Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
2023-300-Minutes for Meeting August 16,2023 Recorded 9/25/2023O`�vZ ES COG�<
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541) 388-6570
9:00 AM
Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2023-300
Steve Dennison; County Clerk
Commissioners' .journal 09/25/2023 1:40:41 PM
2023-300
FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY
BOCC MEETING MINUTES
WEDNESDAY August 16, 2023
Barnes Sawyer Rooms
Live Streamed Video
Present were Commissioners Tony DeBone, Patti Adair and Phil Chang. Also present were
County Administrator Nick Lelack; Assistant County Counsel Kim Riley; and BOCC Executive Assistant
Brenda Fritsvold.
This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County
Meeting Portal website www.deschutes.org/meetings.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner DeBone disclosed that on August 12th, both he and Commissioner Chang
attended a wildfire briefing hosted by U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden and local fire officials at
Deschutes National Forest Headquarters in Bend. As their joint attendance was not noticed
in advance, he wished to disclose at this time in the interest of transparency.
CITIZEN INPUT: None
Commissioner Adair commented on the death toll in Maui from the recent wildfire in
Lahaina and urged Deschutes County residents to sign up for emergency alerts at
https•//www.deschutes.org/911, noting these are issued according to location.
BOCC MEETING AUGUST 16, 2023 PAGE 1 OF 11
Commissioner DeBone added that the State Interoperability Executive Council is working to
ensure that each county has the capability to issue emergency alerts as Deschutes County
does.
Commissioner Chang said it is important to address fuel loads on both public and private
lands.
CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of the Consent Agenda.
1. Consideration of Board Signature on letters appointing Denney Kelley and
reappointing Tony De Alicante to the Sunriver Service District Managing Board
2. Consideration of Board Signature on letters thanking Robert Foster and Gerhard
Beenen for their service on the Sunriver Service District Managing Board
3. Consideration of Board Signature on letter reappointing Tami Pike for service on
the Deschutes County Public Health Advisory Board
4. Consideration of Board Signature on letter appointing Sabrina Haggerty for
service on the Deschutes County Bicycle -Pedestrian Advisory Board
5. Approval of minutes of the June 17 and 19, 2023 BOCC meetings
ADAIR: Move approval of the Consent Agenda as presented
CHANG: Second
VOTE: ADAIR: Yes
CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
ACTION ITEMS:
6. Public Hearing to receive testimony regarding proposed revisions to the
County contracting code
Dave Doyle, County Counsel, explained that SB 1047, enacted recently, made
substantive changes to public contracting requirements. These changes, along
with others as identified by County staff, have prompted revisions to the
County's contracting code effective January 1, 2024.
The public hearing was opened at 9:07 am. There being no one who wished to testify,
the public hearing was closed at 9:07 am.
BOCC MEETING AUGUST 16, 2023 PAGE 2 OF 11
7.
ADAIR: Move approval of first reading of Ordinance No. 2023-012 amending
Title 2.36 and Title 2.37, Contracting, of the Deschutes County Code
by title only
CHANG: Second
VOTE: ADAI R: Yes
CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Chair DeBone read the title of the ordinance into the record.
Public Hearing on a request to vacate a portion of Schibel Road
(continued from 8/09/20,23)
County Engineer/Assistant Road Director Cody Smith reminded that because
some parties interested in this matter asked that the public hearing —which was
noticed to occur on August 9t"—be postponed from last week, the Board had
opened the public hearing, heard some testimony, and subsequently continued
the hearing to this day.
Smith shared maps showing the location and vicinity of the proposed vacation of
a portion of Schibel Road. Smith listed the parties who signed the vacation
petition, noted that two other abutting property owners are not petitioners, and
provided background information. Based on all of the information submitted, the
Road Department has concluded that the proposed vacation is in the public
interest.
The public hearing was opened at 9:28 am.
Liz Dixon, attorney for chief vacation petitioners Jeff and Kathy Gates,
presented an annotated county tax map showing all of the affected parcels
and an aerial photograph of the location and surrounding area. Dixon said
the party opposed to the vacation, John O'Leary, has at least one and
possibly two alternate accesses to his property: one via Old Bend Redmond
Highway and the other via Highway 20.
Dixon said this portion of Schibel Road was dedicated in 1994, has never
been improved, and does not have historical public benefit. Dixon noted that
last year when O'Leary applied for and received approval for access to Old
Bend -Redmond Highway, he had claimed that no other access existed for his
property.
BOCC MEETING AUGUST 16, 2023 PAGE 3 OF 11
Jeff Eager, attorney representing John O'Leary, said the proposed vacation is
not in the public interest and the Board could determine that access to
O'Leary's property via Schibel Road is necessary. He raised the issue of
adverse possession, saying that sometime after the road was dedicated in
1994, a gate was installed and used to block access. Eager said O'Leary's
access to Old Bend -Redmond Highway was obtained by accident, based on a
false belief that it was needed to secure an address for the property. Eager
noted safety concerns related to requiring access off of either highway and
said because Schibel Road terminates at O'Leary's property, it was clearly
intended to provide access to his property. Eager concluded that O'Leary is
willing to agree that the current public right-of-way be shifted to the east to
lessen the impact on the petitioner's properties.
John O'Leary said the petitioners have blocked access to his property from
Schibel Road. He explained that he did not seek access off of Old Bend
Redmond Highway as he already had access off of Schibel Road; rather, what
he sought was the assignment of an address for his property. He denied that
he is interested in developing his property.
Peggy Lee Combs, speaking for John O'Leary, said the published public notice
was in error as it did not show that the proposed vacation extends to
O'Leary's property. She noted that the easement granted by O'Leary was 60
feet in accordance with the required width of the public road that was
dedicated and said approving the vacation would amount to favoring one
property owner over another for no good reason.
Alfred Heston said the only feasible access to O'Leary's property is via Schibel
Road. He said it is in the best interest of the public to maintain this road as
public and not vacate it, in part because this road dramatically reduces public
safety response time to the adjacent properties.
In rebuttal, Liz Dixon submitted additional exhibits including the Road
Maintenance Agreement, saying this does not reference Tax Lot 100 because
that lot was not considered a benefitting property. She denied that the
petitioners are claiming adverse possession and said that Schibel did not
object to the gate being installed in 1994.
There being no one else who wished to testify, the public hearing was closed at 10:13
am.
Commissioner Adair asked that the large exhibit be entered into the record.
In response to Commissioner Chang, Assistant County Counsel Kim Riley said the
Board must decide whether the proposed vacation is in the public interest and it
is his decision on what to consider in making his determination. Another factor is
whether the vacation would eliminate the only access to a property, or if
alternate access is available.
BOCC MEETING AUGUST 16, 2023 PAGE 4 OF 11
8.
WI
Commissioner Chang noted the various important concerns and interests at
stake and said it is difficult to say if this matter involving a local access road is a
question of public interest even though it is of great importance to individual
property owners.
Commissioner DeBone thanked everyone for their participation in this matter. He
acknowledged the recommendation of the Road Department and questioned if
any justification exists to not accept staffs recommendation.
In response to Commissioner Chang, Smith said according to Oregon statute, the
Board must determine if the proposed vacation is in the public interest and
decide whether or not to grant the request.
Chair DeBone stated that the record was now closed and the Board will conduct
its deliberations on this matter next week.
First reading of Ordinance 2023-018 - Griffin Plan Amendment/Zone Change
Rachel Vickers. Associate Planner, said the ordinance presented for action by the
Board would approve a request for a Plan Amendment and Zone Change for
property totaling approximately 40 acres to the east of Bend and south of
Highway 20; the Plan Amendment would re -designate the property from
Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area and the Zoning Map Amendment
would rezone the property from Exclusive Farm Use to Multiple Use Agricultural.
ADAIR: Move approval of first reading of Ordinance No. 2023-018
by title only
CHANG: Second
VOTE: ADAIR: Yes
CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Chair DeBone read the title of the ordinance into the record.
Deliberations: Remand of LBNW LLC Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner, distributed a decision matrix to
guide the Board in its deliberations of a remand decision of the Oregon Land Use
Board of Appeals regarding a Plan Amendment and Zone Change application
proposed by LBNW LLC and originally approved by the Board under files 247-21-
BOCC MEETING AUGUST 16, 2023 PAGE 5 OF 11
000881-PA, 882-ZC. Rawlings reminded that the 120-day deadline for the Board
to render a decision on this matter is September 14, 2023.
Does LUBA's remand require the County to conduct an analysis beyond
considering the economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences of
allowing uses under the RI Zone (that differ from the uses currently allowed under
EFU Zoning) on the subject properties?
Rawlings explained the purpose of this question is to determine if the remand
issue is broad or narrow in scope. Stephanie Marshall, Senior Assistant Legal
Counsel, added that the intent of addressing highly specific questions is to make
the record as clear as possible and also to demonstrate that each of the issues
raised by LUBA and the opponent have been fully considered by the Board, given
that LUBA faulted the Board for not making sufficient findings to support its
initial decision.
A majority of the Board was in consensus that LUBA's remand does not require
more than an analysis considering the ESEE consequences of allowing uses
under the RI Zone on the subject properties.
2. Is the County required to amend or modify its Goal 5 scenic view inventory under
OAR 660-023-0030, or may the County rely on the existing inventory set forth in
the Comprehensive Plan?
Responding to Commissioner Chang, Rawlings said the County last updated its
Goal 5 scenic view inventory in 1992.
A majority of the Board was in consensus that the County can continue to rely on
the existing Goal 5 scenic view inventory set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Are the conflicting uses identified pursuant to OAR 660-023- 0040(2) those uses
allowed under the RI Zone that are not allowed under the EFU Zone?
Rawlings explained that the opponent to this application has argued that the
conflicting uses were not adequately identified. Marshall said the question is
whether any conflicting uses must be addressed other than those that have been
identified.
A majority of the Board was in consensus that that the County complied with OAR
660-023-0040, ESEE Decision Process, by considering as "conflicting uses" those
uses allowed under the RI Zone that are not otherwise allowed under the current
EFU zoning.
BOCC MEETING AUGUST 16, 2023 PAGE 6 OF 11
Rawlings reviewed that the next question before the Board is identified as 4(a) on
the decision matrix.
4(a) What does the County identify as the "impact area" pursuant to OAR 660-023-
0040(3)?
A majority of the Board was in consensus that the Applicant's proposed "impact
area" is consistent with OAR 660-023-0040(3).
4(b) Is there a distinction between "ESEE consequences" and the "impact area" such
that consequences may be documented outside of the identified "impact area"?
A majority of the Board was in consensus that there is a distinction in the
definitions set forth in OAR 660-023-0010 such that ESEE consequences were
appropriately documented by the applicant even if outside of the identified
"impact area."
4(c) Can the identified "impact area" be amended at a later proceeding to match the
ESEE analysis?
A majority of the Board was in consensus that the "impact area" may be
amended in an iterative manner along with updating the ESEE analysis pursuant
to OAR 660-023-0040(1).
In response to discussion, Marshall described the standard for an acceptable
ESEE analysis as set forth in OAR 660-023-0040(1), which states that an "ESEE
analysis need not be lengthy or complex but should enable reviewers to gain a
clear understanding of the conflicts and the consequences to be expected."
Discussion ensued on the question of whether the Board wishes to allow fully,
allow in a limited way, or prohibit conflicting uses under OAR 660- 023-0040(5).
Commissioner Chang asked if conflicting uses are allowed in a limited way, if the
Board could specify which ones are to be allowed or place restrictions on the
ones that would be more visually impactful.
In response to Commissioner DeBone, Planning Manager Will Groves said the
applicant has asked that the Board find there are no protection measures
required for conflicting uses, but rather that these be allowed outright.
The Board was in consensus to take up the remainder of the meeting agenda items
and, following a lunch break, resume working through the rest of the decision matrix
on this matter (see page 9).
BOCC MEETING AUGUST 16, 2023 PAGE 7 OF 11
10. 2023 Spay & Neuter Grant Program Award Recommendations
Stephanie Robinson, Administrative Analyst, explained that the County's dog
licensing process invites residents to voluntarily donate to local non-profit
organizations which offer spay and neuter services. Under this program, funds
may be used for various purposes associated with providing, encouraging or
expanding spay and neuter procedures.
Robinson said in June, the Board approved allocating a total of $10,000 for this
program in the current fiscal year. Following a solicitation, four applications were
received and evaluated by the Dog Control Board of Supervisors, which scored
the applications and developed award recommendations for the Board's
consideration.
Commissioner Chang commented on the recommended award to the Street Dog
Hero organization. Deputy County Administrator Whitney Hale said the grant
agreement could make clear that the awarded funds are to be used for spay and
neuter efforts in Deschutes County.
ADAIR: Move approval of 2023 spay & neuter grant awards to program
applicants as recommended by the Dog Control Board of Supervisors
CHANG: Second
VOTE: ADAIR: Yes
CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
OTHER ITEMS:
Commissioner DeBone shared that he has been asked to speak at the Redmond
Rotary next week and asked if the Board opposes or supports his idea of
speaking about possibly establishing a long-term visitor area.
Commissioner Chang supported Commissioner DeBone speaking to this subject
if it is presented as his idea and not the Board's or the County's.
Discussion ensued regarding available County -owned land in Redmond, the
planned land exchange with DSL, various efforts to address homelessness, and
coordination with other entities including the Fair & Expo Center.
At 11:55 am, the meeting was recessed to reconvene at 1:30 pm to continue deliberations on the
remand of the LBNW LLC Plan Amendment and Zone Change.
BOCC MEETING AUGUST 16, 2023 PAGE 8 OF 11
The meeting was reconvened at 1:30 pm.
9. Deliberations: Remand of LBNW LLC Plan Amendment and Zone Change
(continued from page 7)
Rawlings reviewed that the next question before the Board is identified as 5(a) on
the decision matrix.
5(a) Does the County accept and adopt as its own the Applicant's updated ESEE analysis
as appropriately documenting the economic, social, environmental, and energy
consequences of allowing or prohibiting the conflicting uses on the subject
properties?
Following discussion, a majority of the Board was in consensus to accept and adopt
as its own the Applicant's updated ESEE analysis.
5(b) Does the Applicant's updated ESEE analysis address the Opponent's objection that
conflicting uses were inappropriately grouped together?
A majority of the Board was in consensus that the updated ESEE analysis addresses
concerns regarding grouping conflicting uses together in the initial ESEE prepared
by the Applicant.
6(a) Does the Board wish to allow fully, allow in a limited way or prohibit conflicting uses
under OAR 660- 023-0040(5)?
A majority of the Board was in consensus that the conflicting uses should be
allowed fully pursuant to OAR 660-023-0040(5)(c).
7(a) Does the ESEE analysis demonstrate that the conflicting use is of sufficient
importance relative to the resource site?
Marshall explained that this question asks if the Board finds that its decision to
allow the conflicting uses fully is supported by the ESEE analysis.
Following discussion, a majority of the Board was in consensus that the ESEE
analysis demonstrates that the conflicting uses is of sufficient importance relative to
the resource site.
7(b) Does the ESEE analysis demonstrate why measures to protect the Goal 5 scenic
view on the subject properties should not be provided?
BOCC MEETING AUGUST 16, 2023 PAGE 9 OF 11
A majority of the Board was in consensus that the ESEE analysis demonstrates why
measures to protect the Goal 5 scenic view on the subject properties should not be
provided.
8. Is compliance with OAR 660-023- 0050(1) demonstrated by the Applicant's consent to
the subject properties continuing to be subject to the LM Combining Zone land use
regulations because there are no proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
and the LM Combining Zone land use regulations before the Board in the
application?
A majority of the Board was in consensus that compliance with OAR 660-023-0050(1)
is already achieved because the Applicant's consent to the subject properties
remaining in the LM Combining Zone means that all required Comprehensive Plan
provisions and land use regulations are already in place.
ADAIR: Move approval of the decisions made pertinent to the remand of
LBNW LLC Plan Amendment and Zone Change application
247-21-000881-PA, 882-ZC (247-23-000398-A)
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: ADAI R: Yes
CHANG: No
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 2 - 1
Rawlings said staff will return on August 30th with a draft ordinance for the Board's
consideration.
OTHER ITEMS:
Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Director, said on August 301h, staff will
present information on potential options for the Historic Landmarks
Commission which has experienced a slowdown in citizen interest and
involvement.
County Administrator Nick Lelack said in many communities, the Planning
Commission serves as the body which advises on issues concerning historic and
cultural resources and reviews development applications for alterations to
designated historic sites and structures.
With regard to the idea discussed earlier of possibly establishing a long-term
visitor area on County -owned property in Redmond, Lelack sought direction
whether staff should work to further develop this concept in coordination with
the Board.
BOCC MEETING AUGUST 16, 2023 PAGE 10 OF 11
Commissioner DeBone commented on efforts to address homelessness such as
the Oasis Village and Veterans Village programs and a planned RV campground
next to Oasis Village. He supported developing a less structured option at
minimal cost, noting if the County offers this kind of sanctioned shelter, it could
then enforce unsanctioned camping where that is not desirable.
Commissioner Chang was open to a rigorous and objective analysis of this
concept and noted that the County has not yet decided how to use the 45 acres.
Commissioner Adair said she is meeting with the Redmond Mayor Ed Fitch later
today and will take that opportunity to raise this subject at that time.
Commissioner Adair announced that St. Charles is considering dropping the
Medicare Advantage program, which would negatively affect thousands of
people.
Commissioner DeBone requested an email from staff with more information.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: None
ADJOURN:
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:16 pm.
DATED this 1/'"
Commissioners.
ATTEST:
day of 2023 for the Deschutes County Board of
RECORDING SECRETARY
ANTHONY DEBONE, CHAIR
PATTI ADAIR, VICE CHAIR
PHIL CHANG, CO MISSIONER
BOCC MEETING AUGUST 16, 2023 PAGE 11 OF 11
MEETING DATE:
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
August 16, 2023
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to receive testimony regarding proposed revisions to the County
contracting code
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
First, hold a public hearing; thereafter, move first reading of Ordinance No. 2023-012
amending Deschutes County Code sections 2.36 and 2.37.
Alternatively, the Board may want to move first and second reading of the ordinance and
immediate adoption by emergency.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
SB 1047 provided substantive changes to public contracting requirements. County staff have
also identified needed revisions.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Admin
Legal
MEETING DATE:
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
August 16, 2023
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on the request to vacate a Portion of Schibel Road (continued
from 8/9/2023)
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Deschutes County Road Department has received a petition to vacate a portion of Schibel
Road in Section 05 of Township 17S, Range 12E, W.M. As the petition for vacation does not
include acknowledged signatures of owners of 100 percent of property abutting the
proposed vacation area, the vacation proceedings are subject to a public hearing.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Cody Smith, County Engineer/Assistant Road Department Director
0
ce
���
C-
ro
V)
V)
V)
�4-J
. C:
w (1)
o._
E
Ew
Ln
>,�-0
-0 :3 ro
® ® O
uucr-
O
-N
c6
E
O
4--
•
•
E•
b�A
L1.
Ln
0
O
m
0
E
E
O
U
rC
ro
l!1
0
0
Oi! 71tl4Y.J5 **Si
c
0
E
L
0
c
O
O
i
X
F� m
J C
X O
O
O
i
y— I.f)
O
O
O
O
—j
i
a)
+-+
O
dJ
1
N N
�,_ .
O�
X
C
C I�
p
O
?�
J C
—
00
aj
y--
L
O Q
N
X
hm
L Ln
6-
O
O
ajLn
O
�
C O
C
O
3:
iN
4-J
N
0N
'
- 0
a
o
4-Q�
COS
Q
O
V)
N
C Op
>,
i
ro ON
N
Q
°
j
Y
cn
m
m
oo
� a�
aj LA
� aj
(A
Q
a�
�
00
ci
J
�+-
C6 � th
C
-r LQ
OM
4;JU
Vt
��Q
Iv O
N
�Q
�C—,
o_
O
Q
c
0
r�
E
0
w
ry
v
U
�
r
d N
a)4>1
4�
00
®
U_
o
dam+
v)
C�31
��
�.>
�olnm
o
bLn
i�a)
O
aJ C
FZ v
U
�
Z bQ
..o a••a
Z3 a)��
v > a)
O 4-d a)
a)
a).c
c-c a)
O
a) o
-o"--C L
0 �
E
a) O
0-
O >
Ui M
c 4-' cn
mi4-OO
ra
O c 0 N
>, a)
4�
Q N
2+_+
O L -o
v a)0 0
+-'
O a)
O
�a
a-O
Q)
+�-+ aJ Q
Ln
a�pt
-0 C:
c
Onr-U
,_4-
:3>"O >O, ,
o
U�vo
-+a)
mv
a)
c O
�°,0
coO_m
-0
0 C:
rn°-c
a
o0
>-Ln W
'-
>.
°
tea
�
vc�a)+�-+�
ro 4 u
ru
v�
v,>1
.°
�. ,�
+�
v-0-E
>ca)EE
c
a) -
C: ro
—U
'
a) a) a) c
b
v o
-0v
E
v-
Qo
v�i
c)>° v,Q-Q)o
00
ao
o >1
�'�_
�. V)� O
°rn�- aoo
'L
of
J-0
U'q +•1
M O Of
a- O V
I
w
.*
L
(1) Q
> o
r)Q
0
C- M
.V
.4-J 4-J
�V)
a-J
E Ln
(a) u
q :E
On D
Ln 0-
V) 4-J
�r10
u
ro
r6 >
4- J 0
a- J
u
N
� 0
0 >
Q �--i
V�
(1) u
oc
t 0
L �
� L
N CL
> 0
0
C: ro
.L
.4-J 4-J
(AV)
�4-J
E Ln
a) u
cn �
V)
Ul �
to a)
0 u
�6 >
r--+ 0
O -�
.Ln
•� a)
u
N
un
V) 0
0 >
0- a--+
LnM
a) u
cy, :6
�-- C:
vn o
ro
4-
4--)
0
.Vl
4-J
4-J
V)
ro
4-j
E
4-J . U-
ro
V)
to Q
4-J
V) 4-J
V) At
4-J
ro
u
0 ro
m >
4-J 0
0 4-J
C: >,
.4-J
V)
U
m
4-J
L/)
0
0 >
0L *.;a-
v) ro
a) u
0
ro —
4-J "
Ln 0
i�
�r
V)
O
.Ln
Ln
.E
E
O
U
O
U
4-
0
O
00
i
i—
Ln
C ,O
O a-'
C M
Ln C
�
•E
Vl _0
Ln
4-J
0��'cti
m
o
0
0
ro
O
V)
•
CU
to
V4—<�
QJ
r
N•—,�0
O
r�M0
rV6
4--,
00
J
4-J�
V)
4-
r
�
®
®1
�
-
�
�
Q
N
E
N
L
O
u
Q0
Ln
��0
�
Ln
m
�
L
E
i
ry
aj
00�
Q
4�
V)
V)
Q
0
C:
N
N
lJ
0�
cC
4J
L-
M
vi
CO
a)
0
v)
l�
i
�
yid
.ftft
O
U.
VI
O
V)
42
V)
to
�
�
Q
V
4j
O
O
o
.�
o
O
O
L
>�
9
�
O
® b�0
®
N
cc
u
CA
>-0
DC
-0
0
kn
•E
Ln
O
��
0
®
o
a
V1 E
♦"
�
�
c O
O4-
se
p
i
,�
DL
V
ryu
a
a
� o
m N
V) r
V)
L
0
N
U
N
Lo
a
C
E
N
N
N
O
4- j
4- j
V
N
N
O
U
N
O
N
� � L
O_
�-+ N
0 O
ro
> U
v
Q
O
Os-
4-j N bO.A
N
r O i
O V N
U u�
'- u
v O >1
ro
w
ro
O 4-' r-
C
ro
Q U bA
4
4--J
ro
0
O
4-j
E
U
00
4--1
C
(1)O
E
o
:-�
\
Z 00
0
W
.C:
OC p
4--J
L >
4--
O
L
C: O
ro QL
L Ul
m
N
-0
0
�®
() r�
4-J L
o
4--)
ro
�-- O
S
0
®
W
4-J
>1O
r-
+-j
4-J
r-
CL4-J
�-'
O
4-�
OU
P
0O
N
ro
C-�
r-
X
Ou
V
m
�
(1)
(3)
.v
a)
a)
ry
-
M
-0pO
Wes,
(3)
r--'00
4`°-
Otm
4
>1
M
Cl.
u
00
-�
O�>m
-u-0
r-0CY)
00-00
oorn
�°'°L'O
4--J
u
Q)
C
O
�
�
-0
vn
C�
ro
z
O
u
o
Q
.o
-0
�
a)
"
r
u
ro
O
O
Oi_0
Q'
p
to
_0C)
4-J
O
�
cu
•�
cn
u
•—
O
E
0�
I--b
O
0-0
CJL
0 0
4-+
- 4''
C:
ro 4-J :
O 4-' Cr
�-0® CO ro to
O b�0
00 0
���M®�
0 M 4-J
V� O .O
u
4-J O u
4-J�% .00 _0
O 4-J m
4� 4-J �m� ro ® ��
00 Ln u
O ��m L �®
0 E m 00 >
O O � �
cl000
7.3
Ln
-- m ro
O > 0- 00 4-' O c�
i CO m kJo V) - O
0 0
L
LA
O
L
0-
(10
4-J
O
V)
O
> U
c6
D
O 0—
b-O D
O
u
09
J-J
4-J O
•� -0
O O
4--J O
r
0 O
.O O �
U �.
4O O
V)
4-J
Q � �
0-O E •
ra0-a)m
>, E > o
T O O N
� u
L ro
+� �>
u O
�-J L-
� 4-JLn
Ln > Ln
c6
0
0
E
E
O
X
O O ro
,--, N
ro
U Q) C-
ro
> Ln
O
��
r+
�
Q- O
O
L'
fu V 4—
O '� N
u
O toro
B
O
rC
.O
O — a-J
-
CL
_0— ro
N
4)
ro
ro N
_
-C -0
t01
.�
0^r1o4—
U
0 C)
U" W.
'
0 V
ro
z a�
a�
��roL-
o
v -�
CL
0
000
�
L.
CL
-0 0
(L)
r 4 J
>
�
o o
rz
N-
CO O --J
4-J
0
JA Y
�O
L
w
ti
JS� Q
Al
c6
O
m
Q)
c6
4- J
LA
E
:—; �o
V
—F
.- c6
4- J
Q�
c6
O
E
Ln
w
u
V)
O
4-J
m
N
E
E
O
u
N
L
V)
4- J
a�
E
bA �
cu
u ca
O
-0 ry,
Q �
4) 4-J
C- C:
-4--' O
O �
u s-
L
•c6 —
u
c� c�
O O
m m
a� a�
® 0
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Cody Smith, County Engineer/Assistant Road Department Director
DATE: July 14, 2023
SUBJECT: Road Official's Report
Vacation of a Portion of Schibel Road in Section 05, Township 17S, Range 12E, W.M.
Background•
Deschutes County Road Department has received a petition to vacate a portion of Schibel Road in Section 05 of
Township 17S, Range 12E, W.M.. The Petitioners, who are owners of abutting or underlying property to the
proposed vacation area, are:
Jeffrey and Kathryn Gates, owners of Tax Lot 1800 on Assessor's Map 17-12-05B (Chief Petitioner);
Marlene Wheeler Rennie, owner of Tax Lot 1901 and joint owner of Tax Lot 1400 on Assessor's Map 17-
12-05B; and
• Terry A. Rennie, joint owner of Tax Lot 1400 on Assessor's Map 17-12-05B.
The following individuals are owners of abutting or underlying property to the proposed vacation area who are
not Petitioners to the proposed vacation:
Carl Elwyn Owens III, owner of Tax Lot 1900 on Assessor's Map 17-12-05B; and
John Kevin O'Leary, owner of Tax Lot 100 on Assessor's Map 17-12-05C.
Schibel Road is a local access road that is not maintained by Deschutes County. From Old Bend Redmond
Highway, Schibel Road proceeds west; approximately 1,240 ft. west of Old Bend Redmond Highway (within
the boundaries of Tax Lot 1800), Schibel Road branches into two alignments, one alignement bearing north
and one alignement bearing southwest. The northerly alignment across Tax Lot 1800 presently does not
coincide with the established right of way. The subject right of way proposed for vacation includes the entirety
of the right of way lying within the boundaries of Tax Lots 1800 and 1901, which includes the intersection of
the two aforemention alignments and the southwest alignment. The owners of Tax Lot 1800 have agreed to
dedicate a new public right of way across their property to coincide with the existing as -travelled alignment of
Schibel Road for the north alignment. The subject right of way proposed for vacation is 60 feet wide and was
Page 1 of 5
created by dedication deed recorded at the Deschutes County Clerk's Office as Deed No. 1994-46818. Most
of the length of Sch.ibel Road within the proposed vacation is paved at varrying widths; Road Department staff
understand that the road improvements were funded and constructed by current or previous owners of the
underlying properties and that the improvements were not funded by the County. There are presently public
utilities within the proposed vacation area consisting of facilities owned and operated by Central Electric
Cooperative.
Page 2 of 5
Figure — Aerial Photo of Proposed Vacation Area
The Petitioners provided the following reasons (in bold italics) for the proposed vacation; Road Department
staff responses to the reasons provided by the Petitioners are also given below:
1. Invalid Dedication due to Restrictions and Reservations —Septic was installed & permitted by
Deschutes County in 1980, repaired and permitted by Deschutes County in 1991. The Deed of
Dedication was accepted in 1994 by Deschutes County. The 60 foot width encroaches upon the septic
system that was approved by Deschutes County. Road Department staff assert that the dedication of
the subject portion of Schibel Road was valid, as Deed No. 1994-46818 includes valid offer of the
dedication by the owners of the underlying property at the time of dedication and acceptance by the
County governing body at the time of dedication. Based on a review of Community Development
Department property records for Tax Lot 1800 on Assessor's Map 17-12-05B, it does appear that a
portion of the disposal field and reserve area for the subject property's onsite wastewater system may
exist within the proposed vacation area. Additionally, an outbuilding and a portion of a livestock corral
also appear to exist within the proposed vacation area. Road Department staff note that, while this
situation encumbers both the public right of way and the underlying property, it does not invalidate
the public road dedication.
2. Reduces property values of the 3 tax lots requesting this Vacation, which is 75% of the owners. Road
Department staff will not address this statement as it is not verifiable or indicative of a necessity to
vacate the public's interest in a property.
3. Decades old trees and landscaping would be lost. Road Department staff will not address this
statement as it is not verifiable or indicative of a necessity to vacate the public's interest in a property.
4. Since 1994, the county has never used, improved, nor plowed this road to our knowledge. Not once
that we know of has the county plowed the snow during the major snowstorms of 2017 & 2019. Road
Department records indicate that no County -funded maintenace or improvement of the subject
portion of Schibel Road has ever occurred; however, Road Department staff note that County -funded
maintenance of a local access road is forbidden under state law and that absence of County -funded
maintenance is not indicative of a necessity to vacate the public's interest in a property.
S. The southern portion of the road that is requested to be vacated has not been used by the general
public and has only been used as access and a driveway for tax lots 1800 and 1901. John Kevin O'Leary,
owner of Tax Lot 100 on Assessor's Map 17-12-05C, has indicated to Road Department staff that he has
interest in using it for future access. Nonetheless, Road Department staff believe that, generally, the
subject right of way has only been used to access Tax Lots 1800 and 1901 as indicated by the
Petitioners. The primary access to Tax Lot 100 on Assessor's Map 17-12-05C is from Old Bend Redmond
Highway.
6. Traffic will increase, and no traffic study has been done that we know of. Road Department staff will
not address this statement as it is not verifiable or indicative of a necessity to vacate the public's
interest in a property.
Page 3 of 5
T. Safety of the young children living on Schibel �Road ;s a concern of the parents and neighbors. Road
Department staff will not address this statement as it is not verifiable or indicative of a necessity to
vacate the public's interest in a property.
8. It is not in the General Public's best interest. The Board of County Commissioners will make this
determination.
9. Induced to sign dedication under false pretenses. We were told we could remove the southern
portion of the dedication with a "single item deletion. Current Road Department staff have no
knowledge of the requirements or circumstances under which the subject right of way was dedicated
in 1994. Road Department staff note that Jeffrey and Kathryn Gates, Chief Petitioners and owners of
Tax Lot 1800 on Assessor's Map 17-12-05B, were partial grantors for the 1994 dedication deed.
10. Tax lot 100 to the south will not suffer loss of access as the site address of 64145 Old Bend Redmond
Hwy is permitted, approved and installed. As indicated above, the primary access to Tax Lot 100 on
Assessor's Map 17-12-05C is from Old Bend Redmond Highway.
A review of Assessor's Tax Map 17-12-05B indicates that the proposed vacation would effectively landlock Tax
Lot 1901, potentially depriving the owners of that property of access necessary for the exercise of their
property right. In regards to this matter, Road Department staff note that the submitted petition included a
loss of access consent form signed by the property owners.
The Petitioners submitted completed service provider consent forms from those providers serving within or
adjacent to the proposed vacation area; those service providers and their responses are listed below:
• Avion Water Company, Inc.
o Representative: Mike Heffernan, Engineering Department
o Service provider does not have existing facilities within the area proposed for vacation
o Service provider consents to the proposed vacation
• Central Electric Cooperative
o Representative: Parneli Perkins, Land and ROW Specialist
o Service provider does have existing facilities within the area proposed for vacation
o Service provider consents to the proposed vacation but requests that an easement for utilities
be granted within the proposed vacation area. Service provider emailed Road Department
staff on June 12, 2023 indicating that easement documents had been secured and that their
organization was supportive of the proposed vacation.
Findings:
Based upon the submitted petition materials, responses to service provider notices, and the Road
Department's research of the subject right of way, the Road Department makes the following findings:
• The proposed vacation area was dedicated to the public by dedication deed recorded at the Deschutes
County Clerk's Office as Deed No. 1994-46818 (ORS 368.326).
• Owners of a recorded property right that would potentially be deprived of access necessary for the exercise
of that property right with the proposed vacation have consented to the proposed vacation (ORS 368.331).
Page 4 of 5
• The Petitioners, who represent the owners of more than sixty (60) percent of property abutting the subject
right of way, have submitted complete petitions and submitted the required fee (ORS 368.341(i)(c); ORS
368.341(3); ORS 368.341(4); ORS368.351).
• As the petition for vacation does not include acknowledged signatures of owners of 100 percent of
property abutting the proposed vacation area, the vacation proceedings are subject to a public hearing
(ORS 368.346).
• The subject right of way does not appear to be necessary for current or future public use.
• The subject right of way appears to coincide with onsite wastewater system components, an outbuilding,
and other private property improvements for Tax Lot 1800 on Assessor's Map 17-12-05B.
Recommendation:
Based on the above findings, the Road Department has determined that the proposed vacation is in the
public interest. The Road Department recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
proposed vacation with adoption of Order No. 2023-017 subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to vacation of the subject right of way, the owners of Tax Lot 1800 on Assessor's Map 17-12-05B
shall execute a dedication deed to coincide with the existing as -travelled north alignment of Schibel
Road.
2. The vacated property shall vest with the rightful owner or owners holding title according to law in
accordance with ORS 368.366(1)(c).
This report is made pursuant to ORS 368.326 through 368.366, concerning the vacation of county property.
Page 5 of 5
PETITION FOR VACATION OF A PUBLIC ROAD
TO: THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
We, the undersigned (holding recorded interest or abutting the proposed property or owning
improvements constructed on the proposed property for vacation), respectfully request the following
described road be vacated. �-!�I r�
Description of road to be vacated: &c. I-^'�� 4 GAed
Located in �o( Deschutes County.
Reason for road vacation request:
DATED this, a day of J 20 2.Z
PRINT NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP
I;GRI2y NNIg
S_1I l 3f'flC( ae 977��3
cckG .t r
STATE OF OREGON )
County of S j ss.
L7L2OL9 -/ 703
On this olL day of ' i U (-_,, in the year 202z-, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared
T'C\ r I cane" L`e-e t�e.r Re e-� `'� personally known to me (or proved to
me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is(are) subscribed to this
instrument, and acknowledged that he (she, they) executed it.
WITNES my hand and off . I seal
OFFICAL STAMP Rota iic for 'Oregon.
TINA MARIE MORRIS re g
NOTARYPIJBLIC-OREGON My Commission expires:
COMMISSION NO.996354
MY (iOMMtSSION EXPIRES JANUARY 28, 2024
STATE OF OREGON )
County of
On this _c 1' day of k In the year 20-, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared
19 R .Y Pr- R e"m i e personally known to me (or proved to
me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is(are) subscribed to this
instru they) executed it.
TINA MARIE MORRIS WITNES�myand nd offic' eal
NOTARY PUBUC-OREGON
COMMISSION NO.99�354 Np� p blic for Oregon.
MYC4MMISS" EXPIRES JMNUARY 28, 2M4
My Commission expires:
STATE OF OREGON }
County of )
On this 'day of in the year 20a before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared
r9l\ a r I e-YN.c. R c-I1. y% . C - personally known to me (or proved to
me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is(are) subscribed to this
I (she, they) executed it.
T�
TINA MARIE MCRRIS 1MTNES my handand officl
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREaON
f COMMISSION NO. 9%354 Not bliC for O
MY CCAiIMRSSIit EXPIRES JANUARY 2$, 2b24 I1i'g®n`
My Commission expires:
STATE OF OREGON }
j ss.
Cou of
On this , In the year 20_ . before me, a Notary Public, rsonallY appeared
me on the basis of sati ory evidence) to be the personally kn n to me (or proved to
instrument, and acknowledg at he (she, they) executed kwhose name(s) is( subscribed to this
WITNESS my hand and offic, seal
for
I CERTIFY THAT THIS IS THE TRUE AND ORIGIN�VPETIT1'6"IRCULATED BY ME.
TELEPHONE:
PETITION FOR VACATION OF A PUBLIC ROAD
TO: THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
We, the undersigned (holding recorded interest or abutting the proposed property or owning
improvements constructed on the proposed property for vacation), respectfully request the following
described road be vacated.
Description of road to be vacated: _See attached
Located in , Deschutes County.
Reason for road vacation request: See attached
DATED this day of 20 Qa
PRINT NAME SIGNATURE
Kathryn Gates, Trustee
Jeffrey Gates, Trustee
STATE OF OREGON
} ss.
County of
ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP
TiVJ1--4- 64227 Schibel Rd, Bend, OR 97703
To,.x%64227 Schibel Rd, Bend, OR 97703
On this ao/i day of in the year 20 6 �efore me, a Notary Public, personally appeared
Kathryn Gates, Trustee of the Jeffrey & Kathryn Gates Rev LIV Trust, personally known to me (or
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to s) whose name(s) is(are) subscribed to
this instrument, and acknowledged that he (she, �X it.
OFFICIAL STAMP Notary Public for Oregon.
KAl1 MARIE CLA rya ODD
1ARY PUBt.K.-OREGON My Commission expires:
MMISSION NO 10216W
t$:Cx EXPIRES FEBFitfARY 2
STATE OF OREGON
) se.
County of-E'll�s )
On this day of c �Ck1 �, in the year 2a22before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared
Jeffrey Gates, Trustee of the _Jeffrey & Kathryn Gates Rev LIV Trust,_ personally known to me (or
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to b erson(s) whose name(s) is(are) subscribed to
this instrum=acknitow the (she, executed .
STAMP icial seal
AftIE CLAYL,'OREOMNo �o2teeo Notary u IYt�o +BRUMY2 2 My Commission expires c�
STATE OF OREGON
ss.
County of
On this day of , in the year 20_, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to
me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is(are) subscribed to this
instrument, and acknowledged that he (she, they) executed it.
WITNESS my hand and official seal
STATE OF OREGON
ss.
County of
Notary Public for Oregon.
My Commission expires:
On this day of in the year 20_, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to
me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is(are) subscribed to this
instrument, and acknowledged that he (she, they) executed it.
WITNESS my hand and official seal
Notary Public for Oregon.
My Commission expires:
I CERTIFY THAT THIS IS THE TRUE AND ORIGINAL PETITION CIRCULATED BY ME.
��WGNAVURE
TELEPHONE:I
Reason for Vacating the southern portion of Schibel Rd
1-Invalid Dedication due to Restrictions and Reservations -
Septic was installed & permitted by Deschutes County in 1980, repaired and permitted by
Deschutes County in 1991.
The Deed of Dedication was accepted in 1994 by Deschutes County. The 60foot width
encroaches upon the septic system, that was approved by Deschutes County.
2-Reduces property values of the 3 tax lots requesting this Vacation, which is 75% of the owners.
3-Decades old trees and landscaping would be lost.
4-Since 1994, the county has never used, improved, nor plowed this road to our knowledge. Not once
that we know of has the county plowed the snow during the major snowstorms of 2017 & 2019.
5-The southern portion of the road that is requested to be vacated has not been used by the general
public and has only been used as access and a driveway for tax lots 1,80 and 1901.
6-Traffic will increase, and no traffic study has been done that we know of.
7-Safety of the young children living on Schibel Road is a concern of the parents and neighbors
8-It is not in the General Public's best interest.
9-Induced to sign the dedication under false pretenses. We were told we could remove the southern
portion of the dedication with a "single item deletion"
10-Tax lot 100 to the south will not suffer loss of access as the site address of 64145 Old Bend Redmond
Hwy is permitted, approved and installed.
EXHIBIT A
SCHIBEL ROAD - VACATION
A STRIP OF LAND BEING 60.00 FEET WIDE, 30.00 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF CENTERLINE (WHEN
MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES) LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (SE 1/4, SW 1/4, NW 1/4) AND THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4, SW 1/4), ALL IN SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH, RANGE
12 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, THE CENTERLINE OF WHICH IS
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT FROM WHICH THE CENTER WEST ONE -SIXTEENTH CORNER OF SAID SECTION
5 BEARS NORTH 34�4251" EAST, 51.73 FEET, THENCE NORTH 00-43'51" WEST, 161.76 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 88032'18" WEST, 76.94 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A
300.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16.54'37 AN ARC
LENGTH OF 88.54 FEET (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 80-05'00" WEST, 88.22 FEET); THENCE
SOUTH 71037'41" WEST, 39.52 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A
110.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 65-21'54", AN ARC
LENGTH OF 125.49 FEET (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 75-41'22" WEST, 118.80 FEET);
THENCE NORTH 43o00'25" WEST, 81.60 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG THE ARC
OF A 140.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 80°07'12", AN ARC
LENGTH OF 195.77 FEET (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 02`56'49" WEST, 180.21 FEET);
THENCE NORTH 37'06'47" EAST, 125.37 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG THE ARC
OF A 300.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27°17'49", AN ARC
LENGTH OF 142.93 FEET (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 50-45'42" EAST, 141.58 FEET);
THENCE NORTH 64�24'36" EAST, 40.87 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG THE ARC
OF A 150.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 48-27'11", AN ARC
LENGTH OF 126.85 FEET (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 40011'00" EAST, 123.10 FEET) TO A
POINT ON THE ONE-SIXTYFORTH LINE AND THE TERMINUS OF THIS CENTERLINE DESCRIPTION, THE
SIDELINES ARE TO BE LENGTHENED OR SHORTENED TO TERMINATE AT SAID ONE-SIXTYFORTH LINE
AND AT THE SOUTH LINE OF TAX LOT 17120513001800.
TOGETHER WITH THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED STRIP OF LAND BEING 60.00 FEET WIDE, 30.00 FEET
ON EACH SIDE OF CENTERLINE (WHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES) WHICH IS MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH -SOUTH CENTERLINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 5 FROM WHICH THE CENTER WEST ONE -SIXTEENTH CORNER BEARS SOUTH 00`43'51" EAST,
536.04 FEET, THENCE NORTH 83°16'31" WEST, 147.04 FEET TO THE SIDELINE OF THE ABOVE
DESCRIBED STRIP OF LAND AND THE TERMINUS OF THIS CENTERLINE DESCRIPTION, THE SIDELINES
ARE TO BE LENGTHENED OR SHORTENED TO TERMINATE AT SAID SIDELINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED
STRIP OF LAND AND AT SAID NORTH -SOUTH CENTERLINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER.
THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND EXHIBIT MAP ARE BASED ON COUNTY SURVEY NO. 11789.
I��vI�T1=FEE®
P'ROFE;SSIONAL.
rm
am
'EXHIBIT
SCHIBEL ROAD
VACATION
LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4, NW
SW 1/4 OF SECTION 5, T. 17 S., R. 12 E., W. M.
S—N 1 /64 LINE N89'58'42"W
HOLLYHOCK 1994 LIVING TRUST
64245 SCHIBEL ROAD
TAX LOT 171205B001901
/ o^
30•
It ll
I
ti
Ate.
8j OQ
pp.
SCALE 1 " = 100'
E-W CENTER 1/4 LINE
/G�� /43 /
/ 'o,\ o/
K 6
N83'16'31 "W
147.04'
PORTION OF SCHIBEL ROAD
/ TO BE VACATED
JEFF AND KATHY GATES
64227 SCHIBEL ROAD
TAX LOT 171205B001800
Z \ / C1 54' S88'32'18"W
C2 13�� IIA w R 30 00' 76.94'
,Q\ 25.49 S�
�10.00' 3g5/ z
0
� o
'v
rn �
CURVE
TABLE
CURVE
LENGTH
RADIUS
DELTA
I BEARING
CHORD
Cl
88.54'
300.00'
16'54'37"
S80'05'00"W
88.22'
C2
125.49'
110.00'
65'21'54"
N75'41'22"W
118.80'
C3
195.77'
140.00'
80*07112"
NO2'56'49"W
180.21'
C4
142.93'
300.00'
27*17'49"
N50'45'42"E
141.58'
C5
126.85'
1 150.00'
1 48*27'11"
N40'11'00"E
123.10'
P.O.B. OF 60' WIDE —
EASEMENT BEARS
S34'42'51 "W, 51.73'
FROM CW 1 /16 CORN
A-
SCRIBEL_ ROAD
D
rnrn
aj
z
c�
1 cn
N o 00
z (Az
�
-1 ;' c�
m
c rn a o
z zz
m
� D
n C O
0
(" AX
rn -<
b z91
0
co
0
CW 11,16 CORNER
SECTION 5
T17S, R12E, W.M.
REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL.
IN
n
Zd
EXHIBIT A
SCHIBEL ROAD - DEDICATION
A STRIP OF LAND BEING 60.00 FEET WIDE, 30.00 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF CENTERLINE (WHEN
MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES) LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (SE 1/4, SW 1/4, NW 1/4) IN SECTION S, TOWNSHIP
17 SOUTH, RANGE 12 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, THE
CENTERLINE OF WHICH IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH -SOUTH CENTERLINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SAID SECTION 5 FROM WHICH THE CENTER WEST ONE -SIXTEENTH CORNER BEARS SOUTH
00-43'51" EAST, 536.04 FEET, THENCE NORTH 83-16'31" WEST, 3.92 FEET TO A POINT OF
CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A 105.88 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 82*05'22", AN ARC LENGTH OF 151.70 FEET (THE CHORD OF
WHICH BEARS NORTH 42-13'50" WEST, 139.05 FEET); THENCE NORTH 01'11'09" WEST, 20.44
FEET TO A POINT ON THE ONE-SIXTYFORTH LINE AND THE TERMINUS OF THIS CENTERLINE
DESCRIPTION, THE SIDELINES ARE TO BE LENGTHENED OR SHORTENED TO TERMINATE AT SAID
NORTH -SOUTH CENTERLINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER AND AT THE ONE-SIXTYFORTH LINE.
THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND EXHIBIT MAP ARE BASED ON COUNTY SURVEY NO. 11789.
REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL
JULY' 't-lW* -1994
BRIAN' WREEM
D AT t � i,-2o21
'EXHIBIT B'
SCHIBEL ROAD
DEDICAII0I
LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4, SW 1/4, NW 1/4 OF
SECTION 5, T. 17 S., R. 12 E., W. M.
S-N 1/64 LINE N89'58'42"W 795.52'
HOLLYHOCK 1994 LIVING TRUST
64245 SCHIBEL ROAD
TAX LOT 171205BOO1901
30'
1 OS\ • )O, \
DEDICATION
3.92'-
N83-16'31 " W
c
o ''� SCHIBE AD
� N83'16'31,; _
I - i
D
mr
m
co a
z (r
JEFF AND KATHY GATES o v m
64227 SCHIBEL ROAD m w z n
TAX LOT 171205BOO1800
Z � �
m n
m� �
N Z I
m
D
om �v
r*�
f z °°
. o
OD
SCALE 1" = 100'
E-W CENTER 1/4 LINE
CURVE TABLE
CURVE
LENGTH
RADIUS
DELTA
I BEARING
CHORD
C6
151.70'
105.88'
82'05'22"
1 N42'13'50"W
139.05'
CW 1/16 CORNER
SECTION 5
T17S, R12E, W.M.
'REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL
1l-W, —i994
BRIAN, W. -EEVES
RENEWAL lJATC 1731--U--i
We, the undersigned, are the owners of Tax Lot 1712DWW1901 in Deschutes County, Oregon,
The proposed road vaaaft of a portion of Sdtkel Road will deprive us of access to a Public
road necessary for the exerdse of our recorded property rift.
According to Oregon Revised SWA tes 368.331:
30&331 tlmbmkwt on we of vacadon pmmedinps to efthute access. A county govemfng
body shad not vacate publk lands under ORS 38B.3W to We 366 if the vecahm would depdv+e
an ownerof a rocwrdedpmrperty fight of access necessary for the exendse of that p►operty dght
unfess the county goveaft body has the consent of the owner.
Mle hereby give the Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon consent to
prooeed with the proposed road vacation of a portion of Schibel Road.
DATED this t day of '� 7--bV UAC' 2OeA
Marlene S WheeW. Owner as Tnm tee T A ennie, Owner
Hollyhock 1994 Living Trust, JIV
STATE OF ��+I�.c�'�
County aft j
The foregoing Instrument wag
admowledged Marlene S. Wheeler
me by heeler
this. - day of V .bC li'AC + , 20Q.
PIMCO " NOTARY PUBLIC FOR E-A ���CPO
C00"1151� MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: _d'$
Aw Is, ues/1 Cr1R rw�r tamm. E
WA
STATE OP151ftiii{� )
County mw
The foreoft instrument was adamMedged before me by Terry A. Rennie
this day of ��v A , 20�j
�AVDWHWMM NOTARY PUBLIC FOR GREGGNAA AZ.
%am►°1b`-#Amft MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: sPW Ll L
Comnst�ian 1�i3317t
My Comte. 6 1 152m
SERVICE PROVIDER CONSENT FOR RIGHT OF WAY VACATION
a i r V (:,I- a4e S, , as Chief Petitioner, intends to submit a petition for Deschutes
(Chief Petitioner's Name)
County, Oregon to vacate the public right of way described or depicted in the attached documents.
As a utility or other service provider, Avion Water Company, Inc.
Does not have existing facilities within the area proposed for vacation.
❑ Have existing facilities within the area proposed for vacation.
Further, as a utility or other service provider, Avion Water Company, Inc.
Consents to the vacation of this section of public right of way.
❑ Consents to the vacation of this section of public right of way but requests that an easement for
utilities be granted within the area to be vacated by the underlying property owner.
❑ Does not consent to the proposed right of way vacation for the following reason:
Print Name of Service Provider Representative
Signature
Ref: Schibel Road Vacation
e E G, j
Representative's Title
2 / 2-
Date
cn
CD
0
9
0
92 M W<
Co
CA (n CD
4 .5. 00
CL
cz>
C-1-4
ER
-n po CD =r 0
0
I
PA
N X N CD CO
ROO" X4. I
m
C)
14—
CD
In
-4
Rig
"CD -W 8
OLD BEND-RED.Mol
Cil
HVVY
SERVICE PROVIDER CONSENT FOR RIGHT OF WAY VACATION
Kathv Gates . as Chief Petitioner, intends to submit a petition for Deschutes
(Chief Petitioner's Name)
County, Oregon to vacate the public right of way described or depicted in the attached documents.
As a utility or other service provider, Central Electric Cooperative, Inc
(Service Provider Name)
❑ Does not have existing facilities within the area proposed for vacation.
Have existing facilities within the area proposed for vacation.
Further, as a utility or other service provider, _ Central Electric Cooperative Inc
(Service Provider Name)
❑ Consents to the vacation of this section of public right of way.
11
Consents to the vacation of this section of public right of way but requests that an easement for
utilities be granted within the area to be vacated by the underlying property owner.
❑ Does not consent to the proposed right of way vacation for the following reason:
If the proposed new Road is dedicated to the public an easement for CEC's existing facilities
located within the proposed new ROW will need to be created
Pameli Perkins
Print Name of Service Provider Representative
Land & ROW Specialist
Representative's Title
Signatur Date
tO
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject::'. �`��4 � Date:
Name fe
Address 1. to_
C/ ` /o
Phone #s
a
E-mail address, ;h,
0
In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 1:1Yes 0 No
If so, please give a copy o the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR N.W.1/4 SEC.5 T.17S. R.12E. W.M. 17 12 05BO
ASSESSMENT PURPOSE ONLY
DESCHUTES COUNTY
612/2022
1" = 200'
1
SEE MAP 16 12 32
Cancelled No:
3f I 32 I 1600
nao 14COR
65 2000 2001 J016.ec t00 c
1— 949.0
PARCEL f Y 1\ l o\ ) y Mslss
yy../T' PARCEL 2 1 ®3 200
kV 8
111 ��
L — ----
l1RRC\C\RRCZ
LOT 3
90 39B8 AC uasx 1
400
9ynC 2002C 600 azJm 700
PARCEL 2 PT PARCEL 1 pT 1 ® 1 5
P, V�Mk>n'4a. L.$miaa.ilaiurt--F.... i-'i 1+.' i'.hihe'm'kZu'ai f
( A s9 800
`PT arz
500
C I�t 6 f//$ S P1
i O
'¢off/ ra a� �1.1 anc
e
2 333 AC
,n 1900 —1 1700 900
')ta nC m a 20 SOFT H
= 1-715ti.+S. o W
co
.. r,
- ab.
,O90
a 1W s- 8- 2-7 &�
f E)IJ osonc
'f O
no
kP 1800
saRi L,a iOAc 14400-
" N _
\ RpgQ
/ nac
) D /J 1 v 1200
a(uR, _�•�
ao.�," 4"'r. can �. �y. -x� sYeua *t .vw • as _ a,Z.� � sv _ v\__. .� ,...,,..',mod . COR
\' iAc
®p® j
I
1 o2S "cc-- — zss :12nnw �—
Is 8
0201`
200
r
i
,too
rr f
1
0
r4 �
y Exhibit
5 \6 0
C r rr
\ 9 gage ®f io f 17 12 05CO
Page of
Deschutes County Property Information
Documents for account # 169052
Account Information
Mailing Name: OLEARYJOHN KEVIN
Map and Taxlot: 171205C000100
Account:169052
Situs Address: 64145 OLD BEND REDMOND HWY, BEND, OR 97703
Tax Status: Assessable
Development Documents
Search:
Date Uploaded Document Type Description File Number
247-22-003380-DA
5/10/2022 Other Approved access 247=22-003380-DA View Document
247-22-000572-LR
7/15/2022
Application Materials
2022-07-14 ADD Materials 22-572-LR
247-22-000572-LR
View Document
11/15/2022�
Decisions, Memos, Orders & Staff Reports
12022-11-15 22-572-LR FD, NOD
247-22-000572-LR
View Document
THE INFORMATION AND MAPS ACCESSED THROUGH THIS WEB SITE PROVIDE A VISUAL DISPLAY FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE. EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO ASSURE THE ACCURACY OF THE MAPS AND ASSOCIATED DATA. DESCHUTES
COUNTY MAKES NO WARRANTY, REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE CONTENT, SEQUENCE, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF THE DATA PROVIDED HEREIN. DESCHUTES COUNTY EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMS ANY
REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. DESCHUTES COUNTY SHALL ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS,
OR INACCURACIES IN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED, DESCHUTES COUNTY ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY DECISIONS MADE OR ACTIONS TAKEN OR NOT TAKEN BY THE USER OF THIS INFORMATION OR DATA FURNISHED
HEREUNDER.
© 2023 - Deschutes County. All rights reserved.
Exhibit
Wage Of
4 ,
(Connections to public roads or rights -of -way only)
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
Date: A r i 1 10 2022 Access Permit Number:
Land Use File Number (if applicable):
Road Name: n i ci rid Red,nnrid H i gf ,- v Road Number:
Applicant's Name: John K� O'Lea ry
Phone: 5( 4l j 383•-2430 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 7232 'BendORCity/State/Zip: 97708
Permit Address (if different):
Applicant's Email Address: _
Property Description: Township__ Range.. 12 Section 05 Tax Lot - OO.,jjU_? 1 ?02
Nearest intersection: Hzghw N and td Bend Red fond Hiohw y
Type of Access (check one): ❑ Residential ❑ Commercial tX Farm
Type of Surface to be constructed (check one): ❑ Concrete t Aggregate or Cinder Base ❑ Asphalt
Other:
Applicant hereby applies to Deschutes County for permission to construct a driveway access
at the permit address above. All work shall be in conformance with Deschutes County Code
17.48.210, 17.48.220 and 12.28. The driveway access shall be maintained as approved and shall not
present a traffic hazard for road or driveway users.
Applicant agrees and understands that this permit does not constitute a land use permit.
Any development of property connected with this permit must comply with all applicable land use
regulations.
Please include a drawing or site plan sketch (space provided on the back of this form),
showing the location and type of access. It should indicate the driveways position relative to
landmarks :such as roads, other driveways, fence lines, power poles, etc, Please include a north
arrow, and mark the proposed access in the field at the road with stakes, flags or paint on the road
so the inspector can readily locate it, For properties within unincorporated communities, please
indicate whether a curb cut and/or sidewalks will be required. If required, public sidewalks shall be
constructed at the time the driveway access is constructed, Note: If a curb cut is required for the
installation of the driveway, a permit to work in the public right-of-way is required from the County
Road Department,
Disclaimer: Deschutes County will not take responsibility for ensuring that all other
conditions of any other regulating agency have been complied with. It is the responsibility of the
homeowner to meet any existing subdivision covenants, conditions and restrictions, and all other
neighborhood and regulatory agency requirements. Applicant/Owner agrees to remove any
ronstrurtion-lOenmonts, not mootine. standards, ,s daterminr4d by Count,.
11 7 NVJ L.afaye: e Avenuee, Bend, Oregon 97703, j P.O Box 600S, Ber)d, OR 97708-6005
al 541 388-E 75 @ cr ®®
� i Crider ) �.. d�.sC,';u�c-s.or�, v✓•vs,��,descr �'� �� -7'
Pae Rev 5/18
9®f
Applicant's Signature;_ _ ___ Date:
CT
Amount Received: _ Receipt No: Check No./Cash:
Area Drawing Showing Subject Property
(A map may also be attached)
See Attached Map
z �
Special Conditions:Access provides sight distance to the left of 860 feet and to the right
of 535 feet.
Distance to Nearest Intersection: 815' N to Schibel Rd Mile Point:
Approved by: DESCHUTES COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT
�'�"� ---
Printed Name: W_Brett,Hamrick
Date: 5/10/22
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Printed Name:
Date:
117 NW i...affiyet te Avenue, Bend, Ore;on 97/0:3 j P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 9770 .tAibit
(54i).388-657'3 @ cdd@)dc.schu"es.org @ www.deschutes.org/cd
page of
UtWjHUIL� UUUNIY
1 " = 200'
SEE MAP 17 12 053
34AAC
I
Entire Acre ge
11
r-I
m
a-->
Ske MAP 17 12 08
w E
s
flag
Gate
flag`
43,
500
. . ... . ....
Exhibit 7
xhihnt
II
Page T of
Driveway Inspection for access
Permit Address: 64145 Old Bend Redmond Hwy Permit number: 247-22-003380-®A
Road name: Old Bend Redmond Hwy Road number: 02156
RESIDENTIAL -14' SINGLE, 20' DOUBLE Agricultural - 20' wide COMMERCIAL - 35' wide
New Access or 0 Existing access Posted Speed of MPH
Road Classification LOCAL 0 COLLECTOR ARTERIAL 0 UNKNOWN
Type of Road Surface PAVED,0 GRAVEL,0 DIRT
Distance to Schibel Rd & old Bend Redmond Hwy Intersection is 815 ft. to the North
Actual sight distance looking left: 860 feet & to the right: 535 feet
Latitude: 44.129613 Longitude: -121.314807 Milepost:
Culvert Needed 0 YES (�) NO - Minimum pipe size shall be 12"
BASIC SIGHT DISTANCE CHART
Down Grade
LEFT
RIGHT
MPH
TURN
TURN
3%
9%
add
add
25
280
240
3'
18'
add
add
35
390
335
7'
37'
add
add
45
500
430
18'
49'
add
add
55
610
530
25'
98'
Drivers eye Height of 3.5' & object Height of 2'
above surface
R"ioilnRD lif aCdS (JKE
RH2JlR'xu SIGHT NISTAINCE
MSED G::,UAR
NOORSTRUMNSBE'FGENI'
NO Gi3STitlliiIiJNSEitiwEEPat �.tU4i'1Ee
&8'OFFINISH GRADE ELEVATION &S'OF FINISH GRADE ELEVAMN
xe!
Does the Access meet sight distance criteria? a YES or 0 NO
Conditions of approval:
Maintain a clear view
Inspected by: BH
Approved by:
Exhibit 4-1
Page of
County code quick refrence:
17.48.210. Access.
A. Permit Required. Access onto public right of way or change in type of access shall require a permit. Permits are applied for at
offices of the Community Development Department.
B. Access Restrictions and Limitations. The creation of access onto arterials and collectors is prohibited unless there is no other
possible means of accessing the parcel. In any event, residential access onto arterials and collectors shall not be permitted within
100 feet of an intersection or the maximum distance obtainable on the parcel, whichever is less.
C. Commercial and Industrial Access.
1. Requirements for commercial and industrial access will be determined by the Road Department
Director in accordance with DCC 17.48.090.
2. Safety improvements, including left turn lanes and traffic signals, may be required.
D. Sight Distance. Access shall be denied at locations that do not meet AASHTO sight distance standards.
(Ord. 2001-016 §1, 2001; Ord. 93-012 §53(A), 1993; Ord. 81-043 §1, Exhibit A, §8.400(1)-(4), 1981)
17.48.220, Driveways.
A. Access Width. The following are the maximum width of driveways:
Type Width (in feet) Residential 14(single), 20(double) Agricultural 20 Commercial/Industrial 35
B. Culverts. Where culverts are required for driveways, the minimum pipe size shall be 12 inches.
C. Drainage. Driveways shall be constructed in such a manner that water, aggregate or any other substance that is
hazardous to the traveling public will not enter onto the public right-of-way.
D. Construction. Construction of the driveway shall be in accordance with the design standards of the County Road
Department. (Ord. 2011-018 §1, 2011; Ord. 2001-016
§1, 2001; Ord. 81-043 §1, Exhibit A, §8.400(5)-(8), 1981)
12.28.090. Prohibited Locations.
A. No driveway approach shall be permitted to interfere with any public utility facilities. Under the permit required by
DCC 12.28, the applicant may be authorized to relocate any such utility, upon application to the subject utility provider and upon
making suitable arrangements for financial reimbursement to the utility provider.
B. At street intersections no portion of any driveway approach, including end slopes, shall be permitted within the
intersection curb return.
C. At street intersections in noncommercial or residential and rural areas, no portion of any driveway approach,
including end slopes, shall be permitted within 50 feet of the intersection curb return.
(Ord. 2011-026 §4, 2011; Ord. 95-035 §1, 1995; Ord. 203-6 §5, 19751
12.28.100. Width of Driveway Approach Apron.
The width of driveway approach aprons shall not exceed the following dimensions:
A. For residential driveways, 14 feet for single driveways and 20 feet for double driveways and not more than one
driveway approach shall be permitted per lot when such lot is 50 feet or less in width fronting on any street or avenue.
1. An additional driveway approach will be allowed when any particular lot has 50 feet or more of frontage on any street
or avenue and the driveways can meet the spacing requirements listed in DCC 17.48.090 (B).
2. Sidelines of lots may also have driveway approaches in conformity with the provisions of DCC 12.28.100(A);
notwithstanding that such lots have driveway approaches on their frontage area.
B. For commercial driveways, when one or more driveway approaches serve a given property frontage, no single apron
shall exceed 35 feet in width, but when such establishment controls 50 feet or more of street frontage the number of driveway
aprons shall be limited to two for the first 100 feet or part thereof and not more than 35 percent of the frontage exceeding the
initial 100 feet thereafter. A safety island of not less than 16 feet of full height curb shall in all cases be provided between driveway
approaches serving any one -property frontage.
C. Property frontage referred to in DCC 12.28 includes approach areas directly in front of property owned or under the
control of the applicant, and such area as may be directly in front of adjoining property which is used for approach purposes by
right of easement or agreement with the adjoining property owner.
(Ord. 2011-026 §4, 2011; Ord. 95-035 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-6 §6, 1975) Exhibit
1Page of
Fyr1. /1-A
TES
TY
FICIAL
tD1ANCYUBLANKENSNIp�F000NTY CLERK
RECORDS Am-1915
Nis V'
ut I i CI { iti�z�� (; n
' O AFIIR R211AG RETURN T%,,
u- a) HENDRlX BRINICH & �" C6t1*1
c., ti BERTALAN, 1.1.11
U Mrn716NWHarrimanSt FIRST 1s'1-"i,:'ANTITLE
Q_ iL n Bend OR 97701 I1d�U1�A°'i,.': �i�l\' OF OREGON
ltl tb 541.382.4980 X 323
c O L? BEND, OR 97709
wp m
v
[111ILI(JU)JIllitl[LI IIII IIIIIIIIIII $76.00
03/30/2004 12:06:54 PM
D-AG Cnta1 Stna4 TRACY
$50.00 $11.00 $10.00 $5.00
ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
i�
t� PARTIES: ALL PROPERTIES IN DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
I3
z
Phillip N. Ogburn and Peggy S. Ogburn, Trustees of the Ogburn Family Trust dated
April 30,1999, owners of taxlot 17-12-05BO-02000 said real property described as:
Parcel 1 of Partition Plat 1994-45, being located in the Northwest Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter (NW '/e NW'/4) of Section Five (5) T17S, R12E, WM.
Gary K. Johansen and Jill E. Johansen, husband & wife, owners of two parcels of
property taxlot 17-12-05BO-02002 said real property described as:
Parcel 1 of Partition Plat 1996-8, Being a portion of the Northwest Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter (NW '/4 NW '/4) of Section Five (5) T17S, Rl2E, WM
And taxlot 17-12-05BO-01400 described in Exhibit l Attached.
Jeffrey M. Gates and Kathryn U. Gates, husband & wife, owners of taxlot 17-12-
05B0-01� 800 said real property described in Exhibit 2 attached.
Steven D. Apfelbaum and Rabbine Apfelbaum, husband & wife, owners of taxlot 17-
12-OSBO-Ol 90�,_said real property described in Exhibit 3 attached.
Randal S. Thornton and Janette A. Thornton, husband & wife, owners of taxlot 17-12-
05BO-02001 said real property described as:
Parcel 2, of Minor Land Partition MP-92-53, filed November 2, 1994 as Plat
Partition 1994-45, a parcel in the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NW
'/4 NW '/4) of Section Five (5) T17S, R12E, WM.
Mark Jensen, owner of taxlot 17-12-05BO-02003 said real property described as:
Parcel 2 of Partition Plat 1996-8, filed March 7, 1996, being a portion of Northwest
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NW '/4 NW ''/4) of Section Five (5) T17S, R12E,
WM.
Bradley G. Smith and Mary Meloy, husband & wife, owner of taxlot 17-12-05110-
01900 said real property described in Exhibit 4 attached.
Page 1. ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
ht.0bMijtt1 & i-1146t AM&115AN t1t t
INS fr1ANCE COMPANY OF OREGON AS AN
AC;(-'%A()0A11()N ()NLY. NO LIABILITY IS
fiJ i tiff T4dE CONDITION OF TITLE
r.,'t;'; VALVTY, SUFFICIENCY, OR
tia 60C,OMENT.
PARTIES, and their successors, heirs and assignees, hereby agree as follows:
1. This Agreement covers a road dedicated to the public by Declaration of Dedication,
recorded November 28, 1994 at 94-46818, by Partition Plats 1994-45 and 1996-8.
2. This Agreement replaces all prior agreements, including that recorded at Book 265,
Page 1725, Official Records of Deschutes County, recorded May 18, 1992, and
bearing recording number 92-15794 and Book 127, Page 482, May 8, 1962,
Deschutes County Deed Records; and Book 352, Page 731, Official Records of
Deschutes County, and bearing recording number 94-36729.
3. This Agreement is appurtenant to and burdens each and every parcel of real property
named herein.
4. The true consideration for this conveyance is the mutual promises contained herein.
5. The parties shall appoint a manager from time to time by a simple majority of the
properties. Each property has one vote. The manager shall prepare an annual budget
for maintenance, repair and snow removal. The annual budget shall then be
apportioned to each equally and such amount shall be paid monthly to the manager
to be placed in a separate account for such purposes.
6. The road maintenance records shall be available for inspection at reasonable times
upon reasonable notice.
7. Any party can call a meeting upon written notice actually received by every member
upon reasonable notice to be held at a reasonable time. Nothing herein prevents
"meetings" or information to be circulated by email or other reasonable means
calculated in good faith to give reasonable notice as long as all parties agree.
8. The parties shall hold harmless and indemnify the manager for any activity the
manager performs within the, scope of acting as manager of this road maintenance
agreement.
9. Any legally created partition or subdivision or other legally created access to the
road that creates new lot or lots shall by said action create an additional property or
properties entitled to a vote and requiring proportionate payment of the road
maintenance assessment. Said access shall be allowed upon execution and
recording of an Addendum to this Agreement signed by the new Owner agreeing to
the terms of this Agreement.
10. Any change in the level of maintenance shall require 2/3 majority vote.
11. Amendments to this Agreement pertaining to the management, maintenance and
repair of the road may be made by 2/3 of the properties if made in writing, notarized
and recorded in similar fashion to this Agreement. No other Amendments are
allowed.
12. Subject to the normal maintenance contemplated herein, costs of repair of the road
damaged by natural disasters or other events for which all holders of an interest in
the road are blameless maybe shared equally.
13. Those holders of an interest in the road that are responsible for damage to the road
because of negligence or abnormal use (including that caused by their invitees) shall
repair the damage at their sole expense.
Page 2. ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
14. If any holder of an interest in an road fails to pay the cost of maintenance or paving
of the road as provided herein, or if after written demand to pay said holder's
proportion of such maintenance costs, a civil action for money damages or specific
performance or contribution (or combination of such claims) may be brought against
that person in a court of competent jurisdiction by one or more of the other holders
of an interest in the road, either jointly or severally. The court may order such
equitable relief as may be just in the circumstances. The prevailing party shall
recover all court costs, arbitration fees (if any) and attorney fees at trial and on
appeal. The manager may bring action on behalf of the parties.
Phillip N. ^ burn, T st
OGBURN FAMILY T ST
Gary .Johansen
of rey tes
AV,
Steven D. Apfe baum
Randal S. ho on
I r en /
I
Bra ley G. Sm'A X`
Pagel ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Pegg urn, Tr ee
OGBURN FAMILY TRUST
Jil . Johall,9n
L.a,4"= 'Fm��i �/
Rabbine Apfelba�—_
J nette A. Thornton
Marta y y
STATE OF OREGON)
) ss.
County of Deschutes )
T} f
1e oregorng mstrument was acknowledged before me by Phillip N. Ogburn and Peggy S.
Ogburn, Trustees of and on behalf of the Ogburn Family Trust dated 4.30,99, this
1 7 -day of November 2003.
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
STATE_ OF OREGON)
) ss.
County of Deschutes )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Gary K. Johansen and Jill E.
Johansen, husband & wife, this /? day of November 2003.
OFFICIAL SEAL % ~�
SH ARON KUNKE!
NOTARY PUBLIC OREGON Notary Public for Oregon,
COMMISSION NO 353494
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES FEB. 28, 2006 My Commission Expires:
14
STATE OF OREGON)
) ss.
County of Deschutes )�
The foresloina in.0mmant ivac arlrnnuilPrinn 7 1—C r� ,,,o r,., 1�fF �.. AA tl-+-- --A
-- -----p--•-p-•--••-»........ .. ..v wvu •v er avuvu vv1V.v ulV Vy JV11—y 1VA, \JQtGJ *ttte-rCtrtTn711
ems, husband & wife, this day of November 2003.
.64 '
STATE OF OREGON)
r i :2 _� t ._
Notary ublic for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
) ss.
County of Deschutes )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Steven D. Apfelbaum and
Rabbine Apfelbaum, husband & wife, this day of November 2003.
Notary Public for Oregon
o --
My Commission Expires:
c!.Z�d.:-4jL
}'age 4. ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
k
G
STATE OF OREGON )
) ss.
County of Deschutes )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Randal S. Thornton and Janette
A. Thornton, husband & wife, this _ / q"day of November 2003.
i
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF OREGON)
County o Deschutes )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Mark Jensen this
November 2003.
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
OFFICIAL SEAL
SHARON KUNKEL
NOTARY PUBLIC OREGON
494
my coMM SX)N EXPOSOMMISSIONpFEB. 2832 OB
STATE OF OREGON )
) ss.
County of Deschutes )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
Meloy, huWpcY�ffe; this day of November 2003
;AL SfAL
BOVI
�: BIIG OREC.OF•:
". 'ON NO, 33483E
ti tXPIRES MAY Ik
OFFICIAL SEAL
0L{3pV1
N01AnY I'UBi.IC- OP
EOON
COI�IMISSIUII N0.334838
IfYC�klu SSICI ExaIRESWAY14,2004
Page 5. ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
_day of
by.,$r.ectte- i and Mary
1
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
�n`'�
STATE OF OREGON,
County of _____�
I ss.
----- ---- ---------------------------
f
JOn ___ / `/-, c� oov ---- ------------ before the personallyappeared ____ �
PF �-----t-�`__�__{-a�---
i- - ---------and ------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
whose identity was established to my satisfaction, and who executed the foregoing instrument, acknowledging tome that the same was
executed freely and voluntarily.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have here=o set my hand and affixed my official seal on the da e first written above.
OFFICIALSEAL ,.-
KIM E PECK..
NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON -----1-z
a` -`--
COMMISSION NO. 3770S2 Notac for Oregon O
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAR. 5,MW My commission expires ---------------------
NO PART OF ANY STEVENS-NESS FORM MAYBE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY ELECTRONIC OR MECHANICAL MEANS.
:ORM No. 23 - ACKNOWLEDGMENT, INDIVIDUAL. EA
EXHIBIT 1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PARCEL 1:
A tract of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/a) of
Section Five (5), Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Twelve (12), East of the Willamette
Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4) of said Section 5 with the Westerly right of way line of the Old The
Dalles California Highway; thence Westerly along said South line of said Southeast Quarter
of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4), 500.00 feet to the true point of beginning for this
description; thence North 455.00 feet, more or less to the Southerly right of way of a 25 foot
access easement; thence following along the Southerly right of way line of said access
easement North 52 ° 00' West 85.00 feet; thence leaving said access easement North
83 °00' West 483.6 feet; more or less, to the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4); thence Southerly along the West line of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4), 566.3 feet, more or less, to the Southwest
corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4); thence Easterly
along the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4), 547
feet, more or less, to the true point of beginning for this description. EXCEPTING
THEREFROM the Northerly 60 feet.
Parcel 2:
THE NORTHERLY 60 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL:
A tract of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4) of
Section Five (5), Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Twelve (12), East of the Willamette
Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4) of said Section 5 with the Westerly right of way line of the Old The
Dalles California Highway; thence Westerly along said South line of said Southeast Quarter
of the Northwest Quarter (SE'/4 NW1/4), 500.00 feet to the true point of beginning for this
description; thence North 455.00 feet, more or less to the Southerly right of way of a 25 foot
access easement; thence following along the Southerly right of way line of said access
easement North 52000' West 85.00 feet; thence leaving said access easement North
83000' West 483.6 feet; more or less, to the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4); thence Southerly along the West line of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4), 566.3 feet, more or less, to the Southwest
corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4); thence Easterly
along the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4), 547
feet, more or less, to the true point of beginning for this description.
EXHIBIT 2
A parcel of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter (SETA SWI/- "A 4) and the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter (NEIA NW1A SWl/a) of Section Five (5), Township Seventeen (17) South,
Range Twelve (12), East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, described
as follows:
Beginning at a point, a one -inch pipe set at the CW %,s corner of Section 5; thence South
00°43'51" East, 42.71 feet to a point along the East-West fence; thence along or near the
fence as it meanders, North 89°20'13" West, 9.85 feet, South 89047'08" West, 183.65
feet, South 88 047'34" West, 166.53 feet to a point; thence along a line parallel with the
West %s line of Section 5, North 00 043'51" West, 706.77 feet to a point along South -North
1/64 line of Section 5; thence along said 1/64 line, South 89°58'42" East, 360.04 feet to
the CSNW 1/64 corner of Section 5; thence along the West Y16 line of Section 5, South
00 '43'51" East, 659.87 feet to the point of beginning, being those lands conveyed in deed
recorded in Volume 258, Page 1437, Official Records, and the East part of those lands
conveyed in deed recorded in Volume 312, Page 599, Deed Records.
EXHIBIT 3
A parcel of land situated in the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SWl/4 NW1/4)
and the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NWl/4 SWI/4) of Section Five (5),
Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Twelve (12), East of the Willamette Meridian,
Deschutes County, Oregon, described as follows:
Beginning at a point, a #5 aluminum capped steel rod within a 1 inch pipe set at the West
Quarter corner of Section 5, thence along the West line of Section 5, North 01 ° 11'23" West,
857.02 feet to a #5 plastic capped steel rod; thence South 68 ° 56'51" East, 548.35 feet to
a #5 plastic capped steel rod set along the SN 1/64 line of Section 5; thence along said
1/64 line, South 89058'42" East, 435.48 feet to a #5 plastic capped steel rod; thence
South along a line parallel with the West'%sth line of Section 5, South 00043'51" East
706.77 feet to a point in an E-W fence line; thence along or near said fence as it meanders,
South 88 ° 47'34" West, 223.64 feet, North 88 ° 27'04"West, 303.10 feet, North 84 ° 23,33"
West, 373.85 feet, North 80 ° 13'08" West, 40.40 feet to the Point of Beginning, and being
parts of those lands conveyed in Deed Volume 182, Page 1501, and Deed Volume 312,
Page 599.
EXHIBIT 4
A parcel of land situated in the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter
(N1/2 SWIA NWl/a) of Section Five (5), Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Twelve (12)
East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, described as follows:
Beginning at a point, a 3/4 inch pipe set at the Northwest Ys corner of Section 5; thence along
the West Y16 line of Section 5, South 00043'51" East, 659.87 feet to a No. 5 plastic capped
steel rod set at the CSNW 1/64 corner of Section 5; thence along the SN 1/64 line of
Section 5, North 89058'42" West, 795.52 feet to a No. 5 plastic capped steel rod; thence
North 68 ° 56'51" West, 548.35 feet to a No. 5 plastic capped steel rod set along the West
line of Section 5; thence along said West line, North 01 ° 11'23" West, 463.36 feet to a 3/4
inch pipe set at the North Y16 corner common to Sections 5 and 6; thence along the North Y16
line of Section 5, South 89 ° 58'06" East, 1308.47 feet to the point of beginning.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM that part lying within public roads
!' , ut Cr 1 �� ✓ /Ylr✓1�i ��
. ,Uj
0 AF1JR211NG RGTt RN T0. u jv
L M m HENDRIX BRINICH & '4
J
h• BERTALAN,
M t.I,P �N TITLE
Z rn 71b NW Harriman Si �jRR l 1�!'{ ; ;i; r
CI= Q Bend OR 97701 ,, iY OF OAEG0N
111 ct? n 541.382.4980 i i, c;,:.,'X 323
d U C? z BEND, OR 97709
tom
v
COUNTY OFFICIAL
NANCYDESCHOTES BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKAS
z Bas 400111tj
o[1@$ 03/30/200412:06:54 PM
D-AG Cntai Sbns4 TRACY
$50.00 $11.00 $10.00 $5.00
< ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
PARTIES: ALL PROPERTIES IN DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
E Phillip N. Ogburn and Peggy S. Ogburn, Trustees of the Ogburn Family Trust dated
April 30,1999, owners of taxlot 17-12-05BO-02000 said real property described as:
Parcel 1 of Partition Plat 1994-45, being located in the Northwest Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter (NW'/4 NW'/a) of Section Five (5) T17S, R12E, WM.
Gary K. Johansen and Jill E. Johansen, husband & wife, owners of two parcels of
property taxlot 17-12-05BO-02002 said real property described as:
Parcel I of Partition Plat 1996-8, Being a portion of the Northwest Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter (NW i/4 NW '/4) of Section Five (5) TI7S, RI2E, WM
And taxlot 17-12-05BO-01400 described in Exhibit I Attached,
Jeffrey M. Gates and Kathryn U. Gates, husband & wife, owners of taxlot 17-12-
05110;01800 said real property described in Exhibit 2 attached.
Steven D. Apfelbaum and Rabbine Apfelbaum, husband & wife, owners of taxlot 17-
12-05130-019OLsaid real property described in Exhibit 3 attached.
Randal S. Thornton and Janette A. Thornton, husband & wife, owners of taxlot 17-12-
05BO-02001 said real property described as:
Parcel 2, of Minor Land Partition MP-92-53, filed November 2, 1994 as Plat
Partition 1994-45, a parcel in the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NW
'/4 NW '/4) of Section Five (5) T17S, R12E, WM.
Mark Jensen, owner of taxlot 17-12-05BO-02003 said real property described as:
Parcel 2 of Partition Plat 1996-8, filed March 7, 1996, being a portion of Northwest
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NW '/4 NW '/4) of Section Five (5) TI 7S, R12E,
WM.
Bradley G. Smith and Mary Meloy, husband & wife, owner of taxlot 17-12-05130-
01900 said real property described in Exhibit 4 attached.
Page 1. ROAM MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
ht ti,6hijEb by HMLSt AMehlbAN't'ttL
INS U'>IANCE COMPANY OF OREGON AS AN
p,(-,C,.' AC�0ATiON ()NLY, NO LIABILITY IS
Ar,,.,.I,'i r o r. (' 1 THE CONDITION OF TITLE
VAUr 1'TY, SUFFICIENCY, OR
ENT
PARTIES, and their successors, heirs and assignees, hereby agree as follows:
1. This Agreement covers a road dedicated to the public by Declaration of Dedication,
recorded November 28, 1994 at 94-46818, by Partition Plats9-4nd 1996-8.
2. This Agreement replaces all prior agreements, including that recorded at Book 265,
Page 1725, Official Records of Deschutes County, recorded May 18, 1992, and
bearing recording number 92-15794 and Book 127, Page 482, May 8, 1962,
Deschutes County Deed Records; and Book 352, Page 731, Official Records of
Deschutes County, and bearing recording number 94-36729.
3. This Agreement is appurtenant to and burdens each and every parcel of real property
named herein.
4. The true consideration for this conveyance is the mutual promises contained herein.
5. The parties shall appoint a manager from time to time by a simple majority of the
properties. Each property has one vote. The manager shall prepare an annual budget
for maintenance, repair and snow removal. The annual budget shall then be
apportioned to each equally and such amount shall be paid monthly to the manager
to be placed in a separate account for such purposes.
6. The road maintenance records shall be available for inspection at reasonable times
upon reasonable notice.
7. Any party can call a meeting upon written notice actually received by every member
upon reasonable notice to be held at a reasonable time. Nothing herein prevents
"meetings" or information to be circulated by email or other reasonable means
calculated in good faith to give reasonable notice as long as all parties agree.
8. The parties shall hold harmless and indemnify the manager for any activity the
manager performs within the scope of acting as manager of this road maintenance
agreement.
9. Any legally created partition or subdivision or other legally created access to the
road that creates new lot or lots shall by said action create an additional property or
properties entitled to a vote and requiring proportionate payment of the road
maintenance assessment. Said access shall be allowed upon execution and
recording of an Addendum to this Agreement signed by the new Owner agreeing to
the terms of this Agreement.
10. Any change in the level of maintenance shall require 2/3 majority vote.
11. Amendments to this Agreement pertaining to the management, maintenance and
repair of the road may be made by 2/3 of the properties if made in writing, notarized
and recorded in similar fashion to this Agreement. No other Amendments are
allowed.
12. Subject to the normal maintenance contemplated herein, costs of repair of the road
damaged by natural disasters or other events for which all holders of an interest in
the road are blameless may be shared equally.
13. Those holders of an interest in the road that are responsible for damage to the road
because of negligence or abnormal use (including that caused by their invitees) shall
repair the damage at their sole expense.
Page 2. ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
14. if any holder of an interest in an road faits to pay the cost of maintenance or paving
of the road as provided herein, or if after written demand to pay said holder's
proportion of such maintenance costs, a civil action for money damages or specific
performance or contribution (or combination of such claims) may be brought against
that person in a court of competent jurisdiction by one or more of the other holders
of an interest in the road, either jointly or severally. The court may order such
equitable relief as may be just in the circumstances. The prevailing party shall
recover all court costs, arbitration fees (if any) and attorney fees at trial and on
appeal. The manager may bring action on behalf of the parties.
Phillip N. burn, T st
OGBURN FAMILY T ST
Gary . Johansen
Steven D.A
f
Bra leiJ y G id i
4Pegg;�aurn, Tr ee
OGBURN FAMILY TRUST
Jil . Johan n
h/r y "n--1 3' WGe s
�r
aura Rabbine ApfelbauA
J�nette A. Thornton
May y
Page 3. ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
STATE OF OREGON )
) ss.
County of Deschutes )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Phillip N. Ogburn and Peggy S.
Ogburn, Trustees of and on behalf of the Ogburn Family Trust dated 4.30.99, this
17 -day of November 2003.
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
r t �, C
STATE OF OREGON )
) ss.
County of Deschutes )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Gary K. Johansen and Jill E.
Johansen, husband & wife, this _/ 1_tday of November 2003.
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
o ('
) ss.
County of Deschutes )� .
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Jeffrey M. Gates aP4-44A4ryi
'ems, husband & wife, this _day of November 2003.
Notary ublic for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF OREGON )
) ss.
County of Deschutes )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Steven D. Apfelbaum and
Rabbine Apfelbaum, husband &wife, this _day of November 2003.
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
2 d
Page 4. ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
STATE OF OREGON)
) ss.
County of Deschutes )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Randal S
A. Thornton, husband & wife, this may of November 2003.
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
OFFICIAL SEAL
SHARON KUNKEL
NOTARY PUBLIC OREGON
3544
Myy MMMISSNIN (PMESOMMiSSION�FEB. 831006
STATE OF OREGON)
) ss.
County of Deschutes )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Mark Jensen
November 2003.
4
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
Thornton and Janette
STATE OF OREGON)
ss.
County of Deschutes )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
Meloy, h s60<r .-�vff�; this day of November 2003
ova-��.
)BLIC-ORECO,,
'"ON NO 334836
OFFICIAL SEAL
D L BOVI
NOTARY PU6i.IC- OREGON
CO►AM(sSIUN N0. 334838
lfrCrltlt SSIC ' �aIREGWAY14 2QQ4
z
this 1 day of
bye and Mary
s7
c
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
Page 5. ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
STATE OF OREGON,
County of ____2_�^� ck�
-- ------------------------------ -- I SS.
On -------------------- �E _ c 0 U---------------- before me personally appeared -----
LLL
--_—^------""--__"----..----"_—'--'----'--------------------------------------------------------------
whose identity was established to my satisfaction, and who executed the foregoing instrument, acknowledging to me that the same was
executed freely and voluntarily.
IN Nom
M, I have r o set my hand and affixed my official seal on the d e first written above,
OFFICIALISM
CK------ -------------------- �-�-
---------------------------------
- OAEQON Notar blic for Oregon po
. 377082
CommiRESM ,5,2008 y � My commission expires --- -------------------
NO PART OF ANY STEVENS•NESS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY ELECTRONIC OR MECHANICAL MEANS.
IRM No. 23—
INDIVIDUAL, EA
© 1992-2001 STEVENS-NESS LAW PUBLISHING CO., PORTLAND, OR w s(mrmnass cam
EXHIBIT 1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PARCELI:
A tract of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE'/4 NW1/a) of
Section Five (5), Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Twelve (12), East of the Willamette
Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/a) of said Section 5 with the Westerly right of way line of the Old The
Dalles California Highway; thence Westerly along said South line of said Southeast Quarter
of the Northwest Quarter (SEl/4 NW1/a), 500.00 feet to the true point of beginning for this
description; thence North 455.00 feet, more or less to the Southerly right of way of a 25 foot
access easement; thence following along the Southerly right of way line of said access
easement North 52000' West 85.00 feet; thence leaving said access easement North
83 ° 00' West 483.6 feet; more or less, to the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/a); thence Southerly along the West line of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4), 566.3 feet, more or less, to the Southwest
corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE'/4 NW1/4); thence Easterly
along the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4), 547
feet, more or less, to the true point of beginning for this description. EXCEPTING
THEREFROM the Northerly 60 feet.
Parcel 2:
THE NORTHERLY 60 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL:
A tract of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4) of
Section Five (5), Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Twelve (12), East of the Willamette
Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4) of said Section 5 with the Westerly right of way line of the Old The
Dalles California Highway; thence Westerly along said South line of said Southeast Quarter
of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4), 500.00 feet to the true point of beginning for this
description; thence North 455.00 feet, more or less to the Southerly right of way of a 25 foot
access easement; thence following along the Southerly right of way line of said access
easement North 52000' West 85.00 feet; thence leaving said access easement North
83000' West 483.6 feet; more or less, to the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4); thence Southerly along the West line of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4), 566.3 feet, more or less, to the Southwest
corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4); thence Easterly
along the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/a), 547
feet, more or less, to the true point of beginning for this description.
TA_
EXH I BIT 2
A parcel of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter (SE-1/4 SW1/a NWIA) and the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter (NE1/4NW1/4 SW1/4) of Section Five (5), Township Seventeen (17) South,
Range Twelve (12), East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, described
as follows:
Beginning at a point, a one -inch pipe set at the CW %s corner of Section 5; thence South
00°43'51" East, 42.71 feet to a point along the East-West fence; thence along or near the
fence as it meanders, North 89 ° 20'13" West, 9.85 feet, South 89 ° 47'08" West, 183.65
feet, South 88 047'34" West, 166.53 feet to a point; thence along a line parallel with the
West Ys line of Section 5, North 00 043'51" West, 706.77 feet to a point along South -North
1/64 line of Section 5; thence along said 1/64 line, South 8905842" East, 360.04 feet to
the CSNW 1/64 corner of Section 5; thence along the West Y16 line of Section 5, South
00 043'51" East, 659.87 feet to the point of beginning, being those lands conveyed in deed
recorded in Volume 258, Page 1437, Official Records, and the East part of those lands
conveyed in deed recorded in Volume 312, Page 5_, 9..,._Deed Records.
1 �X t 07" i f 6) j
c
A parcel of land situated in the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SW1/4 NW2/4)
and the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NWl/4 SW:V4) of Section live (5),
Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Twelve (12), East of the Willamette Meridian,
Deschutes County, Oregon, described as follows:
Beginning at a point, a #5 aluminum capped steel rod within a 1 inch pipe set at the West
Quarter corner of Section 5, thence along the West line of Section 5, North 01 ° 11'23" West,
857.02 feet to a #5 plastic capped steel rod; thence South 68 ° 56'51" East, 548.35 feet to
a #5 plastic capped steel rod set along the SN 1/64 line of Section 5; thence along said
1/64 line, South 89 ® 5842" East, 435.48 feet to a 05 plastic capped steel rod; thence
South along a line parallel with the West'%sth line of Section 5, South 00043'51" East
706.77 feet to a point in an E-W fence line; thence along or near said fence as it meanders,
South 88 ° 47'34" West, 223.64 feet, North 88 ° 27'04"West, 303.10 feet, North 84 ° 23'33"
West, 373.85 feet, North 80 ° 13'08" West, 40.40 feet to the Point of Beginning, and being
parts of those lands conveyed in Deed Volume 182, Page 1501, and Deed Volume 312,
Page 599.
EXHIBIT 4 5PIA I -- Mt=l-o f
A parcel of land situated in the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter
(N1/z SWIA NW1/4) of Section Five (5), Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Twelve (12)
East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, described as follows:
Beginning at a point, a 3/4 inch pipe set at the Northwest Ys corner of Section 5; thence along
the West Y16 line of Section 5, South 00043'51" East, 659.87 feet to a No. 5 plastic capped
steel rod set at the CSNW 1/64 corner of Section 5; thence along the SN 1/64 line of
Section 5, North 89 ° 58'42" West, 795.52 feet to a No. 5 plastic capped steel rod; thence
North 68 ° 56'51" West, 548.35 feet to a No. 5 plastic capped steel rod set along the West
line of Section 5; thence along said West line, North 01 ° 11'23" West, 463.36 feet to a 3/4
inch pipe set at the North Y6 corner common to Sections 5 and 6; thence along the North Ys
line of Section 5, South 89 ° 58'06" East, 1308.47 feet to the point of beginning.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM that part lying within public roads.
r�
RVIE
94-46818
(,j�
DECLARATION OF DEDICATION LLE. COUNSEL
�j
359 -91005
We, Dallas and Lois Schulz, Johnnie C. Norris, John M. Schibel, Jeffrey
M. Gates and Kathryn A. Underwood -Gates, and Steven 0. Apfelbaum and
Donna Van Pelt, do hereby dedicate to the public for road and utility
purposes, the following described real property:
BEGINNING AT A POINT along the West Line of the Bend -Redmond
Highway, also known as the Old Dalles-California Highway, from
which the Center % Corner of Section 5, T. 17 S., R. 12 E., W. M.,
bears S 360 371 081" E 375.77 feet; THENCE a strip of land,
60 feet in width along the North Line of Tax Lot 17-12-58-1200,
the centerline of which bears N 760 57" 311" W 543.53 feet;
THENCE a strip of land, 60 feet in width along the North Lines
of Tax Lot 17-12-5B-1400, the centerline of which bears
N 760 571 311" W 9.85 feet, N 520 18' 311, W 88.22 Feet, and
N 830 16' 311" W 475.18 feet; THENCE a strip of land, 60 feet
in width, over and across Tax Lot 17-12-58-1800, being the
E% SE% SW% NW% of Section 5, connecting with an existing road
on or about the center of a 150-foot radius curve, the descrip-
tion of said road follows and is included within this formal
grant of dedicetion:
BEGINNING AT A POINT along the South Line of Tax Lot 17-12-58-1901,
From which the CW 1/16 Corner of Section 5 bears N 340 42' 51" E
61.73 feet; THENCE N 000 43' 51" W 161.7S feet; THENCE
S 880 32" 181" W 76.94 feet; THENCE 88.54 feet along the arc of a
300-fact radius curve, the chord of which bears S 800 05" 001, W
88.22 feet; THENCE S 710 371 411" W 39.52 feet; THENCE 125.49
feet along the arc of a 110-foot radius curve, the chord of which
bears N 750 411 22" W 118.80 feet; THENCE N 430 001 251" W
81.60 feet; THENCE 195.77 feet along the arc of a 140-foot radius
curve, the chord of which bears N 020 56+ 491" W 180.21 feet;
THENCE N 370 06' 47" E 125.37 feet; THENCE 142.93 feet along
the arc of a 300-foot radius curve, the chord of which bears
N 640 24' 36" E 40.87 feet; THENCE 171.73 Feet along the arc of
a 150-foot radius curve, the chord of which bears N 310 3S" 4411'E
162.50 feet and intersecting with the above described alinement;
THENCE N 010 11" 09" W 615.61 feet to the Point of Ending along
the N 1/16 Line of Section 5, from which the NW 1/16 Corner thereof
bears S 890 58, 06"" E 101.44 feet.
all shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF this document is executed by the following signators,
each as to their own rights:
Je re . Gates *t,9&
. Underwcod-Gates--%" -- G� "
STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF OESCHUTES))SS.
As to Tax Lot 17-12-58-1800 per Deed Volume 345, Page 132.5, the fore-
going instrument was acknowledged by Jeffrey M. Gates, an Kathryn A.
Underwood-Gates
A�bdfore me this ,%� day of 1994.
NOTANY PUBLIC OREQd}I1
f COM&11SSIONN0.009T81 Notary FwVno for uregb
MY GOMIAISSIOC! ExPi t o SEPT. K 10 My Commission Expires
page 1 of 3
359 -9lOQ6
DECLARATION OF DEDICATION continued
t an D. Ap aum Oonna Van Pelt
STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF DESCHUTESM SS.
As to Tax Lot per Deed Volume 352, Page 0748, the fore-
going instrument was acknowledged by Stev n 0. ApFelbau n Oonna Van
Pelt, husband and wife, before me this day of 1994.
Or`FiGSAL SEr L /�/a%�tit/�1
Nota
ry u icfor regon
V NOTNnY Pt, l G r }:.,OtJ
C{1ir;@.7f8 I�(i f�0 C.SC57 ,, 3• �C, "
PifCOiv',�?15SiG;1i;:(PiREoGi.T.3,1935 My Commission Expires��
page 2 of 3
i
9
A
359 -1 1007
DECLARATION OF Q9QjQ_A_UnM continued
7—
QsI'las Schulz Lois Schulz
STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF DESCHUTES)) SS.
As to Tex Lot 17-12-58-1200 per Deed Volume 184, Page 198, the foregoing
instrument we- apjcnowledged by Dallas and Lois Schulz before me this
day of 1993.
OFFICIAL OC7.
PA N11? L
NOTAr Notary Public for Oregon
MM6 :1 NN . p 13 My Commission Expires
Ks MAY k
Johnie C. Norris
STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF DESCHUTES)) SS.
As to Tax Lot 17-12-5B-1400 per Deed Volume 111, Page 589, the fore-
going instrument was acknowledged by Johnie C. Norris before me this
/6 day, of 1993.
6ER"
UBLI GER S K E E N
NOTARY UBLIC - OREGON Notary Publ/ilc -for Oregon
I — My Commies' n Expires
J hn M b .1
n M'
STATE OREGON, COUNTY OF DESCHUTES)) SS.
F
T /EF I
T an
Tax Page 125S, Tax Lot
As at 17-12-SB-1901 per Deed Volume 199,
T ex L
17-12-58-1800 per Deed Volume 258, Page 1437, and Tax Lot 17-12-5B-1900
per Deed Volume 182, Page 1501, the foregoing instrument was acknow-
ledged by John M. Schibel before me this j clay of ot&,,�Ie_ 1993.
WIGIAL $CAL.
KANEO SAW0, Notery Public for Oregon
NOTARY fWLIC-GREG My Commission Expires
COMIM16810P!NO. 67
LXNRI-8 W. 3, 1,015
q�qL"=QTANCE
Deschutes County, acting by and through its Board OF County Commission-
ers, does hereby accept the above dedication as a public road pursuant
to OHS 92.014.
Dated this day of 1993.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
va
Ck
Page 3 Of 3
I
i
4
359 1008
STATE OF OREGON
ss.
County of Deschutes
Before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared NANCY POPE
SCHLANGEN, the above -named Chair of the Board of County
Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon and acknowledged the
foregoing instrument on behalf of Deschutes County, Oregon.
DATED this V( day of 1994.
MWIM 3
A '
MARY PUBM LIC-ENotary Public forOregon
CQUMISM 40. 023846
60N My Commission Expires:
DAY Cd}Eai& 110M EMW AML 18.1997
STATE OF OREGON
ss.
County of Deschutes
Before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared BARRY H.
SLAUGHTER, the above -named Board of County Commissioner of
Deschutes County, Oregon and acknowledged the foregoing instrument
on behalf of Deschutes County, Oregon.
DATED this 02 day of 1994.
Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
M
i
359
r 1009
dS ZI 'Ll doW aag C\j
IN8oji
I
1
t
s
ryYr
t
P
t
1
i
i
) p
t
i
i
v
' Y1
359 b 1010
STATE OF OREGON )
COUNTY OF DESCHUTES ) SS.
I, MARY SUE PENHOLLOW, COUNTY CLERK AND
RECORDER Of CONVEYANCES, IN AND FOR SAID
COUNTY, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE WITHIN
INSTRUMENT WAS RECORDED THIS DAY:
94 o 2z P1 i 30
4ARCa )dTY CLERK Q1't
BY, 72-Z2�' DEPUTY
NO.94-4 9131 N._- FEE-�a0._.
DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS
U
_ 1 . .4-:Zl `..-- ..
John O'Leary
P.O. Box 7232
Bend, OR 97708 Schible Road Access
My name is John O'Leary. I was born and raised in Bend.
My parents purchased the acreage between Highway 20 and
the Old Bend Redmond Highway in 1959 _ 1950 from Ole Grub
who as a Deschutes County Commissioner at the time.
I am against the vacation of the public road to the middle of
my property known as Schible Road. The Gates have
blocked the legal entry to my property with wood, logs, tires,
irrigation equipment, a trailer and other items.
Mr. Gates approached me when I was working near the entry
about vacating the public right of way. I told Mr. Gates
my attorney said not to sign anything since it is my legal`
access..to the property.
Mr. Gates was not happy and became visibl'upset and said
he.would not let anybody down this roadway and would block
it off further up the road
The real estate agents felt it was necessary to get a temporary
address on the Old Bend Redmond Highway because of Mr. Gate'__s
threats and to avoid any confrontation until the legal access
was opened up.
Shelley Wray of Engles and Volker went to the road department
and told them of the problem we were having and wanted just
an address to the property on the Old Bend Redmond Highway
because of the threats Mr. Gates made if anybody used the
legal access. The road department gave her the forms to fill
out and she reiterated that all we wanted was an address not
an access.
John O'Leary Page 2
P.O. Box 7232
Bend, OR 97708 Schible Road Access
Shelley and I filled out the forms and she took them back
to the road department. Again she reiterated to the road
department that all we needed was an address and not an access
because we already have a legal access to the property on
Schibel Rd.
I in turn called Community Development and asd if I have a
piece of property that boaders the Old Bend Redmond Highway
and I just want an address to list the property. Half the
property is in sage brush and less than half is in pasture.
She in turn asked if the property is being developed and
I said no we park out front in an alcove and walk onto the
property. She said I can give you the address over the phone.
(According to Connunity Development)
The road department never told Shelly Ray that by getting
the address on the Old Bend Redmond Highway that it could
eliminate your chances of getting the actual legal access
down Schible Road.
I went to the Road Department to ..alkabout my legal access
down Schible road and how to get in cleared out.
The Road Department addmitted that the Schibel road access
is the best access_to my property because you can go
south, east and west onto the property. However they said
you have an access out front. I said we never had or wanted
and access out front. We just wanted an address to avoid
Gates threatening or harrasing clients looking at the property.
John O'Leary
P.O. Box 7232
Bend, OR 97708
Page 3
Schible Road Access
We have never had an access out front for over
64 years. We park in the alcove where the gate is, however
their wouldn't be a gate their but Central Electric and
Bend Broad Band need to get'�a transformerpole in the Northeastern
corner of -property on a rock bluff. Both companies have locks
on the gate and can not drive over the field. To servirp
Gates and other petitioners they come through the gate off
of Highway 26 which they have locks on. Everyone that is
petitioning to vacate this road should be thankful to my
father since he granted a -:'service easement to the Gates
and other petitioneers.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
• Citizen Input can be given regarding any topic that is NOT on the agenda
• Public Testimony can be given during Public Hearings only
Topic of Input or Testimony: S c h i b l e Road A c c e s s
Is this topic an item on today's agenda?
X X'Yes (please see description of Citizen Input above) ❑No
Name John O'Leary
Address P.O. Box 7232
Bend, OR 97708
Phone#s 541-383-2430
E-mail address
Date: 8-16-23
THIS FORM IS TURNED IN TO RECORDING SECRETARY
BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? ® Yes ❑ No
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
Thank you Commissioners for allowing me to testify against the proposal to Vacate a portion of Schibel
Road. I am asking the Board to Not Accept the proposal for the good of Deschutes County Citizens.
KEEP THE PUBLIC ROAD.
SUMMARY
It is the best interest of the County to not to vacate the road because of 1)public safety and 2)
protection of citizens' access rights.
The Road Department Report findings and conclusions are incorrect. They asserted: the main
access to lot 1.00 is the Old Bend -Redmond Highway. This is incorrect; the only feasible access is
Schibel Road. This point Mr. O'Leary made to Mr. Cody multiple times. To vacate the road would
deprive the right of access necessary for the exercise of his property right. There is no access from
any other side of the property that would provide the necessary access.
The Road Department asserts it is the Public's interest to vacate the Road. Nowhere in the Road
Department Report are there any statements to support this conclusion. They do not supply any
argument(s) why keeping the road is a negative to the County. As a local access road there is no cost to
the County. They did not provide any argument or finding why giving up the road benefits the County.
The Schibel public road benefits the County because it improves public safety by dramatically
reducing Fire Department response time to properties on Schibel Road including lots 1901 and 1.800.
INTRODUCTION
My name is Alfred Heston. I am John O'Leary's nephew. I am:
l . Fourth generation of my family to live at least part of their lives in Central Oregon
(Deschutes/Crook County).
2. Family 100 years living in this area. My family has lived in this area for approximately 100
years. They were cattle ranchers, sheep ranchers, farmer introducing potato farming to Central
Oregon, mill worker, etc.; Working class citizens who helped build this area.
3. Sixty years walking (lot 100) the "Land."
4. 20+ years Working the "Land" on that property for over 20 years during the sixties, seventies,
and early eighties. Hauling rocks, changing irrigation pipes, bucking bales, caring for cattle,
building fences, etc.
5. Sacred Land because of all of the sweat my family has put into the property. It is special.
6. Cattle, Grass, and a Home on this Land has been a desire for 3 generations. I plan to live on
this parcel.
7. Family Legacy. If I inherit the Land, my wish is to pass it to the next generation.
MOTIVATION/INTERESTS
1. Parties proposing the road to be vacated
a. Land Grab. Based on historical actions and comments:
i. Owners of lots 1800 and 1901 adversely posed land from Lot 100 (O'Leary)
ii. Owners of lots 1800 and 1901 have blocked the road by building structures on
the road (30 ft into 60ft road)
iii. Owners of 1 of 1800 fell trees and dumped brush to block the road
iv. Wheeler - Rennie testified the road was their driveway. They want to legitimize
the County Local Access Road as their driveway.
2. Parties not to vacate the road:
a. Preserve the value of Lot 100. Vacating the road would deny access; thus reduce the
value of the property and prevent a future owner to divide the property into a minimum of
10+ acre lots. The current minimum lot size 10 acres is larger than adjoining lots of
1)less the 2 acres (2 lots); and less that 5 acres (1 lot). At this time, John O'Leary nor his
family have intentions to sub -divide the property.
3. Road Department
a. Avoid having to deal with the abatement of road hazards as described under ORS 368.256
— 368.28. The hazards were caused by owners of Lots 1901 and 1800. This is based on
the Road Department Report and their lack of action related request actions of the Road
Department. It is a road hazard abatement not maintenance or improvement so ORS
368.031(1) is not applicable. ORS 368,281 allows the County to recover costs.
TESTIMONEY
There are three 3) gates on the property but only one (1) viable access point to the property.
1. Gate 1, McKenzie -Bend (Sisters) Highway.
a. "Fire Department Gate" . It gives the Fire Department quicker access to the O'Leary
Property and adjunct properties
b. Public Access is unlikely to be granted because it is off a State highway.
2. Gate 2, Old Bend -Redmond Highway.
a. "Utility Company Gate". The electric and cable companies use this gate to maintain
equipment which services the adjoining properties north of his property. Utility trucks are
not allowed to cross the field. They only drive on rock along the Highway fence line.
The Utility Companies have locks on this gate.
b. Parking pad for public safety - not access.
c. Planted Grass Field with irrigation pipes prevent a viable access from the Old Bend -
Redmond Highway. The irrigation pipes would be destroyed.
d. Everybody walks. In 2003, My children (3 years old and 5 years old) and I visited
O'Leary Acres. We had to crawl under the fence to visit the stables and barn.
3. Gate 3 Schibel Road
a. Middle of Property. Necessary for O'Leary to exercise his right to access to both
East and West sides of his property.
b. The Road Department stated it was the best place to access the property.
c. Public safety (Fire Department) The Schibel Access would allow quicker response
time by Fire Department. It would cut response time in half because they would not have
to go all the way to the Old Bend -Redmond Hwy. They would enter Gate land drive
across the O'Leary property to Gate 3.
d. Future Public Use. The Road is necessary for public use especially if the propety is
to be developed smilar to how Tax Lots 1901.,1400, and 1800 were developed.
e. Deemed necessary in the past by County; nothing has changed.
The Vacation of the Schible Road denies O'Leary access of a recorded property right: it would
eliminate his access to an easement on Tax Lot 1800. This is in violation of ORS 368.331
REBUTTAL TO PETITIONERS' and ROAD DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
1. O'Leary wants to drive through our property.
No, O'Leary and his family want to drive on Schibel Road, a County public road, to access
his property.
2. O'Leary wants to develop his property.
No, O'Leary wants to keep the parcel intact. He turned down sale offers from buyers who
wanted to subdivide the property. O'Leary only put the property up for sale because his
primary focus was being a caretaker for his dying wife. It appears that the petitions have
sought to take advantage of dying a wife.
3. Keeping the local access road will enable the property to be developed in the future changing the
neighborhood characteristics.
It is conceivable that the property may be developed in the future similar to how the
petitioners' properties were developed. The land next to O'Leary used to be a sheep ranch.
That parcel was allowed to be subdivided and developed into parcels which are less than half
the size of the currentl0 acre minimum parcel size. Lot 1901 is about 15.75; it is this large
due to adverse possession of some of O'Leary's land.
Removal of the public road takes the ability, the right, to develop the property. It would
create a de -facto green space along Wheel/Rennie southern border, like they have with their
Western border with Tumalo State Park. It is a benefit to the petitioners at an extreme cost to
the owner of Parcel 100.
4. O'Leary does not have the right to use the County public road because he does not maintain it.
This is a separate issue. This issue is not under the County Commissioners' purview. The
County is not responsible for maintenance nor improvement.
However, the Gates and Wheeler/Rennie have not maintained the road. Worse they created a
road hazards which is under the County's jurisdiction. Both have built on the road. They
have blocked parts of the road with fence, trees and brush.
I personally have tried to maintain/rid it of the road hazards. I have a truck, tools and a
strong back. But based on a petitioner's vitriolic behavior, I chose not to. I felt I could end
up in the hospital.
5. The local access road causes harm to the Gates and Wheeler/Rennie.
If it does cause harm, it is self-inflicted.
If the Wheeler/Rennie has to move a fence because it is blocking the road. It is not a taking.
According to Deschutes County records, the Dedication Deed was granted before property
was developed. This was decades before Wheeler/Rennie bought the property. They knew
or least should have known, their property was obstructing County property.
Gates were partial grantors. They voluntarily signed the Dedication Deed, so they must have
seen it as beneficial. Now that they have reaped the benefits from 1994 Dedication Deed,
they want to "revolve" it.
Owners (past/current) of lots 1901 and 1800, have shown a disregard of the Dedication; by
building in the road. They should not be rewarded for their actions.
6. The Road Department believes that generally the road is only used by lots 1800 and 1901.
They do not have any basis for that statement. It is an ambiguous statement based on a
guess. Findings should be facts. Recommendations should be based on facts.
7. Road Department Report: Owners of recorded property right that would potentially be deprived
of access necessary for exercise of that property right with the proposed vacation have consented
to the proposed vacation.
This is incorrect. Mr. O'Leary has not consented. The access from Schibel Road is
necessary for the exercise of that right. The Road Report Finding does not meet the standard
of ORS 368.331.
The Road Department Report also misreports who the owners of record. BFF LLC is the
owner of record for Tax Lot 1400. Terru Rennie is not a joint owner per Statutory Warranty
Deed filed 2/6/2023.
8. Road Department Report: the Electric Company supports the proposal to vacate.
NO. They do not object to the vacation which is different than support. No evidence of
support. It is a misleading statement by the Road Department, Cody Smith.
Please stop this taking which will cause harm to Mr. O'Leary and other Deschutes County Citizens
Thank you, Commissioners, for your time.
4
_E S, CO
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERYMEETING
REOUEST TO SPEAK
® Citizen input can be given regarding any topic that is NOT on the agenda
® Public TtjgffiM can be given during Public Hearings only
Topic of Input or Testimony
Is this topic an item on today's agenda?
171Yes (please see description of Citizen input above)
Name v -/e /z)
Address P 7,23-,-
(5vz_
Phone #s
E-mail address
Date: �z
THIS FORM IS TURNED IN TO RECORDING SECRETARY
BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
IV 1
Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? 1/1 1 Yes —1 No
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretaryfor the record.
8/16/2023 Deschutes County Hearing
Information for the hearing on the Application to Vacate a Public Road ( Schibel Road). This
application should be denied.
History
Reuel and Frances OLeary purchased their property in 1959. It's been lovingly cared for,
improved, and beautifully maintained all these years. It is now owned by their son, John
OLeary.
At some point the people that owned the property adjacent to the North on Tax Lot 1800 (now
owned by the Gates') built their home on the wrong side of the property line. The OLeary's had
to give up a large strip of land on their North edge so that the encroaching home could be made
"legal". (At that time, Mr. OLeary reserved a 30" easement along that North line which is
mentioned in all the recorded documents and still exists today.) Because of Mr. OLeary giving
up the strip of land for their home, Mr. Schibel made sure the public roadway being dedicated
called Schibel Road did extend all the way to the OLeary property. It was also clear that Mr.
Schibel intended this to be a public roadway because he dedicated 60 feet to the road which is
the requirement for a public roadway. He did not give 30', 40', or 50', but a full 60 foot
roadway.
(Now......... to add insult to injury, the current owners of that property (the Gates') want to
take the public roadway away from Mr. OLeary and the public. If the county allows this to
happen it would be a sad day. If this could happen to Mr. OLeary, this could happen to any one
of you.)
In 1994 Jeff and Kathy Gates purchased that property adjacent to the North for $105,000. It
should be noted that in 1994 you could purchase a home in Bend (in town) on the very small lot
for $120,000 or more. Since the Gates' property is on about 4 acres in such a desirable
location, they made a wonderful buy indeed! They very likely would have paid a much larger
amount if the roadway did not go through their property, and the buildings were not so close to
the property line. However, they purchased the property knowing that the road existed, and it
was evidently part of their purchase agreement that they would sign the dedication document
of giving the roadway to the public. They did indeed sign the Road Dedication document that
very year. In fact, their signatures were the very first signatures notarized on the document.
We can understand why the Gates' would love to pickup a couple extra acres for free by
getting rid of the roadway. However, Mr. OLeary has done nothing to deserve this. It would
simply be favoring the desire of one property owner over another. It seems to be motivated by
personal gain.
To be clear, Mr. OLeary does object to this application to vacate the roadway. He has visited
the planning and road department several times to object. It took this Realtor several in -person
visits to the road department to even obtain a copy of the application, which is a public record.
In the application to "Vacate a Public Roadway", the applicants were required to give valid
reasons to show why it is best for the general public to vacate the road, and address certain
conditions, which are the following.
1) Gates' states that the road dedication was invalid due to restrictions and reservations?
They state that their drainfield is situated on part of the road right of way.
The facts ........ The Gates' have made many improvements to their property over the years,
providing maps to the county with each of those permit applications. Not once in those permit
applications or maps did they admit to the planning dept. that their drainfield was encroaching
on the road right of way. The applications state that they (the Gates') "have met all the
required setbacks for this application." They seemed to intentionally omit that information to
get all their applications approved that they wanted for their property. We have copies of
those permits and applications for you to view.
2) Gates' states that the roadway reduces the value of the 3 tax lots that are requesting the
vacation of the roadway.
........... That assertion is false. The roadway's existence does not reduce the value of their
property because they knew the road was there when they purchased their properties, and
they signed the dedication of the roadway. Somehow they believe it would be fair and just to
reduce the value of Mr. OLeary's property by taking away his right to use the road, in order to
add NEW value to their own properties.
3) The Gates' state that some of their established landscaping would be lost.
................ The Gates' have always known that the roadway exists, so no one can be sure why
they would put landscaping over that area. There was certainly no excuse for that. Upon
inspection, no landscaping was identified that would be lost.
4) The Gates' state that since 1994 the county has never used, improved, or plowed the road.
.............I.... The Gates' know very well that there is a private road maintenance agreement for
the roadway. We have attached that agreement for your review.
5) The Gates" state that the Southern portion of that road has not been used by the general
public and has only been used as a driveway for their tax lot and the neighboring Tax Lot
1900.
................ This is an incredible statement! Evidently Mr. Gates has stated that "he will never
allow anyone through on that road ever." The Gates' have purposely kept the roadway blocked
in two places. One blockage is a gated entry near their home. The other blockage is at the
end of the roadway where they have a pile of wood blocking where the roadway enters the
OLeary property. When asked to move the wood pile blockade Mr. Gates refused. There are
photographs to show where the roadway is blocked and maps attached for illustration.
6 and 7) The Gates' state that the traffic will increase, and no traffic study has been done.
They are concerned about children's safety there.
..................... The Gates' surely know that a traffic study would not be done unless there was to
be a very major development. Mr. OLeary has no intention of developing his property which is
about 36+ acres. However, if he or anyone else did develop the property in the future it could
only be developed into 3 parcels matching the current zoning of MUA-10 acre minimum. It
would hardly be a high -traffic event. This is a quiet country winding lane and would continue to
be a quiet country lane. They have shown no evidence. The Gates' and other folks along
Schibel Road have their wonderful small acreages on 2, 4, and 5 acre parcels (also a couple
larger parcels). However, they don't think that other folks should be allowed to have the same
thing, and are worried that someone would divide the parcel into 10 acres parcels as allowed by
county zoning? If that ever did happen those parcels would still be much larger than the Gates'
property and others along the roadway.
8) The Gates' application states that it is not in the general public's best interest.
......................... However, they have not given any reason here why it would not be in the
general public's best interest to keep the roadway which they knew about when they
purchased their property.
9) The Gates' state that they were induced to sign the dedication under "false pretenses".
They say that they were told that they could DELETE the Southern portion of the road
dedication with `single line- item deletion".
............... We do not see how this could be true. Adults always know that when they sign a legal
document, it means that it is legal and binding, especially when they are having their signatures
notarized as in this case. In reality, most all real estate agreements state that "the full
agreement is in the written contract, and that you are not relying upon anything not written
down in the agreement." The Gates' knew what they were signing when they purchased their
property and they signed it. It was part of their agreement to purchase. They knew what they
were signing when they signed the Dedication for the Public Roadway.
Also, Kathy Gates was an excellent Realtor for many, many years in Bend, and since then has
worked for a local title company. She is very knowledgeable in her field. Consequently, she
has extremely good knowledge of property documents and would never actually believe what
she stated on the Application to Vacate the Roadway. Last, with all this knowledge, if there
were actually any good reasons to vacate the roadway that they could illustrate they would
have stated them. We are to conclude that even with all that knowledge they could not come
up with a valid reason to vacate the roadway.
10) The Gates' state that Tax Lot 100 (OLeary) to the South will not suffer loss of access as
the site address has been permitted and approved in a different place on the Old Bend
Redmond Hwy.
...................This statement was not true. HOWEVER... the real facts are that Mr. OLeary put in a
fenced -gated area on the old highway JUST BECAUSE the Gates' had refused to let him access
his property on the public roadway like he had the right to do. The traffic's excessive speed on
the Old Bend Redmond Highway is a danger for anyone parked there, and for anyone wanting
to pull out of a driveway there. Car and truck traffic whips by at 60 MPH, and it is not safe. It is
much safer to have the main entrance in the middle of the parcel where the traffic is not a
factor, rather than the narrow East end of the property.
This is a very large parcel with multiple barns, sheds, and buildings. So, entering in the middle
makes good sense. (Please refer to the map provided). Also, the narrow East end of the parcel
along the highway has irrigation pipe that cannot be driven over. The irrigation water is legally
adjudicated to that area of the property by Swalley Irrigation Water Company. It is nice to have
multiple gates on this large parcel in case of fire. However, the main entrance should remain
on Schibel Road.
Mr. OLeary had wanted to put his property on the market for sale. He needed a place for any
Realtors to park and show the property without the traffic danger, and without letting the cows
out. He also did not want Realtors and buyers to have to climb over the fence.
He was originally told by the first Realtor that he must have a street address to put his property
into the local MLS, which was actually not true.
Last, Mr. Gates' had stated to Mr. OLeary that he would NEVER ALLOW ANYONE TO USE THAT
ROAD, period. He has continued to harass and bully Mr. OLeary over the years insisting that
Mr. OLeary should give him the roadway. Mr. OLeary did not want Realtors and potential
buyers having to have encounter a rude, angry neighbor, or to be frightened just to show the
property. Mr. OLeary did not see that as a selling point. He was advised by the Realtor against
this. However, he also does not want to leave this issue to anew owner to have to contend
with.
PLEASE DENY THE APPLICATION AND ORDER THE GATES' TO HONOR THE LEGAL ROADWAY.
Since the Gates' have not illustrated any valid answers on the application to vacate the
roadway, this application should be denied. If they had any actual true evidence to show, they
did not provide it. Please see all the supporting evidence provided to you by Mr. Oleary.
ADDITIONALLY
Mr. OLeary offers two valid options to relocate the roadway if that would be more convenient
for the Gates' property. It offers an attractive compromise for the Gates' and Tax Lot 1900.
You can view that possible option on the maps and photographs attached. However, regarding
this application, "just because they want it" is not a justification to take from the public and
Mr. Ol-eary. If the Gates' wanted to talk about relocation of the roadway to the other side of
their property, Mr. OLeary would be willing to talk about either of the two locations, which
would not seem expensive for the Gates'.
Thank you for your time. We sincerely hope that you stand behind Mr. OLeary's private
property rights to protect him from this action by the neighbors. It is understandable that they
would like to have the property for themselves for free, if they could get the county to agree.
However, this is not behavior that should be rewarded. Every person should be offended and
know that if this could happen to Mr. OLeary it could also happen to them. Thank you.
Deschutes County Property Information
Permits for account * 160526
Account Information
Mailing Name: JEFFREY & KATHRYN GATES REV LIV TRUST
Map and TaxIot: 171205B001800
Account: 160526
Situs Address: 64227 SCHIBEL RD, BEND, OR 97703
Tax Status: Assessable
County Permits
The Deschutes County Community Development Department is responsible for land use and permits for properties in the County's jurisdiction. Contact this department if you need
additional information or if you have questions.
Permit ID
Permit Type
Permit Name
Application Date
Status
247-B39450
Building
GATES,JEFFREY M
10/23/1996
Finaled
247.1346021
Building
GATES,JEFFREY M
06109/2000
Finaled
247-B502
Building
DRAKE,R E
09/21/1976
Finaled
247-E16353
Electrical
SCHIBEL JOHN
12/27/1991
Finaled
247-E28276
Electrical
BEND CABLE
05/10/1994
Finaled
247-E43811
Electrical
GATES,JEFFREY M
10/01/1997
Finaled
247-E55364
Electrical
GATES,JEFFREY M
06/0912000
Finaled
247-CU89146-PL
Land Use
JOHN M. SCHIBEL
11/30/1989
Finaled
247-LM96216-PL
Land Use
KATHY GATES
10/23/1996
Finaled
247-MP78205-PL
Land Use
08/04/1978
Finaled
247-MP78266-PL
Land Use
11/13/1978
Finaled
247-M20434
Mechanical
GATES,JEFFREY M
06/09/2000
Finaled
247-P17968
Plumbing
GATES,JEFFREY M
06/09/2000
Finaled
247-S19795
Septic
PEKKOLA,CAROL
07/29/1980
Finaled
247-S30573
Septic
PEKKOL4 DENNIS R
05/23/1991
Finaled
247-S39647
Septic
GATES,JEFFREY M
1012311996
Finaled
247-S45734
Septic
GATES,JEFFREY M
0610912000
Finaled
THE INFORMATION AND MAPS ACCESSED THROUGH T"HIS WEB SITE PROVIDE A VISUAL DISPLAY FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE. EVERY REASONABLE EFFOR"F HAS BEEN MADE TO ASSURE THE ACCURACY OF THE MAPS AND ASSOCIATED DATA. DESCHUTES
COUNTY MAKES NO WARRANTY, REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE CONTENT, SEQUENCE. ACCURACY, TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF THE D.ATAPROVIDED HEREIN, DESCHUTES COUNTY EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMS ANY
REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. DESCHUTES COUNTY SHALL ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS,
OR INACCURACIES IN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED. DESCHUTES COUNTY ASSUMES NO I.IABILITY FOR ANY DECISIONS MADE OR ACTIONS TAKEN OR NOT TAKEN BY THE USER OF THIS INFORMATION OR DATA FURNISHED
HEREUNDER.
O 2023 - Deschutes County. All rights reserved.
Z80TISD
�04
oa `k,
`n vln�v't�� K•� �y pV `� .'a'h
� 5
YW
tj
�NK��� b���N�4,p h� ��u J��h�•�.Q�� W
•�NAa4 W3��W°�� 3� «� °� v u�
0N� �k
4
Q
a
4
y
�J7Z-8l-dH' os 6/r/ �-/S'• •OOS` 'r9d•6'� S/Si✓9�
— X
WWS
------------ ----- -- --=
®
M
_______________
QI
O
o ^vv Itifld VV�
2c��2
It.
J1
z.�d lt�an/v 3na1
all
' I
0
�C g\ 1
a
ci O 99
` O P
\h V I V
a
4
Oq
Z
L86S9k
_gip°
nq °O
N
N pvl
$� a
�N2N ��Dr�C
or zz�
�j u
� io3o� Qjj , 11.
o
C
n o,a �,1;
N
00
0
N
V
7
8r 4ZE/ /V , Z/O /V
i3
w�
h�
r
w
b
0
`
a 8•7 7370h/
N
0
�
N
�
Q
m
�
IO
rf Z-�
_
Uzzoss
n
Ct
Nasty
■o
MI
M
N
� z
Maoso
m.
m
N
N
>-
w
Q
ir, /
LL-
Yl
to -
Cb
q =C)
L •C _ ___ O O V)
W O . W N _
�O F� MO
z O
M U2 'J FF r� Uz_ 0. ,r=
ui fn0 LL 04 (� W - op LL u
� N `.,
0 ow
xcj
n K I- . A FW.-i K F O _
(T 00 F T 09 Q t7 P FCY)w- T _h -
C CV (YU 7Z r wu w ~_
QO1 QN 0:CDQ
dq 4 lug i Qi CV Of=1 OW '+
O U W C-i UW- W
C. O Z_ m () N ZW _
C.Q O.' : z. N O I �P
LU Hi
L FG W: On.
N S O 0 W = �
C ....�ti 0: S 7 C ON to =�
a a F 3 O a'-1 W _ °°
ww o_z M —
QQzQ a •o
� ::LL FA0:
j OI O W20 j O OZ - N=
N' W S M. ILO N U, 0:
r-i z F- >- N " F w =�
O::) a OFF
Y J O O MUZ J q K = r�
O W F-tn Z W O O W Fd/) W
O U W to F >-(n O O U W to 2
w aq& LLt� J U w Y- t� F _- N
-N d [Y 3r-i 3; w o to d a z~ O
qj IA KTa w 0¢lY tw- ' ap IQ j°:
`- aw zz i�ilwau ¢w Nz w =M w
N Opq W$ U WQN N (9 fA 11)> U
WO x0 O' 1:nW 4- WO TO X
=N
N
- N
=t-I 00 =:
- W=
w
z0
0
N H>.
U1FF
W •2 H
70.7E
O K Z 0z�3w
HN()I6
0 H W U
W F F
6z0.7
ao
a
N
O
C) "
d
o 3
a
N
F-
\
w
H
W
y
Q
z
ROD omoo02.
`�
Ru
pe
N z n
C. r
oa
auWi uP1 w3u$
a
C
E
`�
F
w
, Q
n
N
to Y
M t
cat
0
U
ANMY(/ V/ d /
8 s-:7» ox�
lu
J M
1 h
.ozsr n�
h
`N' , O
h �S MT -C Zt _
9 7" oa. TT. To M M. on TT./DN
- ;!Ltlli' -
smoso
A
v
N
M
N
N �
N
N
J0
V) H N
,nHF
W 4 H
0HaE+
oaz
�nz�w
H QI
H H W pop
W HE-
�azoa
0
gHwH
N W q H
Ha a
_ .. ... --- ........ _. _
CDo
m m ®`®,
o o Lij
� U r
tlSf 2l LL� W335 Y J
P. ~tbY1HOW pNp
Wp3a pN38 p10 r s -
0
CO
lS �o VL _ (
LLI
N Z �•1 .. `n �-�
p U _ s
-
w s _
Gvo?l a 1391HpS E '�
LO---,zx - - -- Q
co
W
�m
p0 M 90 it lL dtlW 33S
Ui
O 0
OCL
}
cc (9 w
a cc p
m
SEE MAP iB1232
32
100 4..CQR
9.877A PA9AC ( i EA, 272:40
Taint 20M u rm Fredta 2=7r.* Ta rca3001 {DimsS>mbg'W ;iy. N
� �6JdLa1S1 6Qdi95tMbelLd {` i 1 ,
.f
a�
a1eg
: )
PARCEL t 1� PARCEL 1
071, 38174 tit3q? t72t&
\t��ti.Vti���i�aa���t�i�������N"U\tip1\ "I r .w .. `.:._. QT3 a�As: 4
s 3M?Q 94 39.0AC
d! e' > �y Ba.GCt
2UU3 } s s, + a� c :ct1.3
0.83AC 2002 xa7ot]WSFCa7EmdrlrS rebtaua) fi 44
tXAC s� 1 ; 600 700
Tarntra�tMchlrmsm Ttmg t�
f
PARCEL 2 &`I PT PARCEL 1 A7 '� V
Pi
15 Onnco�
{tom 1mo
;1 y in PT Soo Tau:saotA,m�w�,s ,
l�S Q Pi 415�42AC emaose>aeaan
itroy +274.333AC2-
'
jz
7t�1 �..:,,. < 47aga— - r.
' 1L t
'--a—
1900 Taut 1900 (Csdove ) R. 33 900
1?74AG its 700
m T. rot 1900tQ d-,E W 7«T V—t -o
13#5-72AC �ms�ane F ..
co
c�
m
8 1004
t� Ta Lt1500(Itra3ATLovss8�7ie➢fANuMe � h
6N@.SchlhdRA
1100
w s
X
130'!
1=3 0.8�AG,
CD
2414 qAC
-
sxas sue .ti f
7aret 1901 (II911y)nek1991TSArT:asq �' -
66105cMbdRd
Sc IBEL
18{i0 g � a'
13230AC .s.
2-74,S6 AC 940a
p,.tLi, a.64{ Turx1a9e1at1+isq 1,5�.qw,,�. ?b.p�,
1300
Q
199AGif 't
S 1TMRiX*iLim 1200racmarax 91A0 8
? 21," b21134rMh1Ad Q TST<t me
BT
r.S.GI fl Sk{G$w
iQmdvaTlOa}eA Lmr D7 � 9' iA. y+", �
100
7 ? 712 05CO
24AIAG I
I
l
j _31.77t 0.73AC: 7�ri.:tx ;'32t- .-gi.3"o 101112AC
ji ut s7.ast 47.5. 2Y;.o1
1201
6.77AC 200 t
oK a
� � J�
A
J
Wjt 4a� t .
11aa
�+Oct
9300 `✓ F
547ACgb' l ;
t� `:`
1000 !� �
600 7 tiK
J
rtt!
Eq-3
C:)
co
LO
C)
04
Io v9c U 11 33
QN3
010
CY)
co
LO
-Y,
LLJ 2
L9
CIVOH 1391HOS
Z)
m
/cn
LU
0
m
O 28
N
A
tlS2R It Id 633.
bMNOIN ONOW03a ON3
8 070
s r
f !�n
t
Lo M
ui m
o
to U
-
e
`n = — LY OVON a 1881HOSLLJ
t.
w v M
l \ A .�
CN
Vl K
.5
a�a
yY � Mrta
pO 99241E �tlW 33S
0
m
Lo
0
N
I41
5
•Z:
o o
m m
Lo LO
F e o
o t
r U
� I YSf LILLI W335 } r
_iAVA4HJIH ONOVy03
b ONHB 070
CV H. o
M
LO M
Vro a 3 •^-
t6�s 91.
....,erg .e t1a S 'D
LiJ
tOVO?J� 1391HOS
o -- �, r — —
w v $ g
w J 3
CN
v �
f
_ IT
.x
ILL „i f
0 0 sortttavwaas
a
a
00c
r o
Cy O N
O O
w
x
O t d. w
0
O o 0LLJ
0
O O U
0
�•1
�
)
°
\g
3
/
\
n
/
u
o
®
\
o
)
0
o
m
e
' •.
I_|
�.
/
I
\
$
ƒ
\
/
�
;
S:
,
,;�
,
Er
/
)
A
\
§
F-
o
{
\
k
/
#
)
m
\
c
/
\
)
\
j
7
/
k
\
&
]
#
-
¥
\
�
q
k
/
�
a
E
f
\
#
«
/
»
/
b
Alp
O A �X
0
cc
tr r
.--, CL
0
tr
3 0,
a.'
t CL
�r
tr
G)°1;
� N
lit •
O
T Q `�f
�• � fs
13
ro tr
A
CL
-,
ra`
««
N 3•
�a @
CL ro
Q3 t_
CL `.
3 o
0
t .+
ro s
m
- X
c
tr
0
d
CL
of
0
3
o,
k
0
(D
.MA
00
C)
O
O
//��
V
^
�. L
e-
G)
CL
V
.�../
el
Es coG2�
o
MEETING DATE:
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
August 16, 2023
SUBJECT: First reading of Ordinance 2023-018 - Griffin Plan Amendment / Zone Change
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move approval of first reading of Ordinance No. 2023-018 by title only.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Board will consider a first reading of Ordinance No. 2023-018 to approve a request for
a Plan Amendment and Zone Change (file nos. 247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC) for property
totaling approximately 40 acres to the east of Bend and south of Highway 20. The Plan
Amendment would re -designate the property from Agriculture to Rural Residential
Exception Area and the Zoning Map Amendment would rezone the property from Exclusive
Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10).
The entirety of the record can be found on the project website at:
https://www.deschutes.or /g cd/page/247-22-000792-pa-793-zc-%E2%80%93-
comprehensive -plan -amendment -and -zone -change
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Rachel Vickers, Associate Planner
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board)
FROM: Rachel Vickers, Associate Planner
DATE: August 16, 2023
SUBJECT: Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance 2023-018 - A Plan Amendment and Zone
Change (file nos. 247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC).
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will consider a first reading of Ordinance 2023-018 on
August 16, 2023 to consider a request for a Plan Amendment and Zone Change (file nos. 247-22-
000792-PA, 793-ZC) for one tax lot totaling approximately 40 acres, to the east of the City of Bend and
south of Highway 20.
I. BACKGROUND
The applicant and property owner, Kevin Griffin, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
re -designate the subject property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area and a Zoning
Map Amendment to rezone the property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural
(MUA-10). The applicant argues that the subject property does not meet the definition of "agricultural
land" due to its poor soil quality. For this reason, it is the applicant's position that a mistake was made
when the property was originally zoned and MUA-10 zoning is more appropriate. The applicant
provided a supplementary soil study that identifies non -high value (Class VII and Vill) soils on a
majority (58.5%) of the subject property.
A public hearing before a Hearings Officer was conducted on February 28, 2023 with the Hearings
Officer's recommendation of approval issued on March 24, 2023. The Board held a public hearing on
May 31, 2023 and closed the hearing with no open record period. On June 28, the Board deliberated
to approve the requests, with a unanimous vote in favor of the subject applications.
II. NEXT STEPS / SECOND READING
The Board is tentatively scheduled to conduct the second reading of Ordinance 2023-018 on August
30, 2023, fourteen (14) days following the first reading.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance 2023-018 and Exhibits
Exhibit A: Legal Descriptions
Exhibit B: Proposed Plan Amendment Map
Exhibit C: Proposed Zone Change Map
Exhibit D: Comprehensive Plan Section 23.01.010, Introduction
Exhibit E: Comprehensive Plan Section 5.12, Legislative History
Exhibit F: Hearings Officer Recommendation
Page 2 of 2
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County
Code Title 23, the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan, to Change the
Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for
Certain Property From Agriculture to Rural
Residential Exception Area, and Amending
Deschutes County Code Title 18, the Deschutes
County Zoning Map, to Change the Zone
Designation for Certain Property From
Exclusive Farm Use to Multiple Use
Agricultural.
*
* ORDINANCE NO. 2023-018
*
*
*
*
WHEREAS, Kevin Griffin and Libby Renfro, applied for changes to both the Deschutes
County Comprehensive Plan Map (247-22-000792-PA) and the Deschutes County Zoning Map (247-
22-000793-ZC), to change the comprehensive plan designation of the subject property from
Agricultural (AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA), and a corresponding zone change
from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10); and
WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a public hearing was
held on February 28, 2023, before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer and, on March 24, 2023,
the Hearings Officer recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and
Zone Change;
WHEREAS, pursuant to DCC 22.28.030(C), the Board heard de novo the applications to
change the comprehensive plan designation of the subject property from Agricultural (AG) to Rural
Residential Exception Area (RREA) and a corresponding zone change from Exclusive Farm Use
(EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10); now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as
follows:
PAGE 1 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 2023-018
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map, is
amended to change the plan designation for certain property described in Exhibit "A" and depicted
on the map set forth as Exhibit "B" from AG to RREA, with both exhibits attached and incorporated
by reference herein.
Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCCTitle 18, Zoning Map, is amended to change the zone designation
from EFU to MUA-10 for certain property described in Exhibit "A" and depicted on the map set forth
as Exhibit "C", with both exhibits attached and incorporated by reference herein.
Section 3. AMENDMENT. DCC Section 23.01.010, Introduction, is amended to read as
described in Exhibit "D" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language
underlined.
Section 4. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 5.12, Legislative
History, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "E" attached and incorporated by reference
herein, with new language underlined.
Section 5. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this Ordinance the
Recommendation of the Hearings Officer as set forth in Exhibit "F and incorporated by reference
herein.
Section 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance takes effect on the 90th day after the date of
adoption or, if appealed, the date the ordinance is no longer subject to appeal.
Dated this of 2023 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ANTHONY DEBONE, Chair
PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary PHIL CHANG, Commissioner
Date of 1s' Reading: day of 2023.
Date of 2nd Reading: day of 2023.
PAGE 2 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 2023-018
Record of Adoption Vote:
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Patti Adair
Anthony DeBone _
Phil Chang
Effective date: day of 2023. Or, if appealed, the date the ordinance is no
longer subject to appeal.
ATTEST
Recording Secretary
PAGE 3 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 2023-018
Exhibit "A" to Ordinance 2023-018
Legal Descriptions of Affected Property
For Informational Purposes Only: Parcel no. 181201D000200
(Legal Description Begins Below)
The Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SE1/4SE1/4) of Section One (1),
Township Eighteen (18) South, Range Twelve (12), East of the Willamette Meridian,
Deschutes County, Oregon.
RREA
RREA
RREA
Proposed Plan Amendment From
Agriculture (AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
18-12-01-DO-00200
21900 Rastovich Rd, Bend
Proposed Plan Amendment
From AG to RREA
PROPOSED
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
Legend
Proposed Zone Change Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Designation
AG -Agriculture
RREA - Rural Residential Exception Area
Plan Amendment From Agricultural (AG) to
Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA)
Exhibit "B"
to Ordinance 2023-018
0 300 600 1,200
Feet
A M I, 2023
RREA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OFDESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
Tony DeBone, Chair
Patti Adair, Vice Chair
Phil Chang, Commissioner
ATTEST: Recording Secretary
Dated this day of , 2023
Effective Date: , 2023
MUA10
MUA10
MUA10
18-12-01-DO-00200
21900 Rastovich Rd, Bend
Proposed Zone Change
From EFUTRB to MUA10
PROPOSED ZONING MAP
Zone Change From Exclusive Farm Use (EFUTRB) to
Legend Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10)
Proposed Zone Change Boundary
Zoning
EFUTRB - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone
MUA10 - Multiple Use Agricultural
RR10 - Rural Residential
Exhibit "C"
to Ordinance 2023-018
� V
0 300 600 1,200
Feet
Aug-17, 2023
Proposed Zone Change From
Exclusive Farm Use (EFUTRB) to
Mutiple Use Agricultural (MUA10)
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OFDESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
Tony DeBone, Chair
Patti Adair, Vice Chair
Phil Chang, Commissioner
ATTEST: Recording Secretary
Dated this day of , 2023
Effective Date: 2023
Exhibit "D" to Ordinance 2023-018
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.
Exhibit D, Ord. 2023-018 Chapter 23.01 X/( XX/23)
U. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
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.
AA. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-011, are incorporated by reference herein.
BB. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
CC. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-008, are incorporated by reference herein.
DD. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
EE. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
FF. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
GG. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-004, are incorporated by reference herein.
HH. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-011, are incorporated by reference herein.
TT The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
JJ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-016, are incorporated by reference herein.
KK. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-019, are incorporated by reference herein.
LL. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
MM. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
NN. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
00. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-008, are incorporated by reference herein.
PP. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
QQ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
RR. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-009, are incorporated by reference herein.
Exhibit D, Ord. 2023-018 Chapter 23.01 X/( XX/23)
SS. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-013, are incorporated by reference herein.
TT. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-02, are incorporated by reference herein.
UU. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2021-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
VV. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2021-008, are incorporated by reference herein.
WW. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
XX. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
YY. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
ZZ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-0010, are incorporated by reference herein.
AAA. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-011, are incorporated by reference herein.
BBB. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-013, are incorporated by reference herein.
CCC. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2023-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
DDD. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2023-018, are incorporated by reference herein.
(Ord. 2023-0018 §2, 2022; Ord. 2023-007 §2, 2022; Ord. 2022-013 §2, 2022; Ord. 2022-011 §2,
2022; Ord. 2022-0010 §2, 2022; Ord. 2022-006 §2, 2022; Ord. 2022-003 §2, 2022; Ord. 2022-001
§ 1, 2022; Ord. 2021-008 § 1 ; Ord. 2021-005 § 1, 2021; Ord. 2021-002§ 3, 2020; Ord. 2020-013 § 1,
2020; Ord. 2020-009§1, 2020; Ord. 2020-006§1, 2020; Ord. 2020-007§1, 2020; Ord. 2020-008§1,
2020; Ord. 2020-003 §1, 2020; Ord. 2020-002 §1, 2020; Ord. 2020-001 §26, 2020; Ord. 2019-019
§2, 2019; Ord. 2019-016 §3, 2019; Ord. 2019-006 § 1, 2019; Ord. 2019-011 § 1, 2019; Ord. 2019-
004 § 1, 2019; Ord. 2019-003 § 1, 2019; Ord. 2019-001 § 1, 2019; Ord. 2019-002 § 1, 2019; Ord. 2018-
008 § 1, 2018; Ord. 2018-005 §2, 2018; Ord. 2018-011 § 1, 2018; 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)
Exhibit D, Ord. 2023-018 Chapter 23.01 X/( XX/23)
Exhibit "E" to Ordinance 2023-018
secu'ow5.sz Legisl,at�ve H-%storu
Background
This section contains the legislative history of this Comprehensive Plan.
Table S.12.1 Comprehensive Plan Ordinance History
Ordinance
Date Adopted/
Chapter/Section
Amendment
Effective
All, except
Transportation, Tumalo
and Terrebonne
201 1-003
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,
Housel<eeping amendments to
201 1-027
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/ 1 1-19-12
3.7 (revised), Appendix C
System 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
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E, ORD. 2023-018
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/ 1 1-25-14
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/ 1 1-25-14
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
1 1-9-15/2-22-16
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Surface Mining.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2015-029
1 1-23-15/ 1 1-30-15
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.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E, ORD. 2023-018
Exhibit to Ordinance 2023-018
Comp; ehensive Plan Text and
2015-010
12-2-15/ 12-2-15
2.6 I
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
1 1-28-16/2-16-17
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/ 1 1-14-16
23.01.010, 1.3, 4.2
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Bend
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
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E, ORD. 2023-018
�-
- ----- - --
Housekeeping Amendments
correcting tax lot numbers in
Non -Significant Mining Mineral
2018-006
8-22-18/ 1 1-20-18
23.01.010, 5.8, 5.9
and Aggregate Inventory;
modifying Goal 5 Inventory of
Cultural and Historic
Resources
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2018-01 1
9-12-18/ 12-1 1-18
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, removing Flood
23.01.010, 2.5, Tumalo
Plain Comprehensive Plan
2018-005
9-19-18/ 10-10-18
Community Plan,
Designation; Comprehensive
Newberry Country Plan
Plan Amendment adding Flood
Plain Combining Zone
purpose statement.
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment allowing for the
2018-008
9-26-18/ 10-26-18
23.01.010, 3.4
potential of new properties to
be designated as Rural
Commercial or Rural
Industrial
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
property from Surface Mining
2019-002
1-2-19/4-2-19
23.01.010, 5.8
to Rural Residential Exception
Area; Modifying Goal 5
Mineral and Aggregate
Inventory; Modifying Non -
Significant Mining Mineral and
Aggregate Inventory
Comprehensive Plan and Text
2019-001
1-16-19/4-16-19
1.3, 3.3, 4.2, 5.10, 23.01
Amendment to add a new
zone to Title 19: Westside
Transect Zone.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E, ORD. 2023-018
Exhit)if `E," to Ordina>rr;ici.. 2023-018
---'
-------------- —�- ---
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
2019-003
02-12-19/03-12-19
23.01.010, 4.2
property from Agriculture to
Redmond Urban Growth
Area for the Large Lot
Industrial Program
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
2019-004
02-12-19/03-12-19
23.01.010, 4.2
Redmond Urban Growth
Area for the expansion of the
Deschutes County
Fairgrounds and relocation of
Oregon Military Department
National Guard Armory.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to adjust the
Bend Urban Growth
Boundary to accommodate
the refinement of the Skyline
Ranch Road alignment and the
2019-01 1
05-0 1 - 19/05-16/19
23.01.010, 4.2
refinement of the West Area
Master Plan Area I boundary.
The ordinance also amends
the Comprehensive Plan
designation of Urban Area
Reserve for those lands
leaving the UGB.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2019-006
03-13-19/06-1 1-19
23.01.010,
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan and Text
amendments incorporating
language from DLCD's 2014
2019-016
1 1-25-19/02-24-20
23.01.01, 2.5
Model Flood Ordinance and
Establishing a purpose
statement for the Flood Plain
Zone.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E, ORD. 2023-018
Comprehensive Plan and Text
amendments to provide
procedures related to the
2019-019
12-1 1-19/ 12-1 1-19
23.01.01, 2.5
division of certain split zoned
properties containing Flood
Plain zoning and involving a
former or piped irrigation
canal.
Comprehensive Plan and Text
amendments to provide
procedures related to the
2020-001
12-1 1-19/ 12-1 1-19
23.01.01, 2.5
division of certain split zoned
properties containing Flood
Plain zoning and involving a
former or piped irrigation
canal.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to adjust the
Redmond Urban Growth
Boundary through an equal
exchange of land to/from the
Redmond UGB. The exchange
property is being offered to
better achieve land needs that
2020-002
2-26-20/5-26-20
23.01.01, 4.2, 5.2
were detailed in the 2012 SB
1544 by providing more
development ready land
within the Redmond UGB.
The ordinance also amends
the Comprehensive Plan
designation of Urban Area
Reserve for those lands
leaving the UGB.
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment with exception
to Statewide Planning Goal 11
2020-003
02-26-20/05-26-20
23.01.01, 5.10
(Public Facilities and Services)
to allow sewer on rural lands
to serve the City of Bend
Outback Water Facility.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E, ORS. 2023-018
Exhibit "E " to Ortliraoce 2023-0 s 8
Comprehensive Plan
Transportation System Plan
Amendment to add
roundabouts at US 20/Cook-
2020-008
06-24-20/09-22-20
23.01.010, Appendix C
O.B. Riley and US 20/Old
Bend -Redmond Hwy
intersections; amend Tables
5.331 and 5.332 and amend
TSP text.
Housekeeping Amendments
2020-007
07-29-20/ 10-27-20
23.01.010, 2.6
correcting references to two
Sage Grouse ordinances.
Comprehensive Plan and Text
amendments to update the
County's Resource List and
2020-006
08-12-20/ 1 1-10-20
23.01.01, 2.1 1, 5.9
Historic Preservation
Ordinance to comply with the
State Historic Preservation
Rule.
Comprehensive Plan
Transportation System Plan
Amendment to add reference
2020-009
08-19-20/ 1 1-17-20
23.01.010, Appendix C
to J turns on US 97 raised
median between Bend and
Redmond; delete language
about disconnecting
Vandevert Road from US 97.
Comprehensive Plan Text
And Map Designation for
Certain Properties from
Surface Mine (SM) and
Agriculture (AG) To Rural
2020-013
08-26-20/ 1 1 /24/20
23.01.01, 5.8
Residential Exception Area
(RREA) and Remove Surface
Mining Site 461 from the
County's Goal 5 Inventory of
Significant Mineral and
Aggregate Resource Sites.
Comprehensive Plan Map
2021-002
0 1 -27-21/04-27-21
23.01.01
Designation for Certain
Property from Agriculture
(AG) To Rural Industrial (RI)
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E, ORD. 2023-018
COITiprehensive Plan Map
Amendment Designation for
Certain Property from
2021-005
06-16-21 /06-16-21
23.01.01, 4.2
Agriculture (AG) To
Redmond Urban Growth
Area (RUGA) and text
amendment
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment Designation for
Certain Property Adding
2021-008
06-30-21/09-28-21
23.01.01
Redmond Urban Growth
Area (RUGA) and Fixing
Scrivener's Error in Ord.
2020-022
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2022-001
04-13-22/07-12-22
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2022-003
04-20-22/07-19-22
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
2022-006
06-22-22/08-19-22
23.01.010
property from Rural
Residential Exception Area
(RREA) to Bend Urban
Growth Area
Comprehensive Plan Map
2022-010
07-27-22/ 10-25-22
23.01.010
Designation for Certain
Property from Agriculture
(AG) To Rural Industrial (RI)
Comprehensive Plan Map
2022-01 1
12-12-22/03-14-23
23.01.010
Designation for Certain
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Industrial (RI)
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
2022-013
12-14-22/03-14-23
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E, ORD. 2023-018
F,v.hihilt "E" to Ordinance 2+023-618
Comprehensive Plan Map
2023-007
TBD
23.01.010
Designation for Certain
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
2023-018
TBD
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E, ORD. 2023-018
HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FILE NUMBERS: 247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
HEARING DATE: February 28, 2023, 6:00 p.m.
HEARING LOCATION: Videoconference and Barnes and Sawyer Rooms
Deschutes Services Center
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97708
SUBJECT PROPERTIES/
OWNER: Mailing Name: GRIFFIN, KEVIN J
Map and Taxlot: 181201 D000200
Account: 109857
Situs Address: 21900 RASTOVICH RD, BEND, OR 97702
APPLICANT: Kevin Griffin and Libby Renfro
ATTORNEY
FOR APPLICANT: Tia Lewis
REQUEST: The Applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
to change the designation of the Subject Property from Agricultural
(AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA). The Applicant also
requests a corresponding Zone Change to rezone the Subject Property
from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10).
HEARINGS OFFICER: Alan A. Rappleyea
STAFF CONTACT: Rachel Vickers, Associate Planner
Phone: (541) 388-6504
Email:.Rachel.Vickers@deschutes.org
RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from:
https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/247-22-000792-pa-793-zc-
%E2%80%93-comprehensive-plan-amendment-and-zone-change
SUMMARY OF
RECOMMENDATION: The Hearings Officer finds that the Applicants have met their burden of
proof with respect to the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and Zone Change and, therefore, recommends APPROVAL of the
Application based on the Findings set forth in this Recommendation.
I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA
Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose, and Definitions
Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones (EFU)
Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10).
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 2, Resource Management
Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management
Appendix C, Transportation System Plan
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Chapter 660
Division 12, Transportation Planning
Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
Division 33, Agricultural Land
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)
Chapter 215.010, Definitions
Chapter 215.211, Agricultural Land, Detailed Soils Assessment
I1. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL FINDINGS
NATURE OF PROCEEDING: This matter comes before the Hearings Officer as a request for approval
of a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment ("Plan Amendment") to change the designation of the
Subject Property from Agricultural (AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA). The Applicants
also request approval of a corresponding Zoning Map Amendment („Zone Change") to change the
zoning of the Subject Property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10).
The basis of the request in the Application is the Applicants' assertion that the Subject Property does
not qualify as "agricultural land" under the applicable provisions of the Oregon Revised Statutes or
Oregon Administrative Rules governing agricultural land. Based on that assertion, the Applicants
are not seeking an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3 for the Plan Amendment or Zone Change.
NOTICES: The Application was filed on April 14, 2022. On October 5, 2022, the County issued a
Notice of Application to several public agencies and to property owners in the vicinity of the Subject
Property (together, "Application Notice"). The Application Notice invited comments on the
Application.
Following additional submittals by the Applicants, the County mailed a Notice of Public Hearing on
February 3, 2023 ("Hearing Notice") announcing an evidentiary hearing ("Hearing") for the requests
in the Application. Notice of the hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin on February 5, 2023.
Notice was given to the DLCD of the hearing on January 17, 2023. Pursuant to the Hearing Notice, I
presided over the Hearing as the Hearings Officer on February 28, 2023, opening the Hearing at
6:00 p.m. The Hearing was held via videoconference, with Staff and a representative of the
Applicants in the hearing room. The Hearings Officer appeared remotely. On February 21, 2023, the
2
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
Deschutes County Planning Division ("Staff") issued a report setting forth the applicable criteria and
presenting the evidence in the record at that time ("Staff Report"). The Hearings Officer finds that
all procedural notice requirements were met.
HEARING: At the beginning of the Hearing, I provided an overview of the quasi-judicial process and
instructed participants to direct comments to the approval criteria and standards, and to raise any
issues a participant wanted to preserve for appeal if necessary. I stated I had no ex parte contacts to
disclose or bias to declare. I asked for but received no objections to the County's jurisdiction over the
matter or to my participation as the Hearings Officer. Next, Staff provided a summary of the staff
report. The applicant's attorney, Ms. Lewis then made a presentation. The Applicant, Mr. Kevin Griffin
also testified in support of the application. There was no one present either in person or remotely to
offer neutral testimony or opposition testimony. Staff reported on the letters in opposition from
Kristen Sabo and Carol Macbeth of COLW, Devin Kesner of 1000 Friends of Oregon including one that
recently arrived from Ms. Macbeth from Central Oregon Land Watch (COLW), and Mr. Jerry Wilke. I
noted that I had read the letters that were submitted but had not yet seen the COLW most recent
letter. I have now reviewed that letter.
The applicant stated that the letter in opposition from Jerry Wilke was likely addressing a different
application as the current application does not propose a drug rehabilitation facility. I concur in that
statement.
The applicant also rebutted the arguments provided by COWL and 1000 Friends. The applicant and
staff then responded to my questions. I mentioned that the Board would be hearing a similar
application in Marken 247-22-000353-PA and 247-22-000354-ZC. I wanted to take judicial notice of
that decision when it is issued for the record. The applicant did not have an issue with having that
decision reviewed by the Hearings Officer. I noted that I have a contractual obligation to issue timely
decisions.
No participant requested that the record remain open. The Hearing concluded at approximately 6:59
p.m. At that time, I closed the Hearing and the record, and I took this matter under advisement.
150-DAY CLOCK: Because the Application includes a request for the Plan Amendment, the 150-day
review period set forth in ORS 215.427(1) is not applicable. ORS 215.427(7). The Staff Report also
notes that the 150-day review period is not applicable by virtue of Deschutes County Code ("DCC"
or "Code") 22.20.040(D). No participant to the proceeding disputed that conclusion.
III. SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Adoption of Factual Findings in Staff Report:
The Staff Report contains a comprehensive summary of evidence in the record as it relates to each
of the applicable criteria. The Staff Report, although it expresses agreement with the Applicants in
many places, does not make a final recommendation. Instead, the Staff Report asks the Hearings
Officer to determine if the Applicants have met the burden of proof necessary to justify the Plan
3
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
Amendment and the Zone Change. Comments have challenged some specific evidence or findings
presented in the Staff Report. Where the staff lega! finding have been challenged, those will be
addressed below. There is only one area that challenges the factual finding and will be addressed
here. For those factual and legal findings that are not challenged, I hereby adopt as fact the
evidentiary findings in the Staff Report as my evidentiary findings. To the extent any of the findings
in this Recommendation conflict with the findings in the Staff Report, my intent is to have these
findings control. The remainder of this Recommendation sets forth the legal criteria and adopts
legal findings based on those factual findings.
The factual finding that is challenged by COWL is the determination of the soils report provided by
the applicant. Although there is also a legal aspect to this challenge as COWL believes that the
County's NRCS maps should prevail over the applicant's soil study (which will be addressed
subsequently), a primary factual challenge is the make up of the soil. COWL's testimony is that the
soil is predominantly Class 3-6. Macbeth COLW Public Comment 2/28/23. The Applicant's soil study
finds that the property is predominantly Class 7-8 (hereinafter, except for quotes, I will use the
Arabic numerals instead or Roman for ease of reading). The Hearings Officer finds that the expert
testimony provided by the applicant concerning soils along with staffs analysis of Applicants
submittal is more persuasive than the testimony provided by Ms. Macbeth. 2022-09-30 App
Materials 22-792-PA, 793-ZC Page 176. Ms. Macbeth relies on the more general NRCS studies and
the applicant's study is more detailed. The applicant has met the burden of proof that the soil is
predominantly class 7-8 and is not predominantly class 3-6.
Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
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 filing an application on
forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures
of DCC Title 22.
FINDING: The Applicants are the owners of the Subject Property and have requested a quasi-judicial
Plan Amendment and filed applications for that purpose, together with the request for a Zone
Change. No participant to this proceeding objects to this process. it is therefore appropriate to
review the Application using the applicable procedures contained in Title 22 of the Deschutes
County Code.
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:
0
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and the change is
consistent with the plan's introductory statement and goals.
FINDING: According to the Applicants, the County applies this Code provision by considering
whether: (1) the zone change conforms to the Comprehensive Plan; and (2) the change is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan's introduction statement and goals.
With respect to the first factor, the Applicants note that they are also seeking a Plan Amendment,
which will change the Comprehensive Plan designation of the Subject Property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception Area. If that Plan Amendment is approved, which is addressed in more
detail below, the proposed change from the EFU zone to the MUA-10 zone will be consistent with
the new Comprehensive Plan designation. No participant to this proceeding disputes that
conclusion.
With respect to the second factor, the Staff report goes into detail describing the criteria which the
hearings officer has to apply relying on past Hearing Officers decision on a similar application.
Powell/Ramsey decision (PA-14-2 / ZC-14-2) and Landholdings Decision (247-16-000317-ZC / 318-
PA). The staff report states that "introductory statement and goals are not approval criteria for the
proposed plan amendment and zone change." The Hearings Officer adopts the Applicant's
statement and the staff report's legal analysis on the standards that apply. The staff report then
proceeds to address the relevant requirements.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that
this Code provision is satisfied.
B. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the
purpose and ►ntent of the proposed zone classification.
FINDING: Only the Applicants and Staff offer any evidence or argument with respect to the purpose
of the MUA-10 zone. The purpose of the MUA-10 zoning district is stated in DCC 18.32.010 as follows:
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 fulltime 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.
According to the Applicants, the Subject Property is not suited to full-time commercial farming. The
MUA-10 zone will instead allow the owners to engage in hobby farming, and the low -density of
development allowed by the MUA-10 zone will conserve open spaces and protect natural and scenic
resources. As a result, the MUA-10 zoning provides a proper transition zone from city, to rural, to
5
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
EFU zoning. Additionally, the staff report finds that the maximum density of the approximately 40.0-
acre property is 7 lots, if developed with a cluster development under Title 18. This low density will
preserve open space, allow owners to engage in hobby farming, if desired, and preserve natural
and scenic resources and maintain or improve the quality of air, water, and land resources. The
MUM 0 zoning provides a proper transition zone from the City, to rural zoning, to EFU zoning.
The Staff Report agrees that the change in classification is consistent with the purpose and intent
of the MUA10 Zone, and no participant to this proceeding disputes that conclusion. Based on the
foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that this Code
provision is satisfied.
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.
FINDING: As noted in the Staff Report, this criterion specifically asks if the Zone Change will presently
serve public health, safety, and welfare. The Applicants and the Staff Report provided the following
as support for why this criterion is met:
• Necessary public facilities and services are available to serve the Subject Property including
power and water.
• Transportation access to the Subject Property is available off a Rastovich Road, and the
impact of increased traffic on the transportation system is negligible.
• The Subject property receive police services from the Deschutes County Sheriff and fire
service from Rural Fire Protection District # 2, which has a fire station two miles from the
Subject Property.
• The close proximity of the Subject property to urban development will allow for efficient
service provision.
• Prior to development of the properties, the Applicants would be required to comply with the
applicable requirements of the Code, including possible land use permit, building permit,
and sewage disposal permit processes. Through these development review processes,
assurance of adequate public services and facilities will be verified.
Staff concludes and the Hearings Officer finds that there are no known deficiencies in public services
or facilities that would negatively impact public health, safety, or welfare. Based on the foregoing,
and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that this Code provision is
satisfied.
2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals
and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan.
FINDING: Only the Applicants and Staff offer any evidence or argument with respect to this
criterion. Specifically, the Applicants noted the following:
M
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
The MUA-10 zoning is consistent with the specific goals and policies in the comprehensive plan
discussed above. The MUA-10 zoning is the some as the zoning of many other properties in the
area west and south of the subject property. In addition, the MUA-10 zoning provides a proper
transition zone from the City, to rural zoning, to EFU zoning.
The zone change will not impose new impacts on the EFU-zoned land adjacent to the subject
property because many of those properties are residential properties, hobby farms, already
developed with dwellings, not engaged in commercial farm use, are idle, or are otherwise not
suited for farm use due to soil conditions, topography, or ability to make a profit farming.
Some of the properties adjacent and near the subject property are in small, hobby farm use and
are receiving farm tax deferral. Tax Lots 1100, 100, 301, and 200 are adjacent to the east and
southwest and are in common ownership and part of Rastovich Farm. Most of the Rastovich
properties are receiving farm tax deferral and are being used for raising livestock. One of the
Rastovich parcels adjacent to the subject property is a nonfarm parcel developed with a nonfarm
dwelling. Submitted herewith as Exhibit 12 is a letter from Robert and Colleen Rastovich stating
they have no objection to the requested zone change and attesting to the fact that the subject
property is not intermingled and is not necessary or useful to them for any farming on the
Rastovich parcels.
The adjacent properties to the north and northeast, Tax Lots 101, 102, 1101, are currently receiving
farm tax deferral and appear to be used as residential properties with hobby farms. Attached
hereto as Exhibit 13 are letters from David Nader, owner of Tax lot 101 adjacent to the north of
the subject property and Steve and Keri Sawyer, owners of Tax lot 1101 adjacent to the northeast
of the subject property stating they have no objection to the requested zone change and attesting
to the fact that the subject property is not intermingled and is not necessary or useful to them for
any farming occurring on their parcels. These properties will not suffer new impacts from the
proposed zone change because they are hobby farms, already developed with dwellings, not
engaged in commercial farm use, and are smaller size than the subject property. The zone change
would allow the subject property to be divided into parcels similar size to the adjacent properties
to the north and be used for similar hobby farming uses.
As discussed below, the subject property is not agricultural land, is comprised of predominantly
Class 7 and 8 soils, and as described by the soil scientist, Mr. Gallagher, the nonproductive soils
on the subject property make it not suitable for commercial farming or livestock grazing. The
subject property is not land that could be used in conjunction with the adjacent property and any
future development of the subject property would be subject to building setbacks.
The Staff Report agrees that the Applicants have demonstrated the impacts on surrounding land
use will be consistent with the specific goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that
this Code provision is satisfied.
FA
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
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: Only the Applicants offer any evidence or argument with respect to this criterion.
According to the Applicants, a mistake in zoning was made and the EFU zoning designation on the
Subject property was likely based on the best soils data that was available to the County at the time
it was originally zoned, during the late 1970's, when the Comprehensive Plan and Map were first
adopted. The Applicants also assert that there has been a change in circumstances since that time.
Specifically, the Applicants note that there are new data regarding soils on the Subject Property and
that the updated soils report shows the Subject Property do not have agricultural soils. The
Applicants also assert that the economics of farming and the viability of commercial farm uses in
Deschutes County have significantly changed, and farming for a profit has become increasingly
difficult. The applicant also notes the encroachment of the urban area to the Subject Property.
Although the Hearings Officer agrees with the applicant that the urban area is encroaching on this
property, he does not find that this encroachment would be a change in circumstance that should
be considered as any such plan change would further create encroachment for other properties.
Staff finds that "[i]t is unclear to staff why the Subject Property was initially zoned EFU. Staff is
unaware of any evidence such as soil classification, availability of irrigation, or historic farming,
which explains its current zoning." Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing
evidence or argument, I find that this Code provision is satisfied.
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 2, Resource Management
FINDING: Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan relates to Resource Management. Section 2.2 of
that Chapter relates specifically to Agricultural Lands. The Applicants and Staff have identified the
following goals and policies as relevant to the Application.
Section 2.2 Agricultural Lands
Goal 1, Preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry.
FINDING: According to the Applicants, they are pursuing the Plan Amendment and Zone Change
because the Subject Property do not constitute "agricultural lands", and therefore, it is not
necessary to preserve or maintain the Subject Property as such. In support of that conclusion, the
Applicants rely on a soils report showing the Subject Property consist predominantly (58.5%) of
Class 7 and 8 nonagricultural soils. Such soils have severe limitations for agricultural use as well as
low soil fertility, shallow and very shallow soils, abundant rock outcrops, low available water
capacity, and major management limitations for livestock grazing.
The Staff Report notes the property has 5 acres of water rights. The fact that the property has some
water rights and that the soils are only 58% class 7 and 8 makes this decision more difficult. It is
q
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
likely that many properties in Deschutes County are used for farming, particularly hobby farming,
have worse soil conditions. However, the majority of the soils are predominantly class 7 and 8.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that
the Application is consistent with this portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
Policy2.2.2 Exclusive Farm Use sub -zones shall remain as described in the 1992 Farm
Study and shown in the table below, unless adequate legal findings for amending
the sub -zones are adopted or an individual parcel is rezoned as allowed by Policy
2.2.3.
FINDING: The Applicants have not asked to amend the subzone that applies to the Subject Property.
Instead, the Applicants requested a change under Policy 2.2.3 and have provided evidence to
support rezoning the Subject Property as MUM 0.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that
the Application is consistent with this portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 2.2.3 Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments, including for
those that qualify as non -resource land, for individual EFU parcels as allowed by
State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan.
FINDING: The Applicants request approval of the Plan Amendment and Zone Change to re-
designate the Subject Property from Agricultural to Rural Residential Exception Area and rezone the
Subject Property from EFU to MUM 0. The Applicants do not seek an exception to Goal 3 for that
purpose, but rather seek to demonstrate that the Subject Property does not meet the state
delinlllon of "Agricultural icuitural Land" as defined in tatewide Tani ping Goal (OAR ).
S P 3 660-033-00
In support of this approach, the Applicants rely in part on the Land Use Board of Appeals' decision
in Wetherell v. Douglas County, 52 Or LUBA 677 (2006), where LUBA states as follows:
As we explained in DLCD v. Klamath County, 16 Or LUBA 817, 820 (1988), there are two ways a
county can justify a decision to allow nonresource use of land previously designated and zoned
for farm use or forest uses. One is to take an exception to Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) and Goal 4
(Forest Lands). The other is to adopt findings which demonstrate the land does not qualify either
as forest lands or agricultural lands under the statewide planning goals. When a county pursues
the latter option, it must demonstrate that despite the prior resource plan and zoning designation,
neither Goal 3 or Goal 4 applies to the property.
The Applicants assert that the facts presented in the Application are sufficiently similar to those in
the Wetherell decision and in other Deschutes County plan amendment and zone change
applications. The Staff Report agrees and concludes the Applicants have the potential to prove the
Subject Property is not agricultural land and do not require an exception to Goal 3 under state law.
9
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
The opposition letter submitted by Ms. Kesner from 1000 Friends argues that the applicant did not
adequately address the agricultural land factors in the rule. This argument will be addressed
specifically under OAR 660-033-0020.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the Application is consistent with this portion of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 2.2.4 Develop comprehensive policy criteria and code to provide clarity on
when and how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations.
FINDING: The Applicants assert this plan policy provides direction to Deschutes County to develop
new policies to provide clarity when EFU parcels can be converted to other designations and that
the Application is consistent with this policy. The Staff Report also concludes the proposal is
consistent with this policy.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that
the Application is consistent with this portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
Goal 3, Ensure Exclusive Farm Use policies, classifications and codes are consistent with
local and emerging agricultural conditions and markets.
Policy 2.2.131dentify and retain accurately designated agricultural lands.
FINDING: The Applicants assert that this Comprehensive Plan policy requires the County to identify
and retain agricultural lands that are accurately designated. The Applicants propose that the Subject
Property was not accurately designated as demonstrated by the soil study in the record.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that
the Application is consistent with this portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
Section 2.5, Water Resources Policies
FINDING: Section 2.5 of Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2 relates specifically to Water Resource
Policies. The Applicants and Staff have identified the following goal and policy in that section as
relevant to the Application.
Goal 6, Coordinate land use and water policies.
Policy 2.5.24 Ensure water impacts are reviewed and, if necessary, addressed for
significant land uses or developments.
FINDING: The Applicants and Staff assert that the Applicants are not required to address water
impacts associated with development because they have not proposed a specific development
application at this time. Instead, the Applicants will be required to address this criterion during
10
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
development of the Subject Property, which would be reviewed under any necessary land use
process for the site.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that
the Application is consistent with this portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
Section 2.7 Open Spaces, Scenic Views and Sites
FINDING: Section 2.7 of Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2 relates specifically to Open Spaces, Scenic
Views and Sites. The Applicants and Staff have identified the following goal and policies in that
section as relevant to the Application.
Goal 1, Coordinate with property owners to ensure protection of significant open spaces
and scenic view and sites.
Policy 2.7.3 Support efforts to identify and protect significant open spaces and
visually important areas including those that provide a visual separation between
communities such as the open spaces of Bend and Redmond or lands that are
visually prominent.
Policy 2.7.5 Encourage new development to be sensitive to scenic views and sites.
FINDING: The Applicants assert these policies are fulfilled by the County's Goal 5 program. The
County protects scenic views and sites along major rivers and roadways by imposing Landscape
Management (LM) Combining Zones to adjacent properties. Because there is no LM combining zone
applicable to the Subject Property, the Subject Property is not identified as a Goal 5 resource, and
no new development isproposed,the A Applicants argue there is i o applicable regulation ulation that
p pp g Np g
requires the Subject Property to be protected as open space or for scenic views.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that
the Application is consistent with this portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
Chapter 3, Rural Growth
Section 3.2 Rural Development
FINDING: Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan relates to Rural Growth. Within that chapter,
Section 3.2 relates specifically to Rural Development. The Applicants and Staff have identified the
following language in that section as relevant to the Application.
Growth Potential
As of 2010, the strong population growth of the last decade in Deschutes County was
thought to have leveled off due to the economic recession. Besides flattergrowth patterns,
changes to State regulations opened up additional opportunities for new rural
11
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
development. The following list identifies general categories for creating new residential
lots, all of which are subject to specific State regulations.
• 2009 legislation permits a new analysis of agricultural designated lands
• Exceptions can be granted from the Statewide Planning Goals
• Some farm lands with poor soils that are adjacent to rural residential uses can be
rezoned as rural residential
FINDING: This section of the Comprehensive Plan does not contain Goals or Policies but does
provide the guidance above. In response to this section, the Applicant provided the following
response in the burden of proof:
The above part of the plan is not a plan policy and is not an applicable approval criterion but
rather an explanation of how the County calculated expected growth. As shown above, the
County's Comprehensive Plan provisions anticipate the need for additional rural residential lots
as the region continues to grow. This includes providing a mechanism to rezone farm lands with
poor soils to a rural residential zoning designation. While this rezone application does not include
the creation of new residential lots, the applicant has demonstrated the subject property is
comprised of poor soils that are adjacent to rural residential, MUA-10 zone, uses to the west as
well as near rural residential, RR-10 zone and MUA-10 zone, uses to the south and is near (within
1 mile) of the City limits of Bend to the west and even closer to the Stevens Road Tract, which will
be brought inside the UGB pursuant to HB 3318.
Rezoning the subject property to MUA-10 is consistent with this criterion, as it will provide for an
orderly and efficient transition from the Bend Urban Growth Boundary to rural and agricultural
lands. Additionally, it will link the non -productive lands of the subject property with existing
residential development and street systems to the west, furthering the creation a buffer of MUA-
i 0 zoned land along the City's eastern, ul oundary where the quality of soils are poor and the land
is not conducive for commercial agriculture.
Staff noted that the MUA-10 zone is a rural residential zone and as discussed in the Basic Findings
section, there are several nearby properties to the north and northeast that are zoned MUA-10 as
well as nearby EFU zoned properties developed with residential uses. Staff noted this policy
references the soil quality, which staff has discussed above. Staff agreed with the Applicant's
response and finds the proposal complies with this policy.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that
the Application is consistent with this portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
Section 3.3, Rural Housing
Rural Residential Exception Areas
In Deschutes County most rural lands are designated for farms, forests or other resources
and protected as described in the Resource Management chapter of this Plan. The majority
of the land not recognized as resource lands or Unincorporated Community is designated
12
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
Rural Residential Exception Area. The County had to follow a process under Statewide Goal
2 to explain why these lands did not warrant farm or forest zoning. The major determinant
was that many of these lands were platted for residential use before Statewide Planning
was adopted.
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 initiating a
nonresource plan amendment and zone change by demonstrating the property does not
meet the definition of agricultural or forest land, or taking exceptions to farm, forest,
public facilities and services and urbanization regulations, and follow guidelines set out in
the OAR.
FINDING: Prior Hearings Officer's decisions have found that Section 3.3 is not a plan policy or
directive. PA-1 1-1 7/ZC-1 1-2; 247-16-000317-ZC/318-PA; 247-18-000485-PA/486-ZC. I hereby adopt
the findings in the staff report for this criterion.
Based on the above, the Hearings Officer agrees with the past Deschutes County Hearings Officer
interpretations and with the staff interpretation and finds that the above language is not a policy
and does not require an exception to the applicable Statewide Planning Goal 3. Staff finds the
proposed RREA plan designation is the appropriate plan designation to apply to the Subject
Property. In the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the Application is
consistent with this portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
Section 3.7, Transportation
FINDING: Section � 3.7 of Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3 relates specifically to Transportation. The
Applicants and Staff have identified the following goal and policy in that section as relevant to the
Application.
Appendix C - Transportation System Plan
ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROAD PLAN
Goal 4. 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: The Applicants and the Staff Report assert this policy advises the County to consider the
roadway function, classification and capacity as criteria for Comprehensive Plan amendments and
zone changes. Compliance with OAR 660-012, also known as the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR),
13
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
is described below in subsequent findings, and the Applicants and Staff assert that such compliance
is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with these transportation goals and policies.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that
the Application is consistent with this portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 660, LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
FINDING: The Applicants and the Staff Report identify several administrative rules as potentially
applicable to the Application.
Division 6, Goal 4 - Forest Lands
OAR 660-006-0005
(7) "Forest lands" as defined in Goal 4 are those lands acknowledged as forest lands,
or, in the case of a plan amendment, forest lands shall include:
(a) Lands that are suitable for commercial forest uses, including adjacent or
nearby lands which are necessary to permit forest operations or practices,
and
(b) Other forested lands that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife
resources.
FINDING: The Applicants and the Staff Report assert that the Subject Property does not appear to
qualify as forest land and, therefore, the administrative rules relating to forest land are not
applicable. The Subject Property is not zoned for forest lands, nor are any of the Subject Property,
within a 3-mile radius of forest lands. The Subject Property does not contain merchantable tree
species and there is no evidence in the record that the Subject Property has been employed for
forestry uses historically.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that
the Application is consistent with these administrative rules.
Division 33 - Agricultural Lands & Statewide Planning Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands;
OAR 660-015-0000(3)
To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Agricultural lands shall be preserved and maintained for farm use, consistent with existing
and future needs for agricultural products, forest and open space and with the state's
agricultural land use policy expressed in ORS 215.243 and 215.700.
14
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
FINDING: Goal 3 continues on to define "Agricultural Land," which is repeated in OAR 660-033-
0020(1). Staff makes findings on this topic below and incorporates those findings herein by
reference.
OAR 660-033-0020, Definitions
For purposes of this division, the definitions in ORS 197.015, the Statewide Planning Goals,
and OAR Chapter 660 shall apply. In addition, the following definitions shall apply:
(1)(a) "Agricultural Land" as defined in Goal 3 includes:
(A) Lands classified by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
as predominantly Class I -IV soils in Western Oregon and I -VI soils in Eastern
Oregon];
FINDING: The Applicant's basis for not requesting an exception to Goal 3 is based on the premise
that the Subject Property is not defined as "Agricultural Land." In support, the Applicant offers the
following response as included in the submitted burden of proof statement:
ORS 215.211 grants a property owner the right to rely on more detailed information that provided
by the NRCS Web Soil Survey of the NRCS to "assist the county to make a better determination of
whether land qualifies as agricultural land."Statewide Goal 3, discussed above, and OAR 660-033-
0030(5) also allow the County to rely on the more detailed and accurate information by a higher
order soil survey rather than information provided by the NRCS. The law requires that this survey
use the NRCS soil classification system in conducting the survey, making it clear that the point of
the survey is to provide better soil classification information than provided by the NRCS for use in
making a proper decision whether land is or is not "Agricultural Land." The Subject Property is not
properly classified as Agricultural Land and does not merit protection under Goal 3. The soils are
predominately Class 7 and 8, as demonstrated by the site -specific soils assessment conducted by
Mr. Gallagher, a certified soils scientist. State law, OAR 660-033-0030, allows the County to rely on
for more accurate soils information, such as Mr. Gallagher's soil assessment. Mr. Gallagher found
that approximately 58.5 percent of the soils on the Subject Property (approximately 23.4 acres)
are Land Capability Class 7 and 8 soils that have severe limitations for farm use. He also found
the site to have low soil fertility, shallow and very shallow soils, abundant rock outcrops, rock
fragments on the soil surface, restrictive for livestock accessibility, and low available water holding
capacity, all of which are considerations for the determination for suitability for farm use.
Because the Subject Property is comprised predominantly of Class 7 and 8 soils, the property does
not meet the definition of 'Agricultural Land" under OAR 660-033-020(1)(a)(A), listed above as
having predominantly Class I -VI soils.
Ms. Macbeth from COLW argued that applicant misconstrues this rule in its burden of proof
statement. Ms. Macbeth finds fault with the applicant referring to OAR 660-033-0030 to provide
,'more accurate soils information." She argues that a "more detailed study is not more accurate".
Page 2, February 28, 2023 testimony. Ms. Macbeth argues that the applicant's soil study cannot
"change or replace the NRCS data...."
1s
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
The applicants responded to this testimony in its February 28, 2023, submittal.
Goal 3 specifically allows local governments to rely on more detailed soils data than provided by
the NRCS. It says:
"More detailed soil data to define agricultural land may be utilized by local governments if such
data permits achievement of this goal."
The purpose of Goal 3 is to preserve agricultural land. It is not intended to preserve land that does
not meet the definition of "agricultural land."
The applicants then argues that ORS 215.211(1) the legislature specifically provided the rights for
applicants to provide more detailed soils information. The applicant argues that the rules support
this finding:
DLCD understands that the more detailed soils surveys allowed by Statewide Goal 3 and ORS
197.211 may be used in lieu of NRCS soils surveys. On its website, DLCD explains:
"Soil mapping done by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is the most
common tool used for identifying the types of soils in an area. The NRCS provides a rating
for each soil type that indicates how suited the soil is for agriculture. ***
NRCS does not have the ability to map each parcel of land, so it looks to larger areas. This
means that the map may miss a pocket of different soils. DLCD has a process landowners
can use to challenge NRCS soils information on a specific property. Owners who believe
soil on their property has been incorrectly mapped may retain a 'professional soil classifier
... certified by and in good standing with the Soil Science Society of America ' *** through
a process administered by DLCD. This soils professional' can conduct an assessment that
may result in a change of the allowable uses for the property."
I find that the applicant's argument is more convincing. That statutes and the rules and the
DLCD's interpretation of their rules allow applicants to submit more detailed soils
information which can be used to determine whether the property meets the definition of
"agricultural lands." See following sections.
Staff reviewed the soil study provided by Andy Gallagher of Red Hill Soils (dated September 26, 2022)
and agree with the Applicant's representation of the data for the Subject Property. Staff found that
based on the submitted soil study and the above OAR definition, that the Subject Property is
comprised predominantly of Class 7 and 8 soils and, therefore, does not constitute "Agricultural
Lands" as defined in OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A) above.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the Subject Property should not be considered agricultural land
under this part of the administrative rules.
(8) Land in other soil classes that is suitable for farm use as defined in ORS
215.203(2)(a), taking into consideration soil fertility, suitability for grazing;
16
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
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, and
FINDING: According to the Applicants, this part of the definition of "Agricultural Land" requires the
County to consider whether the Class 7 and 8 soils found on the Subject Property are suitable for
farm use despite their Class 7 and 8 soil classification. The Applicants rely on a decision by the
Oregon Supreme Court that determined the term "farm use" as used in this rule and Goal 3 means
the current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money through
specific farming -related endeavors.' Applying that definition, the Applicants describe various
limitations on the ability of the Subject Property to support farm uses, including, among other
factors, a limited water rights and low soil fertility. Applicant argues that these factors demonstrate
that the property is not agricultural land.
Mr. Kesner from 1000 Friends of Oregon argues in its February 281" submittal that:
The applicant's analysis as to whether the property is agricultural land as defined by DC 18.04.030
and OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a) is faulty in several ways. First, the applicant fails to demonstrate that
the property is not suitable for any'farm use" as defined under ORS 215.203(2)(a). See OAR 660-
033-0020(1)(a)(8) (agricultural land includes "[1]and in other soil [soil] classes that is suitable for
farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a)). "Farm use" is defined as "current employment of land
for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money by raising, harvesting and selling crops or
the feeding, breeding, management and sale of, or the produce of, livestock, poultry, fur -bearing
animals or honeybees or for dairying and the sale of dairy products or any other agricultural or
horticultural use or animal husbandry or any combination thereof." ORS 215.203(2)(a). The
applicant has only addressed capacity for raising crops and livestock, and has not considered the
capability of the /and to support other activities classified as a 'farm use."
Mr. Kesner makes an interesting argument here that the applicant and the County must consider
other farm uses such poultry, fur -bearing animals or honeybees etc. in making the determination
of whether the property is agricultural land. Mr. Kesner would require a review of the general
definition of "farm use" found in the statute for the determination of whether the property is
"agricultural land."
I find that Mr. Kesner's interpretation is not persuasive. The legislature would not have adopted ORS
215.211 and allowed a county to consider more detailed soils information "to make a better
determination of whether land qualifies as agricultural land..." if they also had to consider whether
the applicants could raise bees etc.. The rules also specifically allow for the consideration of soil
types in determining "agricultural land". This statute and the rules implementing it all lead to my
conclusion that this additional analysis of whether the property must meet the broad definition of
agricultural in ORS 205.203(2)(a) is not required.
1 Wetherell v. Douglas County, 342 Or 666,160 P3d 614 (2007).
17
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
Mr. Kesner also argues that since the property has a significant amount of class 3-6 soils and that
there are manyfarms in Deschutes Countythat operate with much smaller acreage than the Subject
Property. Mr Kesner argues that this demonstrates that these small farms are "an accepted and
predominant farm practice in Deschutes County." This is also an interesting argument. However,
under the statute and administrative rules the County is examining whether this property is
"agricultural land" based on its soils and other factors. I find that based on the above -described law
as applied to soils types and the other factors described in the staff report, that the property is not
property classified as "agricultural land."
Staff agrees with the Applicant that many of the factors surrounding the Subject Property - such as
nearby residential and non-agricultural related land uses, high -cost of dryland grazing, soil fertility,
and lack of availability of water rights result in an extremely low possibility of farming on the Subject
Property.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the Subject Property should not be considered agricultural land
and is not suitable for farming under this part of the administrative rules.
(C) Land that is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent
or nearby agricultural lands.
FINDING: The staff report found that the Applicant provided an analysis of land uses and
agricultural operations surrounding the Subject Property. The Applicant analysis determined that
barriers for the Subject Property to engage with these properties in a farm use include: poor quality
soils, lack of irrigation, proximity and significant topography changes.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that
the Subject Property is not necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or
nearby agricultural land under this part of the administrative rules.
(b) Land in capability classes other than I-IV/I-VI that is adjacent to or
intermingled with lands in capability classes I-IV/1-1/I within a farm
unit, shall be inventoried as agricultural lands even though this land
may not be cropped or grazed,
FINDING: Staff report agrees with the Applicant's findings that this property is not part of a farm
unit with the surrounding agricultural lands.
The staff report include the applicant's response to arguments from 1000 Friends as to the Farm
Unit rule.
Goal 3 applies a predominant soil type test to determine if a property is "agricultural land." If a
majority of the soils are Class 1-6 in Central or Eastern Oregon, it must be classified "agricultural
land." 1000 Friends position is that this is a 100% Class 7-8 soils test rather than a 51916 Class 7
and 8 soils test because the presence of any Class 1-6 soil requires the County to identify the entire
property as "agricultural land." Case law indicates that the Class 1-6 soil test applies to a subject
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
property proposed for a non-agricultural plan designation while the farm unit rule looks out
beyond the boundaries of the subject property to consider how the subject property relates to
lands in active farming in the area that was once a part of the area proposed for rezoