or
iv. On a lot or parcel on which the primary farm dwelling is not located, when the accessory
farm dwelling is located on a lot or parcel at least the size of the applicable minimum lot size
under DCC 18.16.065 and the lot or parcel complies with the gross farm income requirements
in DCC 18.16.050(A)(3) or (13)(1), whichever is applicable; and
c. There is no other dwelling on land zoned EFU owned by the farm operator that is vacant or
currently occupied by persons not working on the subject farm or ranch and that could reasonably
be used as an accessory farm dwelling; and
2. The primary farm dwelling to which the proposed dwelling would be accessory meets one of the
following:
a. On land not identified as high-value farmland, the primary farm dwelling is located on a farm or
ranch operation that is currently employed in farm use and produced $41,50040,000 in gross
annual sales in the last two years, or three of the last five years, or based on the average farm
revenue_eamed on the tract in the highest three of the last five years. In determining gross
revenue, the cost of purchased livestock shall be deducted from the total gross revenue attributed
to the tract; or
b. On land identified as high-value farmland, the primary farm dwelling is located on a farm or
ranch operation that is currently employed for farm use, and produced at least $80,000 in gross
annual revenue from the sale of farm products in the last two years, three of the last five years1or
based on the average farm revenue earned on the tract in the highest three of the last five years.
Page 6 of 9 - EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Gross revenue shall be calculated by deducting the cost of purchased livestock from the total
gross revenue attributed to the tract; and
3. A lot or parcel approved for an accessory farm dwelling under DCC 18.16.050 shall not be approved
for a division of land except as provided for in DCC 18.16.055(B).
4. An accessory farm dwelling approved pursuant to this section cannot later be used to satisfy the
requirements for a nonfarm dwelling pursuant to DCC 18.16.050(G).
G. Nonfarm dwelling.
1. One single-family dwelling, including a manufactured home in accordance with DCC 18.116.070,
not provided in conjunction with farm use, may be permitted on an existing lot or parcel subject to
the following criteria:
a. The Planning Director or Hearings Body shall make findings that:
i. The dwelling or activities associated with the dwelling will not force a significant change in
or significantly increase the cost of accepted farming practices, as defined in ORS
215.203(2)(c), or accepted forest practices on nearby lands devoted to farm or forest use.
ii. The proposed nonfarm dwelling will not materially alter the stability of the overall land use
pattern of the area. In determining whether a proposed nonfarm dwelling will alter the
stability of the land use pattern in the area, the County shall consider the cumulative impact
of nonfarm dwellings on other lots or parcels in the area similarly situated, by applying the
standards under OAR 660-033-0130(4)(a)(D), and whether creation of the parcel will lead to
creation of other nonfarm parcels, to the detriment of agriculture in the area.
iii. The proposed nonfarm dwelling is situated on an existing lot or parcel, or a portion of a lot
or parcel that is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock or
merchantable tree species, considering the terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage
and flooding, vegetation, location and size of the tract.
iv. The proposed nonfarm dwelling is not within one-quarter mile of a dairy farm, feed lot or
sales yard, unless adequate provisions are made and approved by the Planning Director or
Hearings Body for a buffer between such uses. The establishment of a buffer shall be
designed based upon consideration of such factors as prevailing winds, drainage, expansion
potential of affected agricultural uses, open space and any other factor that may affect the
livability of the nonfarm -dwelling or the agriculture of the area.
v. Road access, fire and police services and utility systems (i.e., electrical and telephone) are
adequate for the use.
vi. The nonfarm dwelling shall be located on a lot or parcel created prior to January 1, 1993, or
was created or is being created as a nonfarm parcel under the land division standards in DCC
18.16.055(B) or (C).
2. For the purposes of DCC 18.16.050(G) only, "unsuitability" shall be determined with reference to the
following:
a. A lot or parcel or a portion of a lot or parcel shall not be considered unsuitable solely because of
size or location if it can reasonably be put to farm or forest use in conjunction with other land. If
the parcel is under forest assessment, the dwelling shall be situated upon generally unsuitable
land for the production of merchantable tree species recognized by the Forest Practices Rules,
considering the terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation,
location and size of the parcel.
b. A lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel is not "generally unsuitable" simply because it is too
small to be farmed profitably by itself. If a lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel can be sold,
leased, rented or otherwise managed as part of a commercial farm or ranch, it is not "generally
unsuitable." A lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel is presumed to be suitable if it is composed
Page 7 of 9 - EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
predominantly of Class INI soils. Just because a lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel is
unsuitable for one farm use does not mean it is not suitable for another farm use. If the parcel is
under forest assessment, the area is not "generally unsuitable" simply because it is too small to
be managed for forest production profitably by itself.
c. If a lot or parcel under forest assessment can be sold, leased, rented or otherwise managed as a
part of a forestry operation, it is not "generally unsuitable." If a lot or parcel is under forest
assessment, it is presumed suitable if it is composed predominantly of soil capable of producing
20 cubic feet of wood fiber per acre per year. If a lot or parcel is under forest assessment, to be
found compatible and not seriously interfere with forest uses on surrounding land it must not
force a significant change in forest practices or significantly increase the cost of those practices
on the surrounding land.
3. Loss of tax deferral. E t aidea i DDG , Q , ti 050(1)(2) p nt Pursuant to ORS 215.236,
a nonfarm dwelling on a lot or parcel in an Exclusive Farm Use zone that is or has been receiving
special assessment may be approved only on the condition that before a building permit is issued the
applicant must produce evidence from the County Assessor's office that the parcel upon which the
dwelling is proposed has been disqualified under ORS 308A.44-3-050 to 308A.128 of ORS 308A. , , ti
f , assessment at value fel: f use under ORS 308A.06-2 or other special assessment under
ORS 308A.315 321.257 to 321.390 321.700 to 321.754 or 321.805 to 321.855 0680
321.730 or 321.815 and that any additional tax or penalty imposed by the County Assessor as a result
of disqualification has been paid.
H. Temporary hardship dwelling.
1. A temporary hardship dwelling listed in DCC 18.16.030 is allowed under the following conditions:
a. The dwelling is an existing building or is a manufactured home or recreational vehicle, and that
is used in conjunction with an existing dwelling on the lot or parcel. For the purposes of this
section "existing" means the building was in existence on or before March 29, 2017;
b. The manufactured home or recreational vehicle would be temporarily sited on the lot or parcel
only for the term of a hardship suffered by the existing resident or relative of the resident. The
manufactured dwelling shall be removed or demolished within three months of the date the
hardship no longer exists. The recreational vehicle shall not be occupied once the term of the
medical hardship is completed, except as allowed under DCC 18.116.095. A temporary residence
approved under this section is not eligible for replacement under DCC 18.16.020(J);
c. The existence of a medical hardship is verified by a written doctor's statement, which shall
accompany the permit application; and
d. The temporary manufactured home uses the same subsurface sewage disposal system used by the
existing dwelling, provided that the existing disposal system is adequate to accommodate the
additional dwelling. If the manufactured home will use a public sanitary sewer system, such
condition will not be required.
e. If a recreational vehicle is used as a medical hardship dwelling, it shall be required to have a
bathroom, and shall meet the minimum setbacks established under DCC 18.16.070.
2. Permits granted under DCC 18.16.050(H) shall be subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.090 and
shall be required to meet any applicable DEQ review and removal requirements as a condition of
approval.
3. As used in DCC 18.16.050(H), the term "hardship" means a medical hardship or hardship for the care
of an aged or infirm person or persons.
4. As used in DCC 18.16.050(H), the term "relative" means grandparent, step -grandparent, grandchild,
parent, step-parent, child, step -child, brother, sister, sibling, step -sibling, niece, nephew, uncle, aunt,
or first cousin of the existing resident.
5. The proposed hardship dwelling or recreational vehicle shall meet the criteria under DCC
18.16.040(A)(1-2) and DCC 18.16.020(J)(1)
Page 8 of 9 - EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
(Ord. 2018-006 $5, 2018; Ord. 2014-010 §1, 2014; Ord. 2012-007 §2, 2012; Ord. 2009-014 §1, 2009; Ord.
2008-001 §2, 2008; Ord. 2004-0020 §1, 2004; Ord. 2004-013 §2, 2004; Ord. 2004-001 §2, 2004; Ord. 98-
033 §1, 1998; Ord. 98-030 §1, 1998; Ord. 95-007 §15, 1995; Ord. 94-026 §1, 1994; Ord. 92-065 §3, 1992;
Ord. 91-038 §§2 and 3, 1991; Ord. 91-020 §1, 199 1)
Page 9 of 9 - EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Chapter 18.32. MULTIPLE USE AGRICULTURAL ZONE - MUA
18.32.020. Uses Permitted Outright.
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
A. Agricultural uses as defined in DCC Title 18.
B. A single family dwelling, or a manufactured home subject to DCC 18.116.070.
C. Propagation or harvesting of a forest product.
D. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or
subject to the standards and criteria established by DCC 18.116.230.
E. Class III road or street project.
F. Noncommercial horse stables, excluding horse events.
G. Horse events, including associated structures, involving:
1. Fewer than 10 riders;
2. Ten to 25 riders, no more than two times per month on nonconsecutive days; or
3. More than 25 riders, no more than two times per year on nonconsecutive days.
Incidental musical programs are not included in this definition. Overnight stays by participants,
trainers or spectators in RVs on the premises is not an incident of such horse events.
H. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation
District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050.
I. Type 1 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280.
J. Accessory Dwelling Units, subject to DCC 18.116.350.
(Ord. 2018-006 0, 2018; Ord. 2004-002 §3,2004; Ord. 2001-039 §2,2001; Ord. 2001-016 §2,2001;
Ord. 94-008 §10, 1994; Ord. 93-043 §4, 1993; Ord. 93-001 §1, 1993; Ord. 91-038 §1, 1991; Ord.
91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 91-005 §18, 1991; Ord. 91-002 §6, 199 1)
Page 1 of 1 - EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Chapter 18.36. FOREST USE ZONE - F-1
18.36.030. Conditional Uses Permitted.
The following uses and their accessory uses may be allowed in the Forest Use Zone, subject to applicable
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, DCC 18.36.040 and other applicable sections of DCC Title 18.
A. Private hunting and fishing operations without any lodging accommodations.
B. Caretaker residences for public parks and fish hatcheries.
C. Temporary forest labor camps limited to the duration of the forest operation requiring its use.
D. Exploration for and production of geo-thermal, gas, oil and other associated hydrocarbons, including the
placement and operation of compressors, separators and other customary production equipment for an
individual well adjacent to the well head.
E. Log scaling and weigh stations.
F. Disposal site for solid waste for which the Department of Environmental Quality has granted a permit
under ORS 459.245, together with equipment, facilities or buildings necessary for its operation.
G. Private parks and campgrounds.
1. Campgrounds in private parks shall only be those allowed by OAR 660-006-0025.
2. Except on a lot or parcel contiguous to a lake or reservoir, campgrounds shall not be allowed within
three miles of an urban growth boundary unless an exception is approved pursuant to ORS 197.732
and OAR Chapter 660, Division 4.
