2018-496-Minutes for Meeting November 05,2018 Recorded 12/6/2018•
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541 ) 388-6570
1:30 PM
Recorded in Deschutes County
Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal
� 201$-496
CJ2018-496
12/06/2018 4:29:52 PM
FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY
MONDAY, November 5, 2018 ALLEN CONFERENCE ROOM
Present were Commissioners Phil Henderson and Anthony DeBone. Commissioner Tammy Baney was
absent, excused. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County
Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; and Sharon Keith, Board Executive Assistant. Several
citizens and no identified representatives of the media were in attendance.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
ACTION ITEMS
1. Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2018-068, Reopen Public
Hearing Record
Matt Martin, Community Development Department presented the Order for
consideration. This Order is relative to reopening the public hearing record
to allow tolling of the clock on the Diamond Forge land use application for
marijuana production. Commissioner Henderson recommended a single
language change to the Order. Mr. Martin will make recommended edit.
HENDERSON: Move approval as amended
DEBONE: Second
BOCC WORK SESSION . NOVEMBER 5, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 4
VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes
BAN EY: Absent, excused
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
2. Discussion: Record Materials for High Desert Nectar LLC
Jacob Ripper, Community Development Department presented this item.
This item was audio recorded. Mr. Ripper reviewed items from the record
that were requested for further information.
Nick Lelack, Community Development Director and Peter Gutowsky, Planning
Manager were present for the discussion involving the definition and
parameters of "Youth Activity Centers."
3. Historic ADU Amendments - HB 3012
Tanya Saltzman, Community Development Department presented the item
for discussion. House Bill 3012 permits counties to allow a historic home
located in a rural residential exception area to add an accessory dwelling unit
to be constructed on the same lot or parcel.
Commissioner DeBone expressed his interest to proceed. Peter Gutowsky,
Planning Manager explained the Planning Commission would also need to
review. Commissioner Henderson spoke on items that have been recently
appealed. Nick Lelack, Community Development Department spoke on
consistency with state law asked the Board if they want to send it the
Planning Commission to review. Commissioner DeBone suggested sending
this to Planning Commission for their review. Commissioner Henderson
would rather have a joint meeting with the Planning Commission instead and
would like to wait to see what happens in the next legislative session.
Commissioner DeBone would be interested in a public hearing at the
Planning Commission level to see what level of public input exists. Mr. Lelack
reported the Planning Commission had also expressed interest in a joint
BOCC WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 5, 2018 PAGE 2 OF 4
meeting in 2019. After that meeting, consideration of initiating text
amendments will be revisited.
4. Potential Appeal of a Hearings Officer Decision for a Farm -Related
Dwelling in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone
Isabella Liu, Community Development Department presented the item for
discussion. Ms. Liu explained the information on the subject property. The
application was approved administratively, appealed by Central Oregon
LanclWatch, and denied by the Hearings Officer. Commissioner Henderson
stated unless there is a clear precedent he doesn't feel the Board should
hear it but the appeal go to LUBA. The Board is not inclined to hear the
.R
Move to decline having the Board hear the appeal should one be filed.
HENDERSON: Move approval of Order declining the hearing.
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes
BAN EY: Absent, excused
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
OTHER ITEMS: None
COMMISSIONER UPDATES: None were reported
BOCC WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 5, 2018 PAGE 3 OF 4
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
At the time of 2:42 p.m., the Board met in Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2)
(h) Litigation. The Board came out of Executive Session at 2:50 p.m.
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
DATED this 5 Day of 2018 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
alzl-21--"-�-
BOCC WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 5, 2018 PAGE 4 OF 4
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1:30 PM, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 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. Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2018-068, Reopen Public Hearing
Record - Matthew Martin, Associate Planner
2. Discussion: Record Materials for High Desert Nectar LLC -Jacob Ripper, Senior
Planner
3. Historic ADU Amendments - HB 3012 -Tanya Saltzman, Associate Planner
4. Potential Appeal of a Hearings Officer Decision for a Farm -Related Dwelling in the
Exclusive Farm Use Zone. - Isabella Liu, Associate Planner
COMMISSIONER'S UPDATES
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Executive Sessions under ORS 192.660 (2) (h) Litigation
Board of Commissioners Work session Agenda Monday, November 5, 2018 Page 1
of 2
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
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 Monday, November 5, 2018 Page 2
of 2
Q
'all
ca
ca
CL
cc
t9
•
VI
Q)
ca
Z44Z
Q)
Q
'all
� S
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
,t> 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 November 5, 2018
DATE: October 31, 2018
FROM: Matthew Martin, Community Development, 541-330-4620
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2018-068, Reopen Public Hearing Record
ATTENDANCE: Matthew Martin, Associate Planner
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Re -opening the Public Hearing for the
Submittal of Written Materials in the De Novo * ORDER NO. 2018-068
Hearing on File Numbers of 247 -18 -000361 -AD
and 247-18-000766-A
WHEREAS, Appellants, Todd and Denese Fitzmaurice, appealed the administrative decision in
application number 247 -18 -000361 -AD; and
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners (`Board") agreed to hear this appeal de novo under Order
No. 2018-062; and
WHEREAS, the Board conducted public hearings and established post -hearing periods, for the submittals
of written materials; and
WHEREAS, Applicant, Andrew Anderson, requests a re -opening of the public hearing record for the
submittal of written materials, and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that additional testimony and information regarding this matter is
of paramount importance in this proceeding; and
WHEREAS, the Board may at its discretion reopen the record in accordance with DCC 22.24.160; and,
WHEREAS, Applicant, Andrew Anderson, agreed in writing to extend the 150 -day time limit to
December 14, 2018, in accordance with DCC 22.24.160(A) therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY
ORDERS as follows:
Section 1. The written record on file numbers 247 -18 -000361 -AD and 247-18-000766-A shall be
reopened for written evidence and argumentation.
Section 2. The written record for all parties for new evidence and argumentation is extended to 5:00
p.m. November 13, 2018, but only for written evidence and argumentation.
Section 3. The written record of all parties is extended to 5:00 p.m. November 20, 2018, but only
for response to the evidence and argumentation per Section 2.
Section 4. The written record for final argument by the applicant is extended to 5:00 p.m. November
27, 2018.
1H
Page 1 of 2- ORDER NO. 2018-068
Section 5. The Planning Division shall give written notice to all parties that the record is being
reopened, in accordance with DCC 22.24.160(B)(2).
Dated this of , 2018 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Page 2 of 2- ORDER NO. 2018-068
ANTHONY DEBONE, Chair
PHIIP G. HENDERSON, Vice Chair
TAMMY BANEY, Commissioner
�--
h
ES
`` Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
r fE
r 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 November 5, 2018
DATE: October 29, 2018
FROM: Jacob Ripper, Community Development, 541-385-1759
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Discussion: Record Materials for High Desert Nectar LLC
ATTENDANCE: Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner
SUMMARY: This meeting will not include deliberations. It is intended for the Board to ask
questions of staff regarding materials in the record. The Board may direct staff to contact the
applicant and/or appellant with requests for additional information to be submitted during the
open record period.
STAFF MEMO
Date: October 29, 2018
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner
Re: High Desert Nectar Appeal Hearing Record discussion
The Board of County Commissioners will conduct a work session on November 5th at 1:30 PM to
meet with staff regarding the record and hearing for the appeal file 247-18-000792-A (appeal of file
247 -18 -000051 -AD). This meeting will not include deliberations. It is intended for the Board to ask
questions of staff regarding materials in the record. The Board may direct staff to contact the
applicant and/or appellant with requests for additional information to be submitted during the
open record period.
1. Open Record
The Board set out the following dates for the open record period. All materials are due by 5:00 p.m.
on the specified date.
• Tuesday, November 13th: New materials, evidence, and testimony
• Tuesday, November 20th: Rebuttal
• Tuesday, November 27th: Applicant's Final Argument
II. Decision Timeline
The open record period extends the 150 -day .decision timeline by 29 days. This makes the final
decision deadline January 11, 2018. However, to ensure the current Board can render a decision on
the current application, staff has suggested the following schedule.
• Wednesday, December 5th: Deliberations
• Wednesday, December 19th: Final Decision
11 17 N\,V L:(.;, eWe Avenue, Bend Cir �=,o n 1+7703 P.O.i.,cx 6005, Bend, OP ? 97708-6005
08-6005
t (` 3 7:'i @cdc 'clescY nesorg
\)i ES C
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
�w 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 November 5, 2018
DATE: October 29, 2018
FROM: Tanya Saltzman, Community Development,
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Historic ADU Amendments - HB 3012
Discussion of potential approaches to HB 3012, which permits counties to allow a historic home
located in a rural residential exception area to be converted to an accessory dwelling unit and a
new single family dwelling to be constructed on the same lot or parcel.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Tanya Saltzman, Associate Planner
DATE: October 29, 2018
SUBJECT: Historic ADU Amendments - HB 3012
I. OVERVIEW
House Bill 3012 passed in 2017, authorizing—but not requiring—counties to allow a historic home
located in a rural residential exception area to be converted to an accessory dwelling unit and a
new single family dwelling to be constructed on the same lot or parcel.
As described in the bill, the definition of "historic" means simply that the home was constructed in
1945 or before—not that the property is a designated Goal 5 resource. In addition, the language in
the bill is permissive (i.e. "A county may allow construction of a new single-family dwelling...");
therefore, the Board may choose to adopt text amendments to the Deschutes County Code that
reflect this bill, or it can choose not to adopt amendments that pertain to this bill.
II. SUMMARY OF HB 3012 (2017)
The enrolled HB 3012 text is as follows; it is also incorporated as ORS 215.501, Accessory dwelling
units in rural residential zones:
SECTION 1. Section 2 of this 2017 Act is added to and made a part of ORS chapter 215.
SECTION 2. (1) As used in this section:
(a) "Accessory dwelling unit" means a residential structure that is used in connection with or that
is auxiliary to a single-family dwelling.
(b) "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 subject 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.
(c) "Historic home" means a single-family dwelling constructed between 1850 and 1945.
(d) "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 existing structure.
(e) "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.
(2) Notwithstanding any local zoning or local regulation or ordinance pertaining to the siting of
accessory dwelling units in areas zoned for rural residential use, a county may allow an owner of a
lot or parcel within an area zoned for rural residential use to construct a new single-family dwelling
on the lot or parcel, provided:
(a) The lot or parcel is not located in an area designated as an urban reserve as defined in ORS
195.137;
(b) The lot or parcel is at least two acres in size;
(c) A historic home is sited on the lot or parcel;
(d) The owner converts the historic home to an accessory dwelling unit upon completion of the
new single-family dwelling; and
(e) The accessory dwelling unit complies with all applicable laws and regulations relating to
sanitation and wastewater disposal and treatment.
(3) An owner that constructs a new single-family dwelling under subsection (2) of this section may
n ot:
(a) Subdivide, partition or otherwise divide the lot or parcel so that the new single-family
dwelling is sifl rated on a different lot or parcel from the accessory dwelling unit.
(b) 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.
(c) Rebuild the accessory dwelling unit if the structure is lost to fire.
(d) Construct an additional accessory dwelling unit on the same lot or parcel.
(4) A county may require that a new single-family dwelling constructed under this section be served
by the same water supply source as the accessory dwelling unit.
(5) A county may impose additional conditions of approval for construction of a new single-family
dwelling or conversion of a historic home to an accessory dwelling unit under this section.
III. DESCHUTES COUNTY ANALYSIS
As noted during the Housekeeping Amendments process, during which HB 3012 was first
discussed, staff prepared an analysis of the number of lots that could potentially utilize this law as
written. It was determined that approximately 113 parcels in Deschutes County fall under the
criteria of 1) being located in the MUA or RR -10 zoning districts; 2) property is two acres or more;
and 3) property is built before 1946.
Page 2 of 5
IV. ACTIONS TAKEN IN OTHER COUNTIES
Staff research has indicated that several counties have adopted amendments pertaining to HB
3012. Some have adopted the amendments as is, and others have added additional conditions of
approval, as illustrated in the examples below. Several counties have not adopted amendments
pertaining to this bill, including Clatsop, Morrow, and Gilliam.
Clackamas County
• Clackamas County added the option of placing a manufactured home on the property to
become the primary dwelling. In addition, it requires owner occupancy of either the primary or
accessory dwelling (noted in italics).
843 ACCESSORY HISTORIC DWELLINGS
843.01 PROCEDURE
An accessory historic dwelling requires review as a Type I application pursuant to Section 1307,
Procedures.
843.02 MINIMUM LOT SIZE
An accessory historic dwelling may only be permitted on a lot of record at least two acres in size
843.03 CONVERSION IN CONJUNCTION WITH NEW DWELLING
A. A detached single-family dwelling legally built between 1850 and 1945 may be converted
c.._.,.,. .�,, p1l;n to nn mrroccnry dwellin � innn cmmnlPtinn of a new detached
[I U1 I I a pr hilar y uvvcnu IF, w — u�..�..�,„, y .g .,.�... -
single-family dwelling, or the placement of a manufactured dwelling, on the same lot of
record.
B. As used in Subsections 843.03(A) and 843.04(A):
1. "New" means that the single-family dwelling being constructed did not previously
exist in residential or nonresidential form; "new" does not include the acquisition,
alteration, renovation, or remodeling of an existing structure;
2. 'Placement of a manufactured dwelling" means the placement of a manufactured dwelling
that did not previously exist on the subject lot of record, it may include the placement of a
manufactured dwelling that was previously used as a dwelling on another lot and moved
to the subject lot of record.
843.04 ALTERATION AND REPLACEMENT
A. An accessory historic dwelling may not be altered, renovated, or remodeled so that its
square footage is more than 120 percent of its square footage at the time construction of
the new detached single-family dwelling, or placement of a manufactured dwelling,
commenced.
B. An accessory historic dwelling may not be replaced if it is lost to fire, destroyed, or
removed for any reason.
843.05 OWNER OCCUPANCY
Page 3 of 5
Owner occupancy of either the accessory historic dwelling or the primary dwelling shall be required. A
deed restriction requiring owner -occupancy of one of the dwelling units shall be recorded prior to
issuance of a building or placement permit for the new primary dwelling.
Coos County (draft text proposed for October 2018)
• Coos County refines the description of zones in which the provisions of the bill are permitted
(noted in italics).
Accessory Dwelling units may be allowed on properties with historical dwellings in all non -resource
zones that allow for single family dwellings. A historical dwelling maybe permitted as the accessory
dwelling unit and a new primary single family dwelling shall be permitted. Accessory dwelling unit
sizes and standards shall apply. If the new primary dwelling is proposed it shall be at least 25
percent larger than the historical dwelling to allow the historical dwelling to be considered
accessory.
Douglas County
Douglas County added the use to Rural Residential zones as a use with standards, and refers to
ORS 215 for standards.
SECTION 3.8.075 Uses Permitted With Standards
In the 5R Zone, the following uses and activities are permitted subject to specified standards and
the general provisions and exceptions set forth by this Ordinance.
One new single-family dwelling (SFD) on a lot or parcel at least two acres in size located outside of
an urban growth boundary and containing a historic home (constructed between 1850 and 1945),
which is to be converted to an "accessory dwelling unit" (ADU) upon completion of the new SFD,
subject to the standards, limitations and restrictions of ORS 215 for the provision.
Marion County (draft text proposed for late 2018)
Marion County utilizes the text of HB 3012 nearly verbatim, with minor clarifying changes to the
language.
A dwelling constructed between 1850 and 1945 on a parcel at least two acres in size outside of any
area designated as an urban reserve may remain on the parcel as an accessory dwelling unit if
replaced by a new single-family dwelling on the parcel subject to the following conditions:
a. The property owner shall obtain all required permits from Marion County Building
Inspection to convert the existing residence to an accessory dwelling unit upon completion
of the new single-family dwelling, including permits for sanitation and wastewater disposal
and treatment.
Page 4 of 5
b. The land containing the accessory dwelling cannot be divided from the land containing the
new single-family dwelling.
c. The accessory dwelling unit cannot be renovated or remodeled 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.
d. The accessory dwelling cannot be rebuilt if the structure is lost to fire.
e. The property owner shall record a declaratory statement acknowledging compliance with
the conditions in (b), (c) and (d) above.
OPTIONAL: The new single-family dwelling shall be served by the same water supply source
as the accessory dwelling unit.
V. NEXT STEPS
Staff seeks Board direction and offers the following suggested approach for next steps:
1. Bring proposed amendments to Planning Commission for work session and public
hearing (tentative hearing date: December 13). Proposed amendments may:
A. Reproduce ORS 215.501 in its entirety with no changes
B. Modify language to address items such as:
i. Definition of "historic" - should this be linked to documented historic
resources?
ii. Manufactured homes
iii. Zones permitted - rural residential
iv. Water supply
v. Owner occupancy
vi. Other
2. Other action as determined by the Board.
Page 5 of 5
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 November 5, 2018
DATE: October 31, 2018
FROM: Isabella Liu, Community Development,
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Potential Appeal of a Hearings Officer Decision for a Farm -Related Dwelling in the
Exclusive Farm Use Zone.
ATTENDANCE: Izze Liu, Associate Planner
SUMMARY: Before the Board of County Commissioners is a potential appeal of a Hearings
Officer's decision denying a farm -related dwelling in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone. The Board
will consider Order No. 2018-070 and decide if the Board will call up the review if the decision
is appealed.
RE IEWE
LDNA COUNSEL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Accepting Review of Hearings Officer's
Decision in File No. 247-18-000734-A
ORDER NO. 2018-070
WHEREAS, on October 23, 2018, the Deschutes County Hearings Officer issued an approval of
Application No. 247-18-000734-A; and
WHEREAS, Section 22.28.050 of the Deschutes County Code authorizes the Board of County
Commissioners ("Board") to initiate review of any administrative action or a Hearings Body's decision within 12
days of the date of mailing of the final written decision of the Planning Director or lower Hearings Body; and
WHEREAS, the Board has given due consideration as to whether to review this application; now,
therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY
ORDERS as follows:
Section 1. Should a timely appeal of Application No. 247-18-000734-A be filed, the Board of County
Commissioners will serve as the hearings body for the appeal consistent with applicable provisions of DCC,
including DCC 22.32.027(B)(4).
Section 2. The review shall be heard de novo in order for the Board to interpret DCC 18.116.330 and
other applicable provisions.
Section 3. Staff shall set a hearing date and cause notice to be given to persons or parties entitled to notice
pursuant to DCC 22.24.030 and 22.32.030.
Dated this 5 of November, 2018 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
PAGE, 1 OF 1- ORDER No. 2018-070
ANTHONY DEBONE, Chair
PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Vice Chair
TAMMY BANEY, Commissioner
Mailing Date:
Tuesday, October 23, 2018
HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION
FILE NUMBER: 247-18-000734-A (an appeal of 247 -18 -000381 -AD)
APPLICANT/OWNER: Wayne & Susan Singhose
PROPOSAL: The applicants request approval of a farm -related dwelling on non -high
value farmland in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone.
HEARING DATE: October 9, 2018 at 6 pm
STAFF CONTACT: Izze Liu, Associate Planner
HEARINGS OFFICER: Will Van Vactor
The Hearings Officer adopts the findings made by staff in the Administrative Decision except as
indicated under the heading "HEARINGS OFFICER".
I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
Chanter 1816; Fxclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
II. BASIC FINDINGS
A. LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 62485 County Line Road, Bend;
and is identified on County Assessor Tax Map 17-14-25 as tax lot 700.
B. LOT OF RECORD: The subject property is a legal lot of record because it was platted as Parcel
1 of PP1997-41.
C. ZONING: The property is zoned EFU.
D. PROPOSAL: The applicants are proposing to establish a new farm -related dwelling on the
southwest portion of the subject property on non -high value farmland.
E. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is 143.20 acres in size and irregular in shape. The
property is accessed from County Line Road, a rural local road. The topography is relatively
level with a moderate cover of vegetation on the western half of the property. Of the 143 or
acres, approximately 59 acres of the subject property are irrigated pasture land. The subject
property is developed with an existing farm related accessory structure which is located in
the northeast corner.
Proposed Dwelling Location
F. SOILS: According to the soils maps prepared by the National Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the subject property is composed of one soil
type:
27A, Clovkamp loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes. Clovkamp Loamy Sand soils consist of 85
percent Clovkamp soils and similar inclusions and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. The
contrasting inclusions for the Clovkamp soils consist of Deskamp soils on side slopes. The
major uses of this soil are irrigated cropland and livestock grazing. The agricultural capability
ratings of this soil are 3s when irrigated and 6s when not irrigated. Section 18.04.030 of the
DCC considers this soil type high-value farmland when irrigated. The entire parcel is made
up of this soil type.
G. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed a Notice of Application and
received comments from the following agencies:
247-18-000734-A (an appeal of 247 -18 -000381 -AD) Page 2 of 13
1. Alfalfa Fire District: Ron Thompson, Fire Chief, provided the following comments on
May 10, 2018:
The following is input from the Alfalfa Fire District.
• Address should be clearly visible from the primary access road.
• Access gate should be at least 20 feet wide to provide access to fire apparatus.
• Access roads and driveways should be able to support fire apparatus in all types of
weather.
• Exit doors should be clearly marked and unobstructed.
• Onsite firefighting water supply should be clearly marked and be accessible to
firefighters at all times.
• Portable fire extinguishers should be located throughout the building and location
clearly marked.
• Facility should have a fire safety plan including exit plan and employee accountability
system. This plan should be practiced by all employees on a regular basis.
• Material Safety Data Sheets for all onsite hazardous materials should be keep on site
and be accessible to fire department personnel at all times.
• All hazardous material storage areas, tanks and containers should be clearly marked.
• Firefighters should be able to coordinate with facility managers a building walk
through for the purpose of training and emergency planning.
2. Deschutes County Building Division: Randy Scheid, Building Official, provided the
following comments on May 15, 2018:
The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code mandates that Access, Egress,
Setbacks, Fire & Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. must be specifically addressed
during the appropriate plan review process with regard to any proposed structures and
occupancies.
Accordingly, all Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure,
occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review.
3. Deschutes County Planning Division: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner,
provided the following comments on July 28, 2017:
I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247 -18 -000381 -AD for a farm dwelling on
143 acers in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone at 62485 County Line Road, aka 17-14-25,
Tax Lot 700.
The most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook
indicates a single-family residence (Land Use 210) generates an average of approximately
10 daily weekday trips. Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.310(C)(3)(a) states no
traffic analysis is required for any use that will generate less than 50 new weekday
247-18-000734-A (an appeal of 247 -18 -000381 -AD) Page 3 of 13
trips. The proposed land use will not meet the minimum threshold for additional traffic
analysis.
The property was approved for a driveway permit on Nov. 5, 1997, under SW24531A97156
and thus complies with DCC 17.48.210(A). The application does discuss shifting the
location of the access and any new driveway location must be approved by the County.
Board Resolution 2013-020 sets a transportation system development charge (SDC) rate of
$3,937 per p.m. peak hour trip. County staff has determined a local trip rate of 0.81 p.m.
peak hour trips per single-family dwelling unit, therefore the applicable SDC is $3,189
($3,937 X 0.81) per lot. The SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; if a
certificate of occupancy is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land
use decision becoming final.
HEARINGS OFFICER: If this decision is appealed, and the Deschutes County Board of
County Commissioners (the "BOCC") reverses, it should include a condition of
approval requiring that the SDC be paid prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
4. The following agencies did not respond: Deschutes County Assessor, Deschutes
County Environmental Soils Division, Deschutes County Road Department, Central
Oregon Irrigation District, and the Bureau of Land Management.
H. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed a written notice of these applications to
nrnnPrty owners within 750 feet of the subiect property on May 9, 2018. In addition, the
applicant submitted a Land Use Sign Affidavit dated May 11, 2018, indicating a proposed land
use action sign was posted on the property. One comment was received with concerns that
the application would not meet all of the applicable criteria. Applicable criteria of the DCC
are addressed below.
I. REVIEW PERIOD: This application was submitted on April 30, 2018. It was deemed
incomplete on May 30, 2018. After the applicant submitted additional information, the
application was accepted and deemed complete on June 11, 2018. The 150th day on which
the County must take final action on this application is November 8, 2018.
J. HEARING: The Hearing was held on October 9, 2018 at 6 pm. The Hearings Officer made
opening statements including disclosures regarding ex parte contacts, bias, and conflicts of
interest. There were no objections to the Hearings Officer hearing the case. Neither party
requested a continuance or an additional open record period, so at the conclusion of the
hearing, the record was closed.
III. FINDINGS:
A. CHAPTER 18.16. EXCLUSIVE FARM ZONE
247-18-000734-A (an appeal of 247 -18 -000381 -AD) Page 4 of 13
Section 18.16.025. Uses Permitted Subject to the Special Provisions Under DCC Section
18.16.038 and a Review under DCC Chapter 18.124 where applicable.
A. Dwellings customarily provided in conjunction with farm use (farm -related
dwellings), subject to DCC 18.16.050.
FINDING: The applicant has applied for an approval of a farm -related dwelling on a 143.20 -acre
farm in the EFU zone. The subject property contains approximately 59 acres of irrigated land that is
used for the production of alfalfa hay. Irrigated lands occupy less than half of the size of the
property. Section 18.16.038 has no criteria that apply to the proposed farm -related dwelling, and
consequently no findings for the proposed dwelling are necessary under that section. The special
provisions that apply to farm -related dwellings are found in DCC 18.16.050.
2. Section 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.
HEARINGS OFFICER: As noted below the, the Hearings Officer finds that the applicants do not meet
all of the criteria. However, if this decision is appealed, and the BOCC disagrees with the Hearings
Officer's conclusion, the Board should include a condition of approval that requires the property
owners to sign and record a Farm and Forest Management Easement in the deed records for the
County, as required by this code provision.
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.
3. Gross annual income 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.•
The subject tract is currently employed for a farm use, and that
the farm operator earned $32,500' in gross annual revenue in
the last two years, three of the last five years, or based on the
The gross annual income test for farm -related dwellings on non -high value farmland increased to $40,000 pursuant to
OAR 660-033-0135(3).
247-18-000734-A (an appeal of 247 -18 -000381 -AD) Page 5 of 13
average farm revenue earned on the tract in the highest three
of the last five years.
FINDING: According to the NRCS soil survey, the subject property contains 27A soils (high-value
farmland when irrigated). The subject property has approximately 59 acres of irrigated land, which
is less than 50 percent of the entire property, therefore; the subject property is not considered high-
value farmland.
The applicant has provided in their application materials, receipts from the sale of alfalfa for the
past five years. In the last two years, the farm operator earned over $50,000 in gross annual
revenue. These criteria are met.
ii. There is no other dwelling on the subject tract, except as allowed
under 18.16.020(K);2
HEARINGS OFFICER: In their Burden of Proof Statement dated April 25, 2018 ("BOP"), the applicants
state that the subject property is owned by Wayne and Susan Singhose as husband and wife. BOP,
pg. 4. They further state that with the exception of one lot, the surrounding contiguous properties
are not in the same ownership. Id. The applicants also state that Tax Lot 1700, the only contiguous
lot that is also owned by Wayne and Susan Singhose personally, contains no dwelling. Id.
On appeal, Central Oregon LandWatch ("COLW") contends that the applicant does not meet this
criterion because subject property is part of larger "tract" and that other dwellings exist on the tract,
In s nInnrt of it-, argument. COLW contends that OAR 660-033-0135(3) applies. See Isbell Letter dated
October 8, 2018 ("Isbell Ltr"), pg.1.
COLW's argument can be summarized as follows:
• The subject property (TL 700) is part of a larger "tract" (Id., pgs. 1-2);
• The larger tract consists of nine separate tax lots (Id., pg. 5);
• Four separate dwellings already exist on three separate tax lots already within the tract
(Id.);
Notwithstanding the fact the dwellings are located on tax lots owned by the Wayne &
Susan Singhose Trust), because the applicants are also the trustees for the trust that
owns those lots, the lots are all part of the same tract (/d., pg. 3).
• The applicable OAR only allows one dwelling per farm or ranch operation.
The applicants respond with the same arguments made in the BOP. They also contend that the
owner is who is on record on the deed; a trust that owns property, the trustees own it as trustees,
LLCs own property as LLC (not members), etc. (Hearing Recording ("Rec.") at 12:40). The applicants,
as husband and wife, own two pieces of property. Rec. at 13:15. The two lots do not have primary
farm dwellings. Rec. at 13:40. The County did not intend to say that any property owned by an agent
is considered when reviewing an application. Rec. at 17:15.
z DCC 18.16.020(x) allows replacement dwellings to be used in conjunction with farm use if the existing dwelling is listed
on the National Register of Historic Places.
247-18-000734-A (an appeal of 247 -18 -000381 -AD) Page 6 of 13
The issue presented here is whether conveying a parcel or parcels that are part of a farm operation
to a trust controlled by the same individuals who own other parcels of the farm operation
individually creates two or more tracts, or whether the parcels remain a single tract. Both COLW
and the Applicants stated at the hearing that they believe this is an issue of first impression.
Although the Hearings Officer encouraged the parties to provide legal research regarding this issue,
neither party requested an opportunity to do so.
In support of their respective arguments, the parties focus on the definition of "tract" and "owner".
According to DCC 18.04, "Tract' as used in DCC 18.16 ...means one or more contiguous lots or
parcels in the same ownership. (emphasis added) "Contiguous land" means "parcels of land under
the same ownership which about ..." DCC 18.04. With the exception of the term "ownership", the
term "tract" is unambiguous. There is no doubt that if title to the nine tax lots was held by the same
people or entity, the nine tax lots would be considered a single tract.
Thus, the question is what "ownership" means. Deschutes County Code does not include a definition
of "ownership", but it does include a definition of "owner". According DCC 18.04, "'[o]wner' means
the owner of real property or the authorized agent thereof or the contract purchaser of real
property of record as shown on the last available complete tax assessment roll or County Recorder's
records." Thus, there are three types of owners:
1) The owner of real property;
2) The authorized agent of the owner of real property; and
3) The contract purchaser of real property of record as shown in the tax assessment roll or
County recorder's records.
The Hearings Officer finds the second and third types do not apply. Specifically, the Hearings Officer
agrees with the applicants that being trustee of a trust does not make them an authorized agent
under this definition. And there is no contention that there is a contract purchaser.
Thus, the meaning of "owner" boils down to what "owner of real property" means. The Hearings
Officer finds that because the definition uses the word it is defining that the definition if of little use.
The ambiguity or uncertainty created by the definition is underscored by the fact the real question
is what "ownership" means, not "owner."
Contrary to the applicants' contention that the term "owner" means "record owner" (Rec. at 12:40),
it is not that simple. A record owner is only one type of owner. A "record owner" may not even be
the actual owner since the "legal owner" may not have recorded the deed. Moreover, in addition to
record and legal owners, there are "beneficial owners", such as the beneficiary under a trust.
The Hearings Officer finds nothing in the County's code that limits the definition of "ownership" to
the record owner This is consistent with case law where "ownership" is not to be changed by the
conveyance from an individual to his or her trust. See e.g., Adams v. Jackson County, LUBA No. 2007-
004, n. 3 (Or LUBA 2007) (noting that the conveyance from an individual to his trust did not change
ownership); see also Welch v. Yamhill County, LUBA No 2007-111 (Or LUBA 2008) ("The DLCD Order
determines that the Kroos are the owners of the subject property for purposes of ORS 197.352, and
247-18-000734-A (an appeal of 247 -18 -000381 -AD) Page 7 of 13
that the 2003 transfer of legal title to the property to a revocable trust was not a change in
ownership for purposes of that statute.") The bottom line is that is not entirely clear that the term
"ownership" distinguishes between individual ownership and trust ownership.'
For the above reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the definition of "ownership" to be ambiguous
and therefore looks to context. Importantly, Deschutes County's EFU zone implements OAR 660,
division 033. See e.g., Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, LUBA No. 2016-103).
Consequently, ORS 215, including ORS 215.283(1)(e), and OAR 660-033-0135 provide context for
interpreting the county's EFU zone, including DCC 18.16.050(A).
Subject to ORS 215.279, dwellings in conjunction with farm use are permitted on EFU lands. ORS
215.283(1)(e). Second, ORS 215.279 provides the framework within which Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC) is to adopt the farm income standards. In ORS 215.279, the
Oregon legislature used the term "tract", but does not refer to "owner" or "ownership", instead
referring to "farm operator". This implies to the Hearings Officer that the legislature was more
concerned with the overall farm operation than the separate ownership different portions of the
farm.
Additionally, the related LCDC rule that applies to dwellings in conjunction with farm use states, in
part:
(3) On land not identified as high-value farmland, a dwelling may be considered
customarily in conjunction with farm use if:
(a) The subject tract is currently employed for the farm use, as defined in ORS
215.203 ...
(b) Except for seasonal farmworker housing approved prior to 2001, there is
no other dwelling on lands designated for exclusive farm use pursuant to [ORS 215]
or for mixed farm/forest use pursuant to OAR 660-006-0057 owned by the farm or
ranch operator or on the farm or ranch operation;
(c) The dwelling will be occupied by a person or persons who produced the
commodities that grossed the income in subsection (a) of this section ... (emphasis
added)
In light of the context provided by the statute and administrative rule, the Hearings Officer finds
"ownership" is not determined simply by identifying the record owner. If that were the case, then a
farm operator could convey separate lots to different trusts or business entities, and so long as the
operator can continue to meet the income test, he or she could place a house on each lot that is
owned by a separate legal entity. The applicable state statutes and administrative rules make it clear
that is not the intent.
And even if the County intended DCC 18.16.050(A) to mean what the applicants claim it means, the
Hearings Officer finds such interpretation to be unlawful. As noted above, the County's EFU zone
implements ORS 215 and OAR 660-033. Under the Hearings Officer interpretation, a farm operator
3 These cases are not perfect guideposts, but tend to show that the definition of "ownership" in the land use context is
not as simple as the applicants argue.
247-18-000734-A (an appeal of 247 -18 -000381 -AD) Page 8 of 13
can only have one farm dwelling per farm operation. However, under the applicants' interpretation,
a farm operator (as explained above) could have more than one dwelling. Thus, the applicants'
interpretation would be less restrictive than the state statute and administrative rule. See Kenogy v.
Benton County, 112 Or App 17, 20 n 2 (noting counties may adopt EFU zones that are more restrictive
than statutory EFU zoning requirements, county may not adopt EFU zones that are less restrictive
than statutory requirements).
In addition to the statutory context, the Hearings Officer also reviewed the dictionary definition of
"ownership". Black's Law Dictionary, defines "ownership" as "[t]he collection of rights allowing one to
use and enjoy property, including the right to convey it other others." Abr. 7t" Ed. The applicants did
not submit any evidence regarding the nature of the trust that owns the contiguous lots. The
Hearings Officer finds there is not substantial evidence in the record to find that as the trustees of
the trust, the rights for the Singhoses individually and as trustees varies in any way. As was the case
with the conveyances to trust in the above cited cases, there is no basis to find ownership is different
now simply because a trust owns the contiguous properties.4
As to the evidence in the record, the Hearings Officer finds it relevant that:
1) Although the some of the nine lots are owned by Wayne and Susan Singhose individually
and other lots are owned by their trust, they are all part of the same farm operation. Rec. at
20:15 (noting if using "Singhose Ranches" on letterhead probably referring to entire farm
operation including the lots owned by the trust).
2) There are multiple dwellings on the properties that comprise the farm operation. Regarding
the dwelllnR located 62500 County Line Road, this is the dwelling in which the applicants
currently resides It does not qualify as either seasonal farmworker housing ora replacement
dwelling under DCC 18.16.020(K). As to the other dwellings, COLW submitted evidence that
the dwellings exist, but the record is unclear who resides in them for determining if they
might be seasonal farmworker housing.
For the above reasons, the Hearings Officer finds that applicants do not meet this criterion.
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
FINDING: The subject property is owned by Susan and Wayne Singhose, who produced the
commodities which grossed the income. The applicant has represented that they will live in the
dwelling. This criterion will be met.
HEARINGS OFFICER: COLW contends that the applicants live across the street so this criterion
cannot be met. The applicants respond by noting that they intend to live in the new dwelling that is
4 This analysis might change if, for example, the trust is irrevocable and the beneficiaries are not the Singhoses.
5 With additional evidence, it may be possible to meet this criterion. For example, if the applicants are willing to remove
the dwelling at 62500 County Line Road and the Singhoses submit evidence that the two other dwellings are seasonal
farm housing approved prior to 2001, as allowed, then it may be possible to meet this criterion.
247-18-000734-A (an appeal of 247 -18 -000381 -AD) Page 9 of 13
the subject of this property. If the applicants live in the proposed dwelling, the Hearings Officer finds
this criterion can be met.
b. in determining gross revenue, the cost of purchased livestock shall be
deducted from the totalgross revenue attributed to the tract.
FINDING: The income used to qualify the property was derived from alfalfa sales. This criterion
does not apply.
C. Noncontiguous lots or parcels zoned for farm use in the same county or
contiguous counties may be used to meet the gross revenue
requirements.
FINDING: The applicant did not include gross revenue from noncontiguous parcels. This criterion
does not apply.
d. Only gross revenue from land owned, not leased or rented, shall be
counted, and gross farm revenue earned from a lot or parcel which has
been used previously to qualify another lot or parcel for the
construction or siting of a primary farm dwelling may not be used.
FINDING: The applicant provided receipts to show the gross revenue of alfalfa hay grown on the
subject property. The subject property is owned by Susan and Wayne Singhose, the farm operators.
This criterion is met.
e. Prior to a dwelling being approved under this section that requires one
or more contiguous or noncontiguous lots or parcels of a farm or ranch
operation to comply with the gross farm revenue requirements, the
applicant shall provide evidence that the covenants, conditions and
restrictions form attached to Chapter 98.96, has been recorded with the
county clerk or counties where the property subject to the covenants,
conditions and restrictions is located.
9. The covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded for
each lot or parcel subject to the application for primary farm
dwelling and shall preclude:
a. All future rights to construct a dwelling except for
accessory farm dwellings, relative farm assistance
dwellings, temporary hardship dwellings or replacement
dwellings allowed under ORS Chapter 295; and
b. The use of any gross farm revenue earned on the lots or
parcels to qualify another lot or parcel for a primary farm
dwelling,•
C. The covenants, conditions and restrictions are
irrevocable, unless a statement of release is signed by an
authorized representative of the county or counties
247-18-000734-A (an appeal of 247 -18 -000381 -AD) Page 10 of 13
where the property subject to the covenants, conditions
and restrictions is located,
d. The failure to follow the requirements of this section
shall not affect the validity of the transfer of property or
the legal remedies available to the buyers of property
which is subject to the covenants, conditions and
restrictions required by this section.
FINDING: The applicant provided documents showing gross revenue from alfalfa hay sales from
only the subject property. These criteria do not apply.
3. Section 18.16.060. Dimensional Standards.
E. Building height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30
feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040.
HEARINGS OFFICER: If on appeal the Board finds that the farm dwelling can be approved, a
condition of approval should be included to ensure compliance with this criterion.
4. Section 18.16.070. Yards.
A. The front yard shall be a minimum of. 40 feet from a property line fronting on a local
street, 60 feet from a property line fronting on a collector street, and 100 feet from
a property line fronting on an arterial street.
B. Each side yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling
proposed on property with side yards adjacent to property currently employed in
farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the side yard shall be a
minimum of 100 feet.
C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling
proposed on property with a rear yard adjacent to property currently employed in
farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the rear yard shall be a
minimum of 100 feet.
D. 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.
FINDING: The eastern boundary of the subject property abuts County Line Road, a rural local road,
requiring a 40 -foot setback. The proposed farm -related dwelling must also be setback 25 feet from
the northern, southern and western property boundaries.
Based on the submitted application materials, the proposed farm -related dwelling will be setback
more than 40 feet from the eastern boundary, approximately 250 feet from the southern boundary,
approximately 540 feet from the western boundary and more than 1,000 feet from the northern
property boundary. These comply with the setback standards of the EFU zone. The proposal also
complies with solar setback standards of 18.116.180(B)(1). These criteria will be met.
247-18-000734-A (an appeal of 247 -18 -000381 -AD) Page 11 of 13
5. 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 the conditions of approval of any previous land use decisions
or building permits previously issued by the County, the County shall not
1. Approval any application for land use development,
2. Make any other land use decisions, including land divisions and/or property line
adjustment,
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, or through an acknowledgement by the alleged
violated in a signed voluntary compliance agreement ("VCA").
HEARINGS OFFICER: COLW contends that "[i]t is not clear the existing accessory dwelling is in
compliance with existing conditions of approval, and until it is brought into compliance, no further
approvals are permitted under DCC 22.20.015." COLW's Appeal Application, pg. 2. And in its October
8, 2018, written submittal, COLW further explained that pursuant to A.D-12-5 (an accessory dwelling
approval for TL 17142500-00800), the applicant argued that its farm tract was 1,084 in order to
obtain approval of an accessory dwelling. Pg. 10. COLW notes that the applicant is now arguing that
the subject property is not part of that tract. As a result, according to COLW, the applicant is no
longer in compliance with conditions of approval for AD -12-5.
The applicants respond by stating that COLW is accusing them of committing a crime without regard
for their due process rights.
The Hearings Officer notes that the language in DCC 22.20.015(C) could be interpreted as giving the
County authority to review an alleged code violation concurrent with its. review of a pending land
use application. However, the Hearings Officer believes that such interpretation is contrary to other
more specific code enforcement procedures as stated in the Deschutes County Code and would
violate the property owner's rights to participate in those code enforcement proceedings.
Importantly, DCC 1.17 dictates the hearings procedure for code enforcement complaints. The code
requires a "Notice of Violation" (DCC 1.17.050), "Service of Notice' (DCC 1.17.060 and 1.17.080), a
hearing (DCC 1.17.070), discovery pursuant to ORS 135.805 to 135.873 (DCC 1.17.080).
The Hearings Officer finds that denying the application under the facts of this case, where there was
no Notice of Violation, Service of Notice, or discovery, would violate the applicant's rights afforded
under DCC 1.17.
Alternatively, the alleged violation appears to be tenuous, since even COLW only contends "it is not
clear ..." As a result, even if the Hearings Officer were to find it appropriate to prosecute the allege
code violation in this proceeding, there is not sufficient evidence to find that a violation exists.
247-18-000734-A (an appeal of 247 -18 -000381 -AD) Page 12 of 13
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing findings, Hearings Officer concludes that the proposed farm -related
dwelling does not comply with the applicable standards and criteria of the Deschutes County zoning
ordinance.
V. DECISION
1]111►111
This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date of mailing, unless appealed by a
party of interest.
Will Van Vactor, Hearings Officer
Dated: October 23, 2018
247-18-000734-A (an appeal of 247 -18 -000381 -AD) Page 13 of 13
c c c c c c c
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.N .N .N .M . .M •N
Q v v v v 0 v v
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w
Z
J
Z O^ U U U_ U
ZLn Z Z Z Z
0 0 0 0 0 0
y U m X = = = =
O N =U V U U
Lr)NO O J J J J
co Lo 0 0- w w w w
Z U
Q Q
V D
Z w_
a � Z
J Q
Lu Z J =
O w
CL
l7
ji LL,
V) —i U 0 Q U
i 0 < d Z N Y
K
c z Z w Z J Q Q
0 vi V Y> O 2 LL