3. For the purpose of DCC 18.36.030 a campground is an area devoted to overnight temporary use for
vacation, recreational or emergency purposes, but not for residential purposes -and is established on a
site or is contiguous to lands with a park or other outdoor natural amenity that is accessible for
recreational use by the occupants of the campground.
4. A campground shall be designed and integrated into the rural agricultural and forest environment in
a manner that protects the natural amenities. of the site and provides 1111ffers of existing nntive trPPs
and vegetation or other natural features between campsites.
5. Campsites may be occupied by a tent, travel trailer or recreational vehicle.
6. Separate sewer, water or electric service hookups shall not be provided to individual campsites except
that electrical service may be provided to yurts allowed for by OAR 660-006-0025(4)(e)(C).
7. Campgrounds shall not include intensively developed recreational uses such as swimming pools,
tennis courts, retail stores or gas stations. Overnight temporary use in the same campground by a
camper or camper's vehicle shall not exceed a total of 30 days during any consecutive 6 month period.
8. A private campground may provide yurts for overnight camping.
a. No more than one-third or a maximum of 10 campsites, whichever is smaller, may include a yurt.
b. The yurt shall be located on the ground or on a wood floor with no permanent foundation.
c. As used in this rule, "yurt" means a round, domed shelter of cloth or canvas on a collapsible
frame with no plumbing, sewage disposal hook-up or internal cooking appliance.
H. Mining and processing of oil, gas or other subsurface resources, as defined in ORS 520.005, and not
otherwise permitted under DCC 18.36.030(D).
I. Television, microwave and radio communication facilities and transmission towers.
J. Fire stations for rural fire protection.
K. Commercial utility facilities for the purpose of generating power. A power generation facility shall not
preclude more than 10 acres from use as a commercial forest operation unless an exception is taken
pursuant to Oregon Administrative Rules 660, Division 4.
L. Aids to navigation and aviation.
M. Water intake facilities, related treatment facilities, pumping stations and distribution lines.
N. Reservoirs and water impoundments.
O. Cemeteries.
Page 1 of 3 - EXHIBIT G TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
P. New electric transmission lines with right-of-way widths of up to 100 feet as specified in ORS 772.210.
New distribution lines (e.g. electrical, gas, oil, geothermal, telephone, fiber optic cable) with rights of way
50 feet or less in width.
Q. Temporary asphalt and concrete batch plants as accessory uses to specific highway projects.
R. Home Occupations, subject to DCC 18.116.280.
S. Expansion of existing airports.
T. Public road and highway projects as described as ORS 215.283(2) and 215.283(3).
U. Private accommodations for fishing occupied on a temporary basis subject to other applicable sections of
DCC Title 18 and the following requirements:
1. Accommodations are limited to no more than 15 guest rooms as that term is defined in the Oregon
Structural Specialty Code;
2. Only minor incidental and accessory retail sales are permitted;
3. Accommodations are occupied temporarily for the purpose of fishing during fishing seasons
authorized by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission; and
4. Accommodations must be located within one-quarter mile of fish bearing Class I waters.
V. Forest management research and experimentation facilities as described by ORS 526.215 or where
accessory to forest operations.
W. Excavation, grading and fill and removal within the bed and banks of a stream or river or in a wetland,
subject to DCC 18.120.050 and 18.128.270.
X. An existing building, or manufactured dwelling in conjunction with an existing dwelling, as a temporary
use for the term of a hardship suffered by the existing resident or a relative as defined in ORS 215.283.
For the purposes of this section "existing" means the building was in existence on or before March 29
2017.
1. As used in this section, "hardship" means a medical hardship or hardship for the care of an aged or
infirm person or persons.
2. The use shall be subject to the review criteria in DCC 18.116.090, as well as DCC 18.36.040 and
18.36.060 of this chapter.
3. The manufactured home shall use the same subsurface sewage disposal system used by the existing
dwellings if that disposal system is adequate to accommodate the additional dwelling.
4. If the manufactured dwelling will use a public sanitary sewer system, such condition will not be
required.
5. A temporary residence approved under this subsection is not eligible for replacement under OAR
660-006-025.
Y. Single-family dwellings or manufactured homes as specified in DCC 18.116.070, as pursuant to DCC
18.36.050.
Z. Public parks including only those uses specified under OAR 660-034-0035 or 660-034-0040, whichever
is applicable.
AA. Private seasonal accommodations for fee hunting operations may be allowed subject to DCC 18.36.050
and the following requirements:
1. Accommodations are limited to no more than 15 guest rooms as that term is defined in the Oregon
Structural Specialty Code;
2. Only minor incidental and accessory retail sales are permitted; and
3. Accommodations are occupied temporarily for the purpose of hunting during game bird and big game
hunting seasons authorized by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission.
BB. An Extended Outdoor Mass gathering subject to review by a county planning commission pursuant to
DCC Chapter 8.16.
DD. Permanent facility for the primary processing of forest products.
EE. Firearms training facility.
(Ord. 2018-006 §7, 2018, Ord. 2012-007 §3, 2012; Ord. 2007-020 §3, 2007; Ord. 2004-002 §5, 2004; Ord.
2000-033 §1, 2000; Ord. 94-038 §1, 1994; Ord. 92-068 §1, 1992; Ord. 92-025 §2, 1992; Ord. 91-038 §1,
1991; Ord. 90-014 §28, 1990; Ord. 86-018 §8,1986)
Page 2 of 3 - EXHIBIT G TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
18.36.040. Limitations on Conditional Uses.
A use authorized by DCC 18.36.030 must meet the following requirements. These requirements are designed
to make the use compatible with forest operations and agriculture and to conserve values found on forest
lands.
A. The proposed use will not force a significant change in, or significantly increase the cost of, accepted
farming or forest practices on agricultural or forest lands.
B. The proposed use will not significantly increase fire hazard or significantly increase fire suppression costs
or significantly increase risks to fire suppression personnel.
C. Prior to final approval of the uses listed in DCC 18.36.030(G), (N), (R), (U) -and, (X), and Y the land
owner shall sign and record in the County Clerk's office a written statement recognizing the rights of
adjacent and nearby land owners to conduct forest operations consistent with the Forest Practices Act and
Rules.
(Ord. 2018-006 �7, 2018; Ord. 2012-007 §3,2012; Ord. 94-038 §1, 1994; Ord. 92-025 §2,1992; Ord. 91-020
§1, 1991)
Page 3 of 3 - EXHIBIT G TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Chapter 18.40. FOREST USE ZONE - F-2
18.40.030. Conditional Uses Permitted.
The following uses and their accessory uses may be allowed in the Forest Use Zone, subject to applicable
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, DCC 18.40.040 and other applicable sections of DCC Title 18:
A. Private hunting and fishing operations without any lodging accommodations.
B. Caretaker residences for public parks and fish hatcheries.
C. Temporary forest labor camps limited to the duration of the forest operation requiring it use.
D. Destination Resorts where mapped in a DR zone and subject only to the provisions of DCC 18.113 and
other applicable provisions of DCC Title 18 and the Comprehensive Plan not contained in DCC 18.40.
E. Exploration for and production of geothermal, gas, oil and other associated hydrocarbons, including the
placement and operation of compressors, separators and other customary production equipment for an
individual well adjacent to the well head.
F. Log scaling and weigh stations.
G. Disposal site for solid waste for which the Department of Environmental Quality has granted a permit
under ORS 459.245, together with equipment, facilities or buildings necessary for its operation.
H. Private parks and campgrounds.
1. Campgrounds in private parks shall only be those allowed by OAR 660-006-0025.
2. Except on a lot or parcel contiguous to a lake or reservoir, campgrounds shall not be allowed within
three miles of an urban growth boundary unless an exception is approved pursuant to ORS 197.732
and OAR Chapter 660, Division 4.
3. For the purpose of DCC 18.36.030 a campground is an area devoted to overnight temporary use for
vacation, recreational or emergency purposes, but not for residential purposes and is established on a
site or is contiguous to lands with a park or other outdoor natural amenity that is accessible for
recreational use by the occupants of the campground.
4. A campground shah be designed and :n+egrated into the r» al agr C'»lt'»ral and fnrP�t end irnnmPnt in
a manner that protects the natural amenities of the site and provides buffers of existing native trees
and vegetation or other natural features between campsites.
5. Campsites may be occupied by a tent, travel trailer or recreational vehicle.
6. Separate sewer, water or electric service hookups shall not be provided to individual campsites except
that electrical service may be provided to yurts allowed for by OAR 660-006-0025(4)(e)(C)._
7. Campgrounds shall not include intensively developed recreational uses such as swimming pools,
tennis courts, retail stores or gas stations. Overnight temporary use in the same campground by a
camper or camper's vehicle shall not exceed a total of 30 days during any consecutive 6 month period.
8. A private campground may provide yurts for overnight camping.
a. No more than one-third or a maximum of 10 campsites, whichever is smaller, may include a yurt.
b. The yurt shall be located on the ground or on a wood floor with no permanent foundation.
c. As used in this rule, "yurt" means a round, domed shelter of cloth or canvas on a collapsible
frame with no plumbing, sewage disposal hook-up or internal cooking appliance.
I. Mining and processing of oil, gas or other subsurface resources, as defined in ORS 520.005, and not
otherwise permitted under DCC 18.40.030(E).
J. Television, microwave and radio communication facilities and transmission towers.
K. Fire stations for rural fire protection.
L. Commercial utility facilities for the purpose of generating power. A power generation facility shall not
preclude more than 10 acres from use as a commercial forest operation unless an exception it taken
pursuant to Oregon Administrative Rules 660, Division 4.
M. Aids to navigation and aviation.
N. Water intake facilities, related treatment facilities, pumping stations and distribution lines.
O. Reservoirs and water impoundments.
P. Cemeteries.
Page 1 of 4 - EXHIBIT H TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Q. New electric transmission lines with right-of-way widths of up to 100 feet as specified in ORS 772.210.
New distribution lines (e.g. gas, oil, geothermal, telephone, fiber optic cable) with rights of way 50 feet
or less in width.
R. Temporary asphalt and concrete batch plants as accessory uses to specific highway projects.
S. Home Occupations, subject to DCC 18.116.280.
T. Expansion of existing airports.
U. Public road and highway projects as described as ORS 215.283(2) and 215.283(3).
V. Private accommodations for fishing occupied on a temporary basis subject to other applicable sections of
DCC Title 18 and the following requirements:
1. Accommodations are limited to no more than 15 guest rooms as that term is defined in the Oregon
Structural Specialty Code;
2. Only minor incidental and accessory retail sales are permitted;
3. Accommodations are occupied temporarily for the purpose of fishing during fishing seasons
authorized by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission; and
4. Accommodations must be located within one-quarter mile of fish -bearing Class I waters.
W. Forest management research and experimentation facilities as described by ORS 526.215 or where
accessory to forest operations.
X. Single-family dwellings or manufactured homes as specified in DCC 18.116.070, pursuant to DCC
18.40.050.
Y. Excavation, grading and fill and removal within the bed and banks of a stream or river or in a wetland,
subject to DCC 18.120.050 and 18.128.270.
Z. AAn existing building ora manufactured home in conjunction with an existing dwelling, as a temporary
use for the term of a hardship suffered by the existing resident or a relative as defined in ORS 215.283.
For the purposes of this section "existing" means the building was in existence on or before March 29,
2017.
1. As used in this section, "hardship" means a medical hardship or hardship for the care of an aged or
infirm person or persons.
2. The use shall be subject to the review criteria in DCC 18.116.090, as well as DCC 18.40.040 and
18.40.60.
3. The manufactured home shall use the same subsurface sewage disposal system used by the existing
dwellings if that disposal system is adequate to accommodate the additional dwelling.
4. If the manufactured dwelling will use a public sanitary sewer system, such condition will not be
required.
5. A temporary residence approved under this subsection is not eligible for replacement under OAR
660-006-025.
AA. Public parks including only those uses specified under OAR 660-034-0035 or 660-034-0040, whichever
is applicable.
BB. Private seasonal accommodations for fee hunting operations may be allowed subject to DCC 18.36.050
and the following requirements:
1. Accommodations are limited to no more than 15 guest rooms as that term is defined in the Oregon
Structural Specialty Code;
2. Only minor incidental and accessory retail sales are permitted; and
3. Accommodations are occupied temporarily for the purpose of hunting during game bird and big game
hunting seasons authorized by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission
CC. An Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering subject to review by a county planning commission pursuant to
DCC Chapter 8.16.
DD. Permanent storage and repair of logging equipment.
EE. Permanent facility for the primary processing of forest products.
FF. Firearms training facility.
(Ord. 2018-006 §8, 2018; Ord. 2012-007 §4, 2012; Ord. 2007-020 §4, 2007; Ord. 2004-002 §6, 2004; Ord.
2000-033 §1, 2000; Ord. 94-038 §1, 1994; Ord. 92-068 §1, 1992; Ord. 92-025 §2, 1992; Ord. 91-038 §1,
1991; Ord. 90-014 §28, 1990; Ord. 86-018 §8,1986)
Page 2 of 4 - EXHIBIT H TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
18.40.040. Limitations on Conditional Uses.
A use authorized by DCC 18.40.030 must meet the following requirements. These requirements are designed
to make the use compatible with forest operations and agriculture and to conserve values found on forest
lands.
A. The proposed use will not force a significant change in, or significantly increase the cost of, accepted
farming or forest practices on agriculture or forest lands;
B. The proposed use will not significantly increase fire hazard or significantly increase fire suppression costs
or significantly increase risks to fire suppression personnel.
C. Prior to final approval of the uses listed in DCC 18.40.030(H), (0), (S), (V), (X) and (Z), the landowner
shall sign and record in the County Clerk's office a written statement recognizing the rights of adjacent
and nearby landowners to conduct forest operations consistent with the Forest Practices Act and Rules.
(Ord. 2018-006 §8, 2018; Ord. 2012-007 §4, 2012; Ord. 94-038 §2, 1994; Ord. 92-025 §3, 1992; Ord. 91-020
§1, 1991)
18.40.050. Standards for Single -Family Dwellings.
D. Template Dwelling. For approval under DCC 18.40.050(D), a single-family dwelling shall meet the
following requirements:
1. The lot or parcel is predominantly composed of soils that are:
a. Capable of producing zero to 20 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber if:
i. All or part of at least three other lots or parcels that existed on January 1, 1993, are within a
160 acre square centered on the center of the subject tract; and
11. AL least till Ve dwe... ng. c-;s+ed ^vii Janua. y1 1993, and vont..:e t.-, exist -the Wither lits nr
parcels.
b. Capable of producing 21 to 50 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber if:
i. All or part of at least seven other lots or parcels that existed on January 1, 1993, are within a
160 acre square centered on the center of the subject tract; and
ii. At least three dwellings existed on January 1, 1993, and continue to exist on the other lots or
parcels.
c. Capable of producing more than 50 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber if
i. All or part of at least 11 other lots or parcels that existed on January 1, 1993, are within a 160
acre square centered on the center of the subject tract; and
ii. At least three dwellings existed on January 1, 1993, and continue to exist on the other lots or
parcels.
d- Lotsor- Y satisfy
t •thi .-ba gr „4i bo nda sh .,
ll t be oa t.. the template
o.,ts tinder- this SUbSe.,
2. Requirements of Applying Template
a. Lots or parcels within urban growth boundaries shall not be used to satisfy the template
requirements under this subsection.if a t t 60 .., res o lafger- deser-ibex in DDG , Q nn 050(D)
i
the Fneasurement shall be made by using a 160 aer-e metangle
that is one mile leng and one f;qw4h mile wide eenter-edd Rein the, eeean-te-r. of the subj eet tf aet and tha
is t the maximuffi extent possible aligned with the road ., stream.
b. Except as provided by subsection (c) of this section if the tract described in DCC 18.40.050(D)
abuts a road that existed on January 1 1993 the measurement may be made by creating a 160 -
acre rectangle that is one mile long and 1/4 mile wide centered on the center of the subject tract
and that is to the maximum extent possible, aligned with the road.
Page 3 of 4 - EXHIBIT H TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
c (A) If a tract 60 acres or larger described in DCC 18.40.050(D) abuts a road or perennial stream,
the measurement shall be made in accordance with subsection (b) of this section. However, one
of the three required dwellings shall be on the same side of the road or stream as the tract, and:
i Be located within a 160 -acre rectangle that is one mile long and one-quarter toile wide
centered on the center of the subject tract and that is to the maximum extent possible aligned
with the road or stream; or
ii. Be within one-quarter mile from the edge of the subject tract but not outside the length of the
160 -acre rectangle and on the saine side of the road or stream as the tract.
(B) If a road crosses the tract on which the dwelling will be located at least one of the three
required dwellings shall be on the same side of the road as the proposed dwelling, if oa e�
the traet on whieh the dwelling will be leeated, at least one ef the thfee r-e"ir-ed dwellings shall
be on the saffle side of the read as the proposed dwelling. However-, one of the 4wee r-eqoife
dwellings shall b on t1 same side of the read o stream as the tmet and:
i. -Be, leeated within a 160 aere r-eetangle that is one mile long and one fourth mile wide eenter-ed
an the eenter of the stA�eet tfaet and tha+ is to the maximttm e)Etent possible aligned with the read-
vrsii@am;
ii. Be within ile ffeffl the edge of the stibjeet tr-aet but not outside the length of the
160 aem reetangle, A thesameread
side of the o stream s the t.aet
e. if a traet r-evievved under DGG 18.40.050(D) abuts a read that existed on january 1, the
e
measur-ement may be made by efeating a 160 aer-e reetangle that is one mile long and ene few4h
I:Rilp, 1,vide eentefed on the eenter of the stfbjeet traet and that is to the maximum extent possible,
aligned with the read.
(Ord. 2018-006 �8, 2018; Ord. 2012-007 §4, 2012; Ord. 2003-007 §2, 2003; Ord. 94-038 §2, 1994; Ord.
92-025 §3, 1992; Ord. 91-020 §1, 199 1)
Page 4 of 4 - EXHIBIT H TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Chapter 18.60. RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE - RR -10
18.60.020. Uses Permitted Outright.
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright.
A. A single-family dwelling, or a manufactured home subject to DCC 18.116.070.
B. Utility facilities necessary to serve the area including energy facilities, water supply and treatment
and sewage disposal and treatment.
C. Community center, if shown and approved on the original plan or plat of the development.
D. Agricultural use as defined in DCC Title 18.
E. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or
subject to the standards and criteria established by DCC 18.116.230.
F. Class III road or street project.
G. Noncommercial horse stables as defined in DCC Title 18, excluding horse events.
H. Horse events, including associated structures, involving:
1. Fewer than 10 riders;
2. Ten to 25 riders, no more than two times per month on nonconsecutive days; or
3. More than 25 riders, no more than two times per year on nonconsecutive days.
Incidental musical programs are not included in this definition. Overnight stays by
participants, trainers or spectators in RVs on the premises is not an incident of such horse
events.
I. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation
District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050.
J. Type 1 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280.
H. Accessory Dwelling Units, subject to DCC 18.116.350.
(Ord. 2018-006 §9,2018-, Ord. 2004-002 §7,2004; Ord. 2001-039 §5,2001; Ord. 2001-016 §2,2001;
n -A OA nno R17 1001• n.-.1 02_lL12 P 5 1002• nrA 01_020 Ail 0191 • Ord 91-OOS §s33o -k 21 1991),
vl u. T-VVV W. -I 11/T1 -.U. 11 -1 �v, . , v.v. 1. Z5., ll , ....... .. ��.. ,. .,,. _.., .
Page 1 of 1 - EXHIBIT I TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Chapter 18.65. RURAL SERVICE CENTER - UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY ZONE
18.65.020. RSC — Commercial/Mixed Use District (Brothers, Hampton, Millican,
Whistlestop and Wildhunt).
A. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright,
subject to applicable provisions of this chapter:
1. Single-family dwelling.
2. Manufactured home, subject to DCC 18.116.070.
3. Type 1 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280.
4. Residential home and residential facility.
5. Two-family dwelling or duplex.
6. Agricultural uses, as defined in Title 18, and excluding livestock feed lot or sales yard, and
hog or mink farms.
7. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision
or subject to the standards and criteria established by DCC 18.116.230.
8. Class III road and street project.
9. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation
District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050.
E. Lot Requirements.
1. Residential ITses:
a. The minimum lot size for residential uses in Brothers, Hampton and Millican is 2.5 acres.
b. Each lot shall have a minimum width of 200 feet.
c. Each lot must be served by an on-site well.
d. On-site sewage disposal. For new lots or parcels, an applicant shall demonstrate that
the lot or parcel can meet DEQ on-site sewage disposal rules prior to final approval of a
subdivision or partition.
e. Lot coverage for a dwelling and accessory buildings used primarily for residential
purposes shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the total lot area. Lot coverage for
buildings used primarily for commercial purposes shall be determined by spatial
requirements for sewage disposal, landscaping, parking, yard setbacks and any other
elements under site plan review.
2. Commercial and Public Uses.
a. The minimum lot size in Brothers, Hampton, Millican, Whistlestop and Wildhunt for a
commercial use served by an on-site septic system and individual well shall be the size
necessary to accommodate the use.
b. in Alfalfa, the minimufn !at size shall be the size neeessai�, to aeeammedate the use, bi
.t los d
eb. Each lot shall have a minimum width of 150 feet.
dc. On-site sewage disposal. For new lots or parcels, an applicant shall demonstrate that the
lot or parcel can meet DEQ on-site sewage disposal rules prior to final approval of a
subdivision or partition.
Page 1 of 3 - EXHIBIT J TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
(Ord. 2018-006 � 10, 2018; Ord. 2016-015 §4, 2016; Ord. 2015-004 §2,2015; Ord. 2004-002 §11,
2004; Ord. 2002-028 § 1, 2002; Ord. 2002-002 §2, 2002)
4.65.2r 18.65.021. Alfalfa RSC - Commercial/Mixed Use District.
In Alfalfa, the following uses and their accessory uses are permitted:
A�Uses Permitted Outright_
1. Single-family dwelling.
2. Manufactured home, subject to DCC 18.116.070.
3. Type 1 Horne Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280.
4. Residential home and residential facility.
5. Two-family dwelling or duplex.
6 Agricultural uses as defined in Title 18 and excluding livestock feed lot or sales yard and hog or
mink farms.
7 Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or
subject to the standards and criteria established by DCC 18.116.230.
8. Class III road and street project.
9 Operation maintenance and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District
except as provided in DCC 18.120.050. those in TlGC 1 4 65 020 (A).
B. Uses Pennitted Subject to Site Plan Review. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted,
subject to applicable provisions of this chapter, DCC 18.116, Supplementary Provisions and DCC
18.124 Site Plan Review, of this title:
1 Retail store business office and/or commercial establislunent in a building or buildings each not
exceeding 4,000 square feet of floor space. The aggregate area for any one type of use that takes
place in multiple buildings ay not exceed 4,000 square feet.
2. Residential use in conjunction with a pennitted commercial use.
3. Park or playground.
4. Community building_
5. Public or semipublic building or use.
6 Marijuana wholesaling office only. There shall be no storage of marijuana items or products at the
same location.
Uses Permitted Subjeet te Site Plaii Review are these allowed in PGG 19.65.020(B), with the exeeption 4
C. Conditional Uses Permitted. The following uses and their accessory uses are pennitted sub'ec� t to
applicable provisions of this chapter, DCC 18.116, Sgpplementary Provisions DCC 18.124, Site Plan
Review, and DCC 18.128 Conditional Use of this title:
1. Church.
2. School.
3. Cemetery.
4. Type 2 or Type 3 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280.
5. Medical clinic or veterinary clinic.
6. Community Center.
7. Recreational vehicle or trailer park.
8 Wireless telecommunications facilities except those facilities meeting the requirements of DCC
18.116.250(A).
9. Marijuana retailing subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330.
Conditional Uses Pefmitted are these allowed in DCC 18.65.020(C), with the exeeption of Multi famil
dwellings andzixanufaeturvd home parks.
D. Yard and Setback Requirements.
1 The front yard setback shall be a minimum of 20 feet from a property line fronting on a local street
Page 2 of 3 - EXHIBIT J TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
right of way and 50 feet from an arterial right of way.
2. The minimum side yard setback shall be 10 feet.
3. The minimum rear yard setback shall be 20 feet.
4. The minimum side and rear yard setbacks for property that is adjacent to land zoned exclusive farm
use shall be 50 feet.
E Lot Requirements. The minimum lot size shall be the size necessary to accommodate the use, but not less
than one acre.
(Ord. 2018-006 § 10, 2018; Ord. 2002-002 §2, 2002)
Page 3 of 3 - EXHIBIT J TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Chapter 18.76. AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ZONE — A -D
18.76.100. Design and Use Criteria.
The following dimensional standards shall apply in the Airport Districts:
The Planning Director or Hearings Body shall take into account the impact of any proposed conditional
use within the AD Zone on nearby residential and commercial uses, and on the capacity of transportation and
other public facilities and services. In approving a proposed conditional use, the Planning Director or
Hearings Body shall find that:
A. The proposed use is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, including the 1994 Bona Air -P014 Wste
Plan as amended (s"plemented) i i 2002current version of the adopted Bend Airport Master Plan.
B. The proposed use is in compliance with the intent and provisions of DCC Title 18.
C. Any adverse social, economical, physical or environmental impacts are minimized.
D. The proposed use is not sensitive to noise of the character anticipated by the current and expected noise
level contours of the airport.
E. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent agricultural and residential uses.
F. There are sufficient public facilities and services to support the proposed use.
G. The location and site design of the proposed facility will not be hazardous to the safety and general welfare
of surrounding properties, and that the location will not unnecessarily restrict existing and future
development of surrounding lands as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan.
H. The use shall make the most effective use reasonably possible of the site topography, existing landscaping
and building placement so as to preserve existing trees and natural features, preserve vistas and other
views from public ways, minimize visibility of parking, loading and storage areas from public ways and
neighboring residential uses, and minimize intrusion into the character of existing developments and land
uses in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use.
(Ord. 2018-006 §I1, 2018; Ord. 2003-036 §2, 2003; Ord. 91-020 §l, 199 1)
Page 1 of 1 - EXHIBIT K TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Chapter 18.80 AIRPORT SAFETY COMBINING ZONE - AS
18.80.022. Definitions.
A. Aircraft. Helicopters and airplanes, but not hot air balloons or ultralights. (Balloons are governed by
FAR Part 30, and ultralights by FAR Part 103. Ultralights are basically unregulated by the FAA.)
B. Airport. The strip of land used for taking off and landing aircraft, together with all adjacent land used in
connection with the aircraft landing or taking off from the strip of land, including but not limited to land
used for existing airport uses.
C. Airport Direct Impact Area. The area located within 5,000 feet of an airport runway, excluding lands
within the runway protection zone and approach surface. (Redmond, Bend, and Sunriver)
D. Airport Elevation. The highest point of an airport's usable runway, measured in feet above mean sea
level.
E. Airport Imaginary Surfaces (and zones). Imaginary areas in space and on the ground that are established
in relation to the airport and its runways.
For the Redmond, Bend, Sunriver and Sisters airports, the imaginary surfaces are defined by the
primary surface, runway protection zone, approach surface, horizontal surface, conical surface and
transitional surface.
For the Cline Falls and Juniper airports, the imaginary areas are only defined by the primary surface
and approach surface.
F. Airport Noise Criterion. The State criterion for airport noise is an Average Day -Night Sound Level
(DNL) of 55 decibels (dBA). The Airport Noise Criterion is not designed to be a standard for imposing
liability or any other legal obligation except as specifically designated pursuant to OAR 340, Division 35.
G. Airport Noise Impact Boundary. Areas located within 1,500 feet of an airport runway or within
established noise contour boundaries exceeding 55 LdnDNL.
(Ord. 2018-006 02,2018; Ord. 2001-001 §2,2001; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991)
18.80.044. Land Use Compatibility.
Applications for land use or building permits for properties within the boundaries of this overlay zone shall
comply with the requirements of DCC 18.80 as provided herein. When compatibility issues arise, the
Planning Director or Hearings Body is required to take actions that eliminate or minimize the incompatibility
by choosing the most compatible location or design for the boundary or use. Where compatibility issues
persist, despite actions or conditions intended to eliminate or minimize the incompatibility, the Planning
Director or Hearings Body may disallow the use or expansion, except where the action results in loss of current
operational levels and/or the ability of the airport to grow to meet future community needs. Reasonable
conditions to protect the public safety may be imposed by the Planning Director or Hearings Body. [ORS
836.619; ORS 836.623(1); OAR 660-013-0080]
A. Noise. Within airport noise impact boundaries, land uses shall be established consistent with the levels
identified in OAR 660, Division 13, Exhibit 5 (Table 2 of DCC 18.80). Applicants for any subdivision or
partition approval or other land use approval or building permit affecting land within airport noise impact
boundaries, shall sign and record in the Deschutes County Book of Records, a Declaration of Anticipated
Noise declaring that the applicant and his successors will not now, or in the future complain about the
allowed airport activities at the adjacent airport. In areas where the noise level is anticipated to be at or
above 55 LdnDNL, prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of a noise sensitive land use
(real property normally used for sleeping or as a school, church, hospital, public library or similar use),
Page 1 of 2 - EXHIBIT L TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
the permit applicant shall be required to demonstrate that a noise abatement strategy will be incorporated
into the building design that will achieve an indoor noise level equal to or less than 55 L4flDNL. [NOTE:
FAA Order 5100.38A, Chapter 7 provides that interior noise levels should not exceed 45 decibels in all
habitable zones.]
(Ord. 2018-006 � 12, 2018, Ord. 2001-001 §2, 2001; Ord. 91-020 § 1, 199 1)
Page 2 of 2 - EXHIBIT L TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Chapter 18.84. LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING - LM ZONE
18.84.080. Design review standards.
The following standards will be used to evaluate the proposed site plan:
A. Except as necessary for construction of access roads, building pads, septic drainfields, public utility
easements, parking areas, etc., the existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the
designated road, river, or stream shall be retained. This provision does not prohibit maintenance of
existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest
products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act, or agricultural use of the land.
B. It is recommended that new structures and additions to existing structures be finished in muted earth tones
that blend with and reduce contrast with the surrounding vegetation and landscape of the building site.
C. No large areas, including roofs, shall be finished with white, bright or reflective materials. Roofing,
including metal roofing, shall be non -reflective and of a color which blends with the surrounding
vegetation and landscape. DCC 18.84.080 shall not apply to attached additions to structures lawfully in
existence on April 8, 1992, unless substantial improvement to the roof of the existing structure occurs.
D. Subject to applicable rimrock setback requirements or rimrock setback exception standards in DCC 18.
84.090(E), all structures shall be sited to take advantage of existing vegetation, trees and topographic
features in order to reduce visual impact as seen from the designated road, river or stream. When more
than one nonagricultural structure is to exist and no vegetation, trees or topographic features exist which
can reduce visual impact of the subject structure, such structure shall be clustered in a manner which
reduces their visual impact as seen from the designated road, river, or stream.
E. Structures shall not exceed 30 feet in height measured from the natural grade on the side(s) facing the
road, river or stream. Within the LM Zone along a state scenic waterway or federal wild and scenic river,
the height of a structure shall include chimneys, antennas, flag poles or other projections from the roof of
the structure. DCC 18.84.080(E) shall not apply to agricultural structures located at least 50 feet from a
rimrock.
F. New residential or commercial driveway access to designated landscape management roads shall be
consolidated wherever possible.
G. New exterior lighting, including security lighting, shall be sited and shielded so that it is directed
downward and is not directly visible from the designated road, river or stream.
H. The Planning Director or Hearings Body may require the establishment of introduced landscape material
to screen the development, assure compatibility with existing vegetation, reduce glare, direct automobile
and pedestrian circulation or enhance the overall appearance of the development while not interfering
with the views of oncoming traffic at access points, or views of mountains, forests and other open and
scenic areas as seen from the designated landscape management road, river or stream. Use of native
species shall be encouraged. (Formerly section 18.84.080 (C))
I. No signs or other forms of outdoor advertising that are visible from a designated landscape management
river or stream shall be permitted. Property protection signs (No Trespassing, No Hunting, etc.,) are
permitted.
J. A conservation easement as defined in DCC 18.04.2,q -0 -030,, -"Conservation Easement" and specified in
DCC 18.116.220 shall be required as a condition of approval for all landscape management site plans
involving property adjacent to the Deschutes River, Crooked River, Fall River, Little Deschutes River,
Spring River, Whychus Creek and Tumalo Creek. Conservation easements required as a condition of
landscape management site plans shall not require public access.
z'd. " 018-006 13. Ol8 _Ord. 2015-016 5, 2015; Ord. 2001-016 2, 2001; Ord. 97-068 1, 1997; Ord.
(___— ___..__.__._.._._...___ . _. § § §
95-075 §3, 1995; Ord. 93-043 §12A and 12B, 1993; Ord. 92-034 §2, 1992; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 90-
020 § 1 1990; PL -15 1979)
Page 1 of 1 - EXHIBIT M TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Chapter 18.100. RURAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE - R -I
18.100.020. Conditional Uses.
The following uses may be allowed subject to DCC 18.128:
A. Any use permitted by DCC 18.100.010, which is located within 600 feet of a residential dwelling,
a lot within a platted subdivision or a residential zone.
B. Any use permitted by DCC 18.100.010, which involves open storage.
C. Concrete or ready -mix plant.
D. Petroleum products storage and distribution.
E. Storage, crushing and processing of minerals, including the processing of aggregate into
asphaltic concrete or Portland Cement Concrete.
F. Commercial feedlot, stockyard, sales yard, slaughterhouse and rendering plant.
G. Railroad trackage and related facilities.
H. Pulp and paper manufacturing.
I. Any use permitted by DCC 18.100._020010, which is expected to exceed the following standards:
1. Lot coverage in excess of 70 percent.
2. Generation of any odor, dust, fumes, glare, flashing lights or noise that is perceptible without
instruments 500 feet from the property line of the subject use.
J. Manufacture, repair or storage of articles manufactured from bone, cellophane, cloth, cork,
feathers, felt, fiber, glass, stone, paper, plastic, precious or semiprecious stones or metal, wax,
wire, wood, rubber, yarn or similar materials, provided such uses do not create a disturbance
because of odor, noise, dust, smoke, gas, traffic or other factors.
K. Processing, packaging and storage of food and beverages including those requiring distillation
and fermentation.
T Public Landiim Tran3i%.,r .Citation, iiaciudiiig revy'vling and other relate d a1ti1itie3
L.
M. Mini -storage facility.
N. Automotive wrecking yard totally enclosed by a sight -obscuring fence.
O. Wireless telecommunications facilities, except those facilities meeting the requirements of DCC
18.116.250(A) or (B).
P. Utility facility.
Q. Manufacturing, storage, sales, rental, repair and servicing of equipment and materials associated
with farm and forest uses, logging, road maintenance, mineral extraction, construction or similar
rural activities.
R. Electrical substations.
S. Marijuana retailing, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330.
T. Marijuana processing including cannabinoid extracts, subject to the provisions of DCC
18.116.330
U. Marijuana production in the vicinity of Deschutes Junction, subject to the provisions of DCC
18.116.330.
(Ord. 2018-006 � 14, 2018; Ord. 2016-015 § 8, 2016; Ord. 2004-013, § 10, 2004; Ord. 2002-126, § 1,
2002; Ord. 2001-039 §12, 2001; Ord. 2001-016 §2, 2001; Ord. 97-063 §3, 1997; Ord. 91-038 §1,
1991; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 90-014 §38, 1990; Ord. 86-018 §15, 1986)
18.100.030. Use Limitations.
In an R -I Zone, the following limitations and standards shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses:
A. Properties subject to a limited use combining zone shall be limited to those uses and conditions
Page 1 of 3 - EXHIBIT N TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
specified in the limited use combining zone.
B. No use expected to generate more than 30 truck -trailer or other heavy equipment trips per day to and from
the subject property shall be permitted to locate on a lot adjacent to or across a street from a residential
dwelling, a lot in a platted subdivision or a residential zone.
C. No use shall be permitted that generates more than 20 auto or truck trips during the busiest hour of the
day to and from the premises unless served directly by an arterial or collector or other improved street or
road designed to serve the industrial use which does not pass through or adjacent to residential lots in a
platted subdivision or a residential zone.
D. Any use on a lot adjacent to or across the street from a residential dwelling, a lot in a platted subdivision
or a residential zone shall not emit odor, dust, fumes, glare, flashing lights, noise, or similar disturbances
perceptible without instruments more than 200 feet in the direction of the affected residential use or lot.
E. All parking demand created by any use permitted by DCC 18.100.020 010 of 030 020010 or 18.100.020
shall be accommodated on the applicant's premises entirely off-street.
F. No use permitted by DCC 18.100.024010 844or 830-18.100.020 shall require the backing of traffic onto
a public or private street or road right of way.
G. There shall be only one ingress and one egress from properties accommodating uses permitted by DCC
18.100.02&010 or 030 02018.100.020 per each 300 feet or fraction thereof of street frontage. If necessary
to meet this requirement, permitted uses shall provide for shared ingress and egress.
H. All uses permitted by DCC 18.100.820-010 or 83418.100.020 shall be screened from adjoining residential
uses by a sight -obscuring fence.
I. No use shall be permitted to operate for business between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. if located
adjacent to or across the street from a residential dwelling, a lot in a platted subdivision or a residential
zone except as is consistent with DCC 8.08.
J. No use shall be permitted which has been declared a nuisance by state statute, County ordinance or a court
of competent jurisdiction. No use requiring contaminant discharge permits shall be approved by the
Planning Director or Hearings Body prior to review by the applicable state or federal permit -reviewing
authority, nor shall such uses be permitted adjacent to or across a street from a residential use or lot.
K. Residential and industrial uses shall be served by DEQ approved on-site sewage disposal systems.
L. Residential and industrial uses shall be served by on-site wells or public water systems.
(Ord. 2018-006 §14, 2018; Ord. 2009-008 §2; Ord. 2004-013, §10, 2004; Ord. 2002-126, §1, 2002; Ord.
91-020 §1, 1991)
18.100.040. Dimensional Standards.
In an R -I Zone, the following dimensional standards shall apply:
A. The minimum lot size shall be determined subject to the provisions of DCC 18.100.050.
B. No conditional use permitted by DCC 18.100.030-020 that is located within 600 feet of a residential use,
lot in a platted subdivision or a residential zone shall exceed 70 percent lot coverage by all buildings,
storage areas or facilities and required off-street parking and loading area.
C. The minimum setback between a structure and a street or road shall be 50 feet.
D. The minimum setback between a structure and a property line adjoining a residential lot or use shall be
50 feet.
E. The minimum rear or side yard setback shall be 25 feet unless a greater setback is required by DCC
18.100.050 G or P070 A .
F. The maximum building height for any structure shall be 30 feet on any lot adjacent to or across a street
from a residential use or lot and 45 feet on any other lot.
G. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or
structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met.
H. Maximum industrial use floor area.
1. The maximum size of a building is 7,500 square feet of floor space. The maximum square footage in
a building or buildings for a single allowable use, as defined in DCC 18.100.020 and 18.100.030, on
Page 2 of 3 - EXHIBIT N TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
an individual lot or parcel shall not exceed 7,500 square feet. There is no building size limit for uses
that are for the primary processing of raw materials produced in rural areas.
2. A lawfully established use that existed on or before 02/25/03 may be expanded to occupy a maximum
of 10,000 square feet of floor area or an additional 25 percent of the floor area currently occupied by
the existing use which ever is greater.
(Ord. 2018-006 X14, 2018; Ord. 2002-126, §1, 2002; Ord. 95-075 §1, 1995; Ord. 94-008 §26, 1994; Ord.
91-020 §1, 1991)
18.100.070. Additional Requirements.
As a condition of approval of any use proposed within an R -I Zone, the Planning Director or Hearings Body
may require:
A. An increase in required setbacks.
B. Additional off-street parking and loading facilities.
C. Limitations on signs or lighting, hours of operation, and points of ingress and egress.
D. Additional landscaping, screening and other improvements.
(Ord. 2018-006 X14,2018; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991)
Page 3 of 3 - EXHIBIT N TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Chapter 18.116. SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
18.116.010. Authorization of Similar Uses.
18.116.020. Clear Vision Areas.
18.116.030. Off -Street Parking and Loading.
18.116.031. Bicycle Parking.
18.116.035. Bicycle Commuter Facilities
18.116.036 Special Parking Provisions for the Sunriver Town Center District
18.116.040. Accessory Uses.
18.116.050. Manufactured Homes.
18.116.070. Placement Standards for Manufactured Homes.
18.116.080. Manufactured Home or RV as a Temporary Residence on an Individual Lot.
18.116.090. A Manufactured Home or RV as a Temporary Residence for Medical
Condition.
18.116.095. Recreational Vehicle as a Temporary Residence on an Individual Lot.
18.116.100. Building Projections.
18.116.200. Repealed.
18.116.120. Fences.
18.116.130. Hydroelectric Facilities.
18.116.140. Electrical Substations.
18.116.150. Endangered Species.
18.116.160. Rimrock Setbacks Outside of LM Combining Zone.
18.116.170. Solar Height Restrictions.
18.116.180. Building Setbacks for the Protection of Solar Access.
18.116.190. Solar Access Permit.
18.116.200. Repealed.
18.116.210. Residential Homes and Residential Facilities.
18.116.215. Family Childcare Provider.
18.116.220. Conservation Easements on Property Adjacent to Rivers and
Streams -Prohibitions.
18.116.230. Standards for Class I and II Road Projects.
18.116.240. Protection of Historic Sites.
18.116.250. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
18.116.260. Rock Crushing Outside the SM Zone.
18.116.270. Conducting Filming Activities in All Zones.
18.116.280. Home Occupations.
18.116.290. Amateur Radio Facilities
18.116.300. Wind Energy Systems that Generate Less than 100 kW
18.116.310. Traffic Impact Studies
18.116.320. Medical Marijuana Dispensary
18.116.330 Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing
18.116.340 Marijuana Production Registered by the Oregon Health Authority (ORA)
18 116.350 Accessory Dwelling Units in RR -10 and MUA Zones
18.116.180. Building Setbacks for the Protection of Solar Access.
A. Purpose. The purpose of DCC 18.116.180 is to provide as much solar access as practical during
the winter solar heating hours to existing or potential buildings by requiring all new structures,
Page 1 of 4 - EXHIBIT 0 TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
excepting lots less than 10,000 square feet in size or under 80 -feet average width, as defined by
DCC 17.08.030 "lot width," and located in the Neighborhood Planning Area of the Urban
Unincorporated Community — La Pine, to be constructed as far south on their lots as is necessary
and feasible.
B. Standards. Every new structure or addition to an existing structure, excepting lots less than
10,000 square feet in size or under 80 -feet average width, as defined by DCC 17.08.030 "lot
width," and located in the Neighborhood Planning Area of the Urban Unincorporated Community
— La Pine, shall meet the following standards for a solar setback from the north lot line, except as
provided in DCC 18.116.180(B)(3):
1. South Wall Protection Standard. The south wall protection standard is based on an eight -
foot solar fence on the subject property's north lot line which allows solar radiation on a
neighboring building's south wall above two feet from the ground, assuming a 20 -foot
setback from the common property line to the neighboring building. Solar setbacks for the
south wall protection standards can be calculated with the diagram in Appendix A-1 or
estimated with the table in Appendix A-2. Final determination of solar setback distance is
made by entering the following variables into the Deschutes County Shadow Length
computer program:
a. Pole height;
b. The eight -foot fence height;
c. The scale of the plot plan submitted in feet per inch; and
d. Degrees of slope of the land from east to west and from north to south.
e. If a setback meeting this requirement is not feasible due to physical constraints of the lot,
including, but not limited to, rock outcroppings, septic systems, existing legal restrictions
or lot dimensions, as determined by the Planning Director or Hearings Body, then the
structure or addition must be located as far to the south on the lot as feasible and must
meet the standard set forth in DCC 18.116.180(B)(2).
2. South Roof Protection Standard. The south roof protection standard is based on a 14 foot
solar fence on the subject property's north lot line which allows for solar radiation on a
neighboring building above eight feet from ground level and assuming a 20 foot setback from
the common boundary line to the neighboring building. Solar setbacks for this standard can
be calculated using the diagram in Appendix B-1 or estimated using the table in Appendix
B-2. Final determination of the setback will be made using the Shadow Length computer
program by specifying a 14 -foot solar fence and additional site specific information as listed
in DCC 18.116.180(B)(1).
3. Exceptions. The south roof protection standard shall not apply only if the applicant
establishes:
a. That the structure cannot be located on the lot without violating the requirements
contained in Appendix B; and
b. That the structure is built with its highest point as far to the south as feasible; and
1) That the structure is a single family residence with a highest point less than or equal
to 16 feet high; or, if not a single family residence;
2) That it is a permitted or conditional use for the lot.
4. Exemptions.
a. The governing body may exempt from the provision of DCC 18.116.180 any area where
it is determined that solar uses are not feasible because the area is already substantially
shaded due to heavy vegetation, steep north facing slopes, and any area or zones in which
taller buildings are planned.
b. The Planning Director or Hearings Body shall exempt a structure from the provisions of
DCC 18.116.180 if the structure will shade only a protected area in which solar uses are
not feasible because the protected area is already substantially shaded at the time a
request for exemption is made and approved by the Planning Director or Hearings Body.
Page 2 of 4 - EXHIBIT 0 TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
c. The Planning Director or Hearings Body shall exempt a structure from the provisions of
DCC 18.116.180 if the structure is in conformance with a solar height restriction as
provided in DCC Title 17, the Subdivision/Partition Ordinance, as amended.
5. Variances.
a. The Planning Director or Hearings Body may authorize a variance from the requirements
of DCC 18.116.180.
b. A variance may be granted subject to prescribed conditions, provided that the Planning
Director or Hearings Body shall make all of the following findings:
i. The variance does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy or insolation by
future buildings on the property to be shaded;
ii. The variance does not diminish any solar access which benefits a habitable structure
on adjacent lot or parcel;
c. Shaded property.
i. Notwithstanding DCC 18.116.180(B)(5)(ab)(i) and (ii), if property is to be shaded
that is other than the property for which the variance is sought, in order for the
County to approve the variance, the applicant must provide written consent to the
shading from the owner or owners of all property to be shaded.
ii. The written consent shall be recorded in the Deschutes County Official Records.
iii. The written consent shall be on a form provided by the County and shall contain the
following information:
a). The notarized signatures of all owners and registered leaseholders who hold an
interest in the property being shaded;
b). A statement that the solar access provided in DCC 18.116.180 is waived for that
particular structure and the County is held harmless for any damages resulting
from the waiver.
c). A statement that the waiver applies only to the specific building or buildings to
which the waiver is granted;
d). A description and drawing of the shading which would occur; and
e) A statement binding all successors in interest.
(Ord. 2018-006 05, 2018, Ord. 2012-007 §5, 2012; Ord. 2006-035 §2, 2006; Ord. 2004-013 §12,
2004; Ord. 91-038 §1, 1991; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 83-037 §3, 1983)
18.116.350. Accessory Dwelling Units in RR -10 and MUA Zones
A. As used in this section:
1. "Accessory dwelling unit" means a residential structure that is used in connection with or
that is auxiliary to a single-family dwelling.
2 "Area zoned for rural residential use" means land that is not located inside an urban growth
boundary as defined in ORS 195.060 and that is subiect to an acknowledged exception to
a statewide land use planning goal relating to farmland or forestland and planned and zoned
by the county to allow residential use as a primary use.
3 "Historic home" means a single-family dwelling constructed between 1850 and 1945.
4 "New" means that the dwelling being constructed did not previously exist in residential or
nonresidential form. "New" does not include the acquisition, alteration, renovation or
remodeling of an existine structure.
5 "Single-family dwelling" means a residential structure designed as a residence for one
family and sharing no common wall with another residence of any type.
B An owner of a lot or parcel within an area zoned for rural residential use (RR 10 and MUA
zones) may construct a new single-family dwelling on the lot or parcel, provided:
Page 3 of 4 - EXHIBIT 0 TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
I The lot or parcel is not located in an area designated as an urban reserve as defined in ORS
195.137;
2 The lot or parcel is at least two acres in size;
3 A historic home is sited on the lot or parcel;
4 The owner converts the historic home to an accessory dwelling unit upon completion of
the new single-family dwelling; and
5 The accessory dwelling unit complies with all applicable laws and regulations relating to
sanitation and wastewater disposal and treatment.
C The construction of an accessory dwelling under subsection (B) of this section is a land use
action subject to DCC 22.20.
D An owner that constructs a new single-family dwelling under subsection (B) of this section
may not:
1 Subdivide partition or otherwise divide the lot or parcel so that the new single-family
dwelling is situated on a different lot or parcel from the accessory dwelling unit.
2 Alter, renovate or remodel the accessory dwelling unit so that the square footage of the
accessory dwelling unit is more than 120 percent of the historic home's square footage at
the time construction of the new single-family dwelling commenced.
3 Rebuild the accessory dwelling unit if the structure is lost to fire.
4 Construct an additional accessory dwelling unit on the same lot or parcel.
5 A new single-family dwelling constructed under this section may be required to be served
by the same water simply source as the accessory dwelling unit.
(Ord. 2018-006_ 15, 2018)
Page 4 of 4 - EXHIBIT 0 TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Chapter 18.124. SITE PLAN REVIEW
18.124.060. Approval Criteria.
Approval of a site plan shall be based on the following criteria:
A. The proposed development shall relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing
development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views and
topographical features.
B. The landscape and existing topography shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible, considering
development constraints and suitability of the landscape and topography. Preserved trees and shrubs shall
be protected.
C. The site plan shall be designed to provide a safe environment, while offering appropriate opportunities
for privacy and transition from public to private spaces.
D. When appropriate, the site plan shall provide for the special needs of disabled persons, such as ramps for
wheelchairs and Braille signs.
E. The location and number of points of access to the site, interior circulation patterns, separations between
pedestrians and moving and parked vehicles, and the arrangement of parking areas in relation to buildings
and structures shall be harmonious with proposed and neighboring buildings and structures.
F. Surface drainage systems shall be designed to prevent adverse impacts on neighboring properties, streets,
or surface and subsurface water quality.
G. Areas, structures and facilities for storage, machinery and equipment, services (mail, refuse, utility wires,
and the like), loading and parking and similar accessory areas and structures shall be designed, located
and buffered or screened to minimize adverse impacts on the site and neighboring properties.
H. All above -ground utility installations shall be located to minimize adverse visual impacts on the site and
neighboring properties.
I. Specific criteria are outlined for each zone and shall be a required part of the site plan (e.g. lot setbacks,
etc.).
J. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off-site.
K. Transportation access to the site shall be adequate for the use.
1. Where applicable, issues including, but not limited to, sight distance, turn and
acceleration/deceleration lanes, right-of-way, roadway surfacing and widening, and bicycle and
pedestrian connections, shall be identified.
2. Mitigation for transportation -related impacts shall be required.
3. Mitigation shall meet applicable County standards in DCC 17.16 and DCC 17.4818.116.310,
applicable Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) mobility and access standards, and
applicable American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
standards.
(Ord. 2018-006 06, 2018; Ord. 2010-018 §2, 2010, Ord. 93-043 §§21, 22 and 22A, 1993; Ord. 91-038 §1,
1991; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991)
Page 1 of 1 - EXHIBIT P TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Chapter 18.128. CONDITIONAL USE
18.128.340. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
An application for a conditional use permit for a wireless telecommunications facility or its equivalent
in the £Forest, or Surface Mining Zones shall comply with the applicable standards, setbacks
and criteria of the base zone and any combining zone and the following requirements. Site plan review
under DCC 18.124 including site plan review for a use that would otherwise require site plan review
under DCC 18.84 shall not be required.
(Ord. 2018-006 X17, 2018; Ord. 2010-011 §2, Ord. 2000-019 §2, 2000; Ord. 97-063 §2, 1997; Ord.
97-017 §8,1997)
18.128.360. Guest Ranch.
A guest ranch established under DCC 18.16.037 shall meet the following conditions:
A. Except as provided in DCC 18.128.360(C), the guest lodging units cumulatively shall:
1. Include not less than four nor more than 10 overnight guest lodging units, and;
2. Not exceed a total of 12,000 square feet in floor area, not counting the floor area of the lodge
that is dedicated to kitchen area, rest rooms, storage or other shared or common indoor space.
B. The guest ranch shall be located on a lawfully established unit of land that:
1. Is at least 160 acres in size;
2. Contains the dwelling of the person conducting the livestock operation; and
3. Is not classified as high value farmland as defined in DCC 18.04.030.
C. For every increment of 160 acres that the lawfully established unit of land on which the guest
ranch is located exceeds the minimum 160 -acre requirement described under DCC
18.128.360(B), up to five additional overnight guest lodging units not exceeding a total of 6,000
square feet of floor area may be included in the guest ranch for a total of not more than 25 guest
lodging units and 30,000 square feet of floor area.
D. A guest ranch may provide recreational activities in conjunction with the livestock operation's
natural setting, including but not limited to hunting, fishing, hiking, biking, horseback riding and
swimming. Intensively developed recreational facilities including golf courses or campgrounds
identified in DCC 18.16.030 through 18.16.033, shall not be allowed in conjunction with a guest
ranch, and a guest ranch shall not be allowed in conjunction with an existing golf course or with
an existing campground.
E. Food services shall be incidental to the operation of the guest ranch and shall be provided only
for the guests of the guest ranch, individuals accompanying the guests, and individuals attending
a special event at the guest ranch.
1. The cost of meals, if any, may be included in the fee to visit or stay at the guest ranch.
2. The sale of individual meals to persons who are not guests of the guest ranch, an individual
accompanying a guest, or an individual attending a special event at the guest ranch shall not be
allowed.
F. The exterior of the buildings shall maintain a residential appearance.
G. To promote privacy and preserve the integrity of the natural setting, guest ranches shall retain
existing vegetation around the guest lodging structure.
Page 1 of 2 - EXHIBIT Q TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
H. All lighting shall be shielded and directed downward in accordance with DCC 15. 10, Outdoor
Lighting Control.
I. Signage shall be restricted to one sign no greater than 20 square feet, nonilluminated and posted
at the entrance to the property.
J. Occupancies shall be limited to not more than 30 days.
K. The guest ranch shall be operated in a way that will protect neighbors from unreasonable
disturbance from noise, dust, traffic or trespass.
L. One off-street parking space shall be provided for each guestroom in addition to parking to serve
the residents.
M. Any conversion or alterations to properties designated as historic landmarks shall be approved
by the Deschutes County Historical Landmarks Commission.
(Ord. 2010-022 §3, 2010; Ord. 2004-020 §2, 2004; Ord. 2004-001 §3, 2004; Ord. 2001-043 §1, 2001;
Ord. 98-056 §2,1998)
Note: DCC 18.128.360 is repealed anuat-y 2 201 April 15, 2020 (Ord. 2018-006 §17, 2018, Ord.
2010-022 §3, 2010).
Page 2 of 2 - EXHIBIT Q TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Chapter 22.24. LAND USE ACTION HEARINGS
22.24.160. Reopening the Record.
A. The Hearings Body may at its discretion reopen the record, either upon request or on its own initiative.
The Hearings Body shall not reopen the record at the request of an applicant unless the applicant has
agreed in writing to an extension or a waiver of the 150 -day time limit.
B. Procedures.
1. Except as otherwise provided for in DCC 22.24.160, the manner of testimony (whether oral or
written) and time limits for testimony to be offered upon reopening of the record shall be at the
discretion hof the Hearings Body.
2. The Hearings Body shall give written notice to the parties that the record is being reopened, stating
the reason for reopening the record and how parties can respond. The parties shall be allowed to raise
new issues that relate to the new evidence, testimony or criteria for decision-making that apply to the
matter at issue.
(Ord. 2018-006 18, 2018; Ord. 99-031 § 10, 1999; Ord. 96-071 § 1 D, 1996; Ord. 95-045 §21, 1995)
Page 1 of 1 - EXHIBIT R TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Chapter 22.28. LAND USE ACTION DECISIONS
22.28.070. Compliance with ORS 215.418.
A. Final approval of any activity referred to in ORS 215.418(1) regarding state -identified wetlands must
include the notice statements required by ORS 215.418(3).
B. Individual notice to the applicant and the owner of record consistent with ORS 215.418(5) shall be
provided, unless notice in the written decision notice satisfies that requirement.
C. Failure of the County to provide notice as required in DCC 22.28.070 shall not invalidate county approval.
D. DCC 22.28.070 shall not become operative until the Division Department of State Lands makes available
to the County a copy of the applicable portion of the Statewide Wetland Inventory.
(Ord. 2018-006 §19,2018, Ord. 90-007 §1, 1990)
Page 1 of 1 - EXHIBIT S TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Map Symbols
r ®® Bend City Limit
® Subject Property 17-11-00-00-02735
Zoning
F1 - Forest Use 1
-.: F2 - Forest Use 2
OSBC - Open Space And Conservation
RR10 - Rural Residential
SM - Surface Mining
UAR10 - Urban Area Reserve 10 Acre Minimum
PROPOSED ZONING MAP
Todd & Lorri Taylor
18550 Bull Springs Rd, Bend
Exhibit 'T"
to Ordinance 2018-006 §20, 2018
200 400 800
Feel
June 7, 2018
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
Anthony DeBone, Chair
Phil Henderson, Vic;Z - it
Tammy Baney, Commissioner
ATTEST. Recording Secretary
Dated this day of July, 2018
Effective Date: 2018
Q
l`
9�
Zone Change From RR10 to F1
18550 Bull Springs Rd
17-11-00-00-02735
0
s
r
o -
BULL SPRINGS RD
■
1
r
i
{
d
PARK RO
®
SNEjUN
P
a
e
e
Map Symbols
r ®® Bend City Limit
® Subject Property 17-11-00-00-02735
Zoning
F1 - Forest Use 1
-.: F2 - Forest Use 2
OSBC - Open Space And Conservation
RR10 - Rural Residential
SM - Surface Mining
UAR10 - Urban Area Reserve 10 Acre Minimum
PROPOSED ZONING MAP
Todd & Lorri Taylor
18550 Bull Springs Rd, Bend
Exhibit 'T"
to Ordinance 2018-006 §20, 2018
200 400 800
Feel
June 7, 2018
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
Anthony DeBone, Chair
Phil Henderson, Vic;Z - it
Tammy Baney, Commissioner
ATTEST. Recording Secretary
Dated this day of July, 2018
Effective Date: 2018
I911111ILI �
1. APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
II. BASIC FINDINGS:
A. PROPOSAL: The Planning Division determined minor changes were necessary to clarify
existing standards and procedural requirements, incorporate changes to state law, and
correct errors found in various sections of the Deschutes County Code (DCC). Staff initiated
the proposed changes and notified the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development.
III. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS:
A. CHAPTER 22.12, LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURES
Section 22.12.010.
Hearing Required
FINDING: This criterion will be met because a public hearing will be held before the Deschutes
County Planning Commission and 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: This criterion will be met by notice being published in the Bend Bulletin newspaper.
B. Posted Notice. Notice shall be posted at the discretion of the Planning Director
and where necessary to comply with ORS 203.045.
PAGE 1 OF 10 - EXHIBIT U TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
FINDING: This criterion will be met when notice is 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 proposed legislative amendments do not apply to any specific property, no
individual notices were sent.
D. Media notice. Copies of the notice of hearing shall be transmitted to other
newspapers published in Deschutes County.
FINDING: Notice will be provided to the County public information official for wider media
distribution. 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. 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.
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: These criteria will be met.
5. Section 22.12.050 Final Decision
All legislative changes shall be adopted by ordinance
FINDING: The proposed legislative changes included in file no. 247 -18 -000432 -TA will be
implemented by ordinances upon approval and adoption by the Board. This criterion will be met.
PAGE 2 OF 10 - EXHIBIT U TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
IV. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS:
The proposed text amendments are detailed in the referenced ordinance attached hereto with
additional text identified by underline and deleted text by strike*"reg . Below are explanations of
the proposed changes.
A. Title 17, Subdivisions:
Chapter 17.24 FINAL PLAT
Section 17.24.110. Conditions of Approval
Section 17.24.120. Improvement Agreement
DCC 17.24.110(A) and 17.24.120(A) each contain a scrivener's error (the words "plan" and "one,"
respectively). The proposed amendment corrects these errors.
B. Title 18, County Zoning:
Chapter 18.04. TITLE, PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS
Section 18.04.030. Definitions.
DCC 18.04.030 defines "agricultural land" by referring to the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS);
the proposed amendment changes this reference to the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) in order to be consistent with OAR/ORS.
DCC 18.04.030 currently omits a definition for "vacation trailer." However, the definitions for
"trailer" and "travel trailer" both contain references to "vacation trailer." The proposed
amendment reinstates the definition of "vacation trailer" from previous versions of the code in
order for the reference to be complete.
Chapter 18.16 EXCLUSIVE FARM USE ZONES
Table of Contents
The Table of Contents for Chapter 18.16 contains an older title for section 18.16.025. In
examining the ordinance history for this section, it was determined that the correct section title
is the one used in the section itself, which was changed in Ordinance 2012-004. The proposed
amendment replaces the outdated title in the Table of Contents with the correct section title.
Section 18.16.020. Uses Permitted Outright
DCC 18.16.020(N) discusses the onsite treatment of septage prior to the land application of
biosolids. Amendments in 2018 to Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-033-0120 and OAR
660-033-0130 further refine the standards for onsite treatment of septage prior to the land
application of biosolids. The proposed amendment adds these standards to reflect the change.
PAGE 3 OF 10 — EXHIBIT U TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Section 18.16.030. Conditional Uses Permitted - High -Value and Non -High Value Farmland
DCC 18.16.030(DD) defines criteria for photovoltaic solar power generation facilities on both
high- and non -high-value farmland. ORS 215.447 provides additional provisions for photovoltaic
solar power generation facilities in high-value farmland only. The proposed amendment
includes these additional provisions.
DCC 18.16.030(FF) has been added to this section pursuant to recent amendments to ORS
215.213. This amendment allows equine -related therapeutic and counseling activities in an EFU
zone. The proposed amendment adds this use and its conditions as defined in ORS 215.213.
Section 18.16.037. Guest Ranch
DCC 18.16.037 defines criteria for guest ranches in the EFU zone. Previously, this chapter was
due to sunset in 2012, and then in 2018; however, in 2018, Oregon HB 4031 extended this sunset
date to April 15, 2020. The proposed amendment reflects this change.
Section 18.16.040. Limitations on Conditional Uses
DCC 18.16.040(C) contains a reference to section 18.16.030(L); the correct reference should be
to 18.16.030(K). The proposed amendment corrects this error.
DCC 18.16.040(E) contains a reference to section 18.16.030(M); the correct reference should be
to 18.16.030(L). The proposed amendment corrects this error.
Section 18.16.050. Standards for Dwellings in the EFU Zones
DCC 18.16.050(A)(3)(a)(i) outlines the criteria for the gross annual income test to allow a dwelling
on non -high-value farmland. The code currently requires a gross annual income of at least
$32,500. However, OAR 660-033-0135(3) currently requires a gross annual income of $40,000.
The proposed amendment changes the income requirement to reflect the requirements in OAR
660-033-0135(3), and changes an additional reference to the gross annual income text in DCC
18.16.050(C)(2)(a), Accessory Dwelling.
DCC 18.16.050(G)(3) contains an outdated reference to DCC 18.16.050(l)(2), Wildlife
Conservation Plan Dwelling, which no longer exists. The proposed amendment removes this
reference. In addition, this section contains outdated references to ORS 308A.068, 321.352,
321.730 or 321.815. The proposed amendment corrects these references to reflect those in
ORS 215.236.
DCC 18.16.050(H)(1)(a) describes the conditions in which a temporary hardship dwelling is
allowed in the EFU zone. DCC 18.116.090(A) had previously been changed to allow an
existing building to be used for a medical hardship dwelling in the EFU and Forest zones
only. However, medical hardship dwellings for the EFU zone are defined in its own section,
PAGE 4 OF 10 — EXHIBIT U TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
not in DCC 18.116.090(A). The proposed amendment modifies DCC 18.16.050(H)(1)(a) to
allow medical hardship dwellings in existing buildings, as described in DCC 18.116.090(A).
Chapter 18.32. MULTIPLE USE AGRICULTURAL ZONE - MUA
Section 18.32.020. Uses Permitted Outright
DCC 18.32.020 describes the uses permitted outright in the MUA zone. Per 2017 Oregon HB
3012, the owner of a lot or parcel of at least two acres zoned for rural residential uses is now
allowed to construct a new single-family dwelling on a lot or parcel if the owner converts an
existing historic home to accessory dwelling unit. The proposed amendment adds accessory
dwelling units as a use permitted outright, subject to the conditions in DCC 18.116.350,
Chapter 18.36. FOREST USE ZONE - F-1
Section 18.36.030. Conditional Uses Permitted
DCC 18.32.030(X) defines the type of building that can be used for a temporary medical hardship.
DCC 18.116.090(A) had previously been changed to allow an existing building to be used for
a medical hardship dwelling in the EFU and Forest zones only, but it was not reflected in this
chapter. The proposed amendment modifies DCC 18.36.030(X) to allow medical hardship
dwellings in existing buildings, as described in DCC 18.116.090(A).
Section 18.36.040. Limitations on Conditional Uses
nrr 1 R -�h nAnrcl dPfinPs tha uses under which the landowner must sign and record a written
statement recognizing the rights of adjacent and nearby landowners to conduct forest
operations consistent with the Forest Practices Act and Rules. However, it omits single-family
dwelling uses in this list. OAR 660-006-0029, Siting Standards for Dwellings and Structures in
Forest Zones, does include single family residential uses. The proposed amendment adds single-
family residential uses to this list to reflect Oregon Administrative Rule.
Chapter 18.40. FOREST USE ZONE - F-2
Section 18.40.030. Conditional Uses Permitted
DCC 18.40.030(Z) defines the type of building that can be used for a temporary medical hardship.
DCC 18.116.090(A) had previously been changed to allow an existing building to be used for
a medical hardship dwelling in the EFU and Forest zones only, but it was not reflected in this
chapter. The proposed amendment modifies DCC 18.40.030(2) to allow medical hardship
dwellings in existing buildings, as described in DCC 18.116.090(A).
Section 18.40.040. Limitations on Conditional Uses
DCC 18.40.040(C) defines the uses under which the landowner must sign and record a written
statement recognizing the rights of adjacent and nearby landowners to conduct forest
operations consistent with the Forest Practices Act and Rules. However, it omits single-family
dwelling uses in this list. OAR 660-006-0029, Siting Standards for Dwellings and Structures in
PAGE 5 OF 10 - EXHIBIT U TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Forest Zones, does include single family residential uses. The proposed amendment adds single-
family residential uses to this list to reflect Oregon Administrative Rule.
Section 18.40.050. Standards for Single -Family Dwellings
DCC 18.40.050(D)(1) and (2) describe the requirements for a single-family template dwelling in a
forest zone. However, these sections do not accurately reflect the current requirements listed
in OAR 660-006-027(5). The proposed amendment revises these sections to accurately reflect
the requirements set forth in OAR 660-006-027(5).
Chapter 18.60. RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE - RR -10
Section 18.60.020. Uses Permitted Outright
DCC 18.60.020 describes the uses permitted outright in the RR -10 zone. Per 2017 Oregon HB
3012, the owner of a lot or parcel of at least two acres zoned for rural residential uses is now
allowed to construct a new single-family dwelling on a lot or parcel if the owner converts an
existing historic home to accessory dwelling unit. The proposed amendment adds accessory
dwelling units as a use permitted outright, subject to the conditions in DCC 18.116.350.
Chapter 18.65. RURAL SERVICE CENTER - UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY ZONE
Section 18.65.020. RSC - Commercial/Mixed Use District (Brothers, Hampton, Millican,
Whistlestop and Wildhunt)
DCC 18.65.020(E)(2) describes the lot requirements that are to be applied to Brothers, Hampton,
Millican, Whistlestop and Wildhunt. However, DCC 18.65.020(E)(2)(b) notes requirements for
Alfalfa, when in fact Alfalfa has its own section below. The proposed amendment removes the
reference to Alfalfa from this section and places it in DCC 18.65.021.
Section 18.65.021. Alfalfa RSC - Commercial/Mixed Use District
DCC 18.65.021 contains a scrivener's error in the section number, appearing as 18.65.21." The
proposed amendment fixes this error, adding a zero into the section number.
DCC 18.65.021(A), (B) and (C) define uses by referring to the code section pertaining to
Brothers, Hampton, Millican, Whistlestop and Wildhunt (DCC18.65.020), with several use
exceptions. For clarity, permitted and conditional uses have been listed individually rather than
referring the reader to another section.
DCC 18.65.021 previously did not contain sections for yard and setback requirements or for lot
requirements. It was determined that this was likely an inadvertent omission. The proposed
amendment adds section 18.65.021(D), Yard and Setback Requirements, utilizing the
standards from DCC 18.65.020 as done in DCC 18.65.021(A), (B) and (C). In addition, the
proposed amendment adds section 18.65.021(E), Lot Requirements, populated with the text
that was removed from 18.65.020(E)(2).
PAGE 6 OF 10 — EXHIBIT U TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
Chapter 18.76. AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ZONE - A -D
Section 18.76.100. Design and Use Criteria
DCC 18.76.100(A) describes the conditions required for approval of a conditional use, and refers
to the Comprehensive Plan and the 1994 Bend Airport Master Plan as amended in 2002. For
clarity, the proposed amendment changes the reference to the "current version of the adopted
Bend Airport Master Plan." (See Exhibit 1)
Chapter 18.80. AIRPORT SAFETY COMBINING ZONE - AS
Section 18.80.022. Definitions
Section 18.80.044. Land Use Compatibility
DCC 18.80.022(G) and 18.80.044(A) contain references to "Ldn" and "DNL" (Average Day -Night
Sound Level) when referring to noise levels in airport areas; however, the code defines only DNL.
While both abbreviations are generally used interchangeably, the proposed amendment
changes instances of "Ldn" to "DNL" for purposes of clarification.
Chapter 18.84. LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING - LM ZONE
Section 18.84.080. Design Review Standards
DCC 18.84.080()) contains a scrivener's error in referring to the definition of "conservation
easement." The proposed amendment corrects this area to provide reference to the correct
section.
Chapter 18.100. RURAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE - R -I
Section 18.100.020. Conditional Uses
DCC 18.100.020(l) contains an erroneous section reference when referring to uses permitted
outright in DCC 18.100.020. The proposed amendment corrects this reference to the
appropriate subsection, DCC 18.100.010.
Section 18.100.030. Use Limitations
DCC 18.100.030(E), (F), (G), and (H) all contain the same scrivener's error when referring to
Sections 18.100.010 or 18.100.020, utilizing an incorrect numbering convention. The proposed
amendment corrects the references in each of these sections to "DCC 18.100.010 or 18.100.020."
Section 18.100.040. Dimensional Standards
DCC 18.100.040(B) refers to the section on conditional uses by the incorrect section number.
The proposed amendment corrects this error.
PAGE 7 OF 10 — EXHIBIT U TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
DCC 18.100.040(E) refers to setback requirements, but references two sections that do not exist
in County Code. The proposed amendment corrects this reference to the appropriate
subsection, DCC 18.100.070(A).
Section 18.100.070. Additional Requirements
DCC 18.100.070 contains a scrivener's error in the section number, appearing as "18.100.70."
The proposed amendment fixes this error, adding a zero into the section number.
Chapter 18.116. SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
Table of Contents
The proposed amendment adds a new subsection to the end of the Table of Contents, Accessory
Dwelling Units in RR10 and MUA Zones (see below for description of section).
Section 18.116.180. Building Setbacks for the Protection of Solar Access
DCC 18.116.180(13)(5)(c)(i) refers to the requirements for obtaining a variance if said variance will
result in the shading of property other than the property for which the variance is sought. The
section contains an error in the reference to the section describing the required findings by the
Planning Director or Hearings Body. The proposed amendment corrects the reference to the
appropriate subsection, DCC 18.116.180(B)(5)(b)(i) and (ii).
Section 18.116.350. Accessory Dwelling Units in RR10 and MUA Zones
Per 2017 Oregon HB 3012, the owner of a lot or parcel of at least two acres zoned for rural
residential uses is now allowed to construct a new single-family dwelling on a lot or parcel if the
owner converts an existing historic home to accessory dwelling unit. The proposed amendment
adds this new subsection to comply with HB 3012, allowing accessory dwelling units as a use
permitted outright in RR10 and MUA zones, and describing the requirements of this use.
Chapter 18.124. SITE PLAN REVIEW
Section 18.124.060. Approval Criteria
DCC 18.124.060(K)(3) notes the County standards for the mitigation of transportation -related
impacts, but the reference to the section of code is outdated. The proper reference should be
to DCC 18.116.310, Traffic Impact Studies. This reference is the same as in DCC 18.124.080. The
proposed amendment corrects the reference error.
Chapter 18.128. CONDITIONAL USE
Section 18.128.340. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
DCC 18.128.340 outlines the application process for a conditional use permit for a wireless
telecommunications facility in the EFU, Forest, or Surface Mining zones. However, the EFU zone
no longer classifies wireless telecommunications facilities as a conditional use; instead it is
reviewed as an Administrative Determination. Therefore DCC 18.128.340 should not refer to EFU
PAGE 8 OF 10 — EXHIBIT U TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
in the list of zones requiring conditional use permits. The proposed amendment removes the
EFU zone from the section.
Section 18.128.360. Guest Ranch
DCC 18.128.360 defines criteria for guest ranches as a conditional use. Previously, this section
was due to sunset in 2012, and then in 2018; however, in 2018, Oregon HB 4031 extended this
sunset date to April 15, 2020. The proposed amendment reflects this change.
C. Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinances:
Chapter 22.24. LAND USE ACTION HEARINGS
Section 22.24.160. Reopening the Record
DCC 22.24.160(B)(1) contains a scrivener's error, referring to "...the discretion at the Hearings
Body." The proposed amendment corrects this error to "...of the Hearings Body."
Chapter 22.28. LAND USE ACTION DECISIONS
Section 22.28.070. Compliance with ORS 215.418
DCC 22.28.070(D) contains a reference to the "Division of State Lands." The correct name is the
Department of State Lands. The proposed amendment corrects this error.
D. Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 5, SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS
Table 5.8.2. Deschutes County Non -Significant Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory
Table 5.8.2 of the Comprehensive Plan contains two tax lot number errors for Sites 100 and 101.
The proposed amendment corrects the errors.
Section 5.9, Goal 5 Inventory, Cultural and Historic Resources
Item 12 in the inventory of cultural and historic resources is the Cline Falls Power Plant. Per a
land use decision and demolition permit issued by the Deschutes County Historic Landmarks
Commission in 2016, the plant is no longer in existence. The proposed amendment removes it
from the list, as well as renumbers all subsequent items in the list.
Item 12 (formerly item 13, per above renumbering) refers to the Cloverdale School as a "one -
room school building," when it in fact contains several rooms. The proposed amendment
removes the words "one room" from the item.
Item 20 (formerly Item 21) of the inventory of cultural and historic resources contains a
reference to an outdated tax lot number for the Lynch and Roberts Store Advertisement. The
proposed amendment provides the correct number.
PAGE 9 OF 10 — EXHIBIT U TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006
E. Deschutes Count Zoning County Map
As part of a 2016 hearing requesting approval of a minor partition of 18500 Bull Springs Road,
Bend, from one property into three smaller parcels (File Number 247 -15 -000668 -MP), it was
determined that a 0.78 -acre portion of the site that was zoned RR -10 should in fact have been
zoned F-1. This change was granted, citing DCC 18.12.040(C), Zone Boundaries. However, this
was never noted on the county zoning map. The proposed amendment modifies the zoning map
to reflect the change from the RR -10 zone to the F-1 zone.
V. CONCLUSION:
Based on the information provided herein, the staff recommends the Board of County
Commissioners approve the proposed text amendments that make minor changes necessary to
clarify existing standards and procedural requirements, incorporate changes to state law, and to
correct errors.
PAGE 10 OF 10 — EXHIBIT U TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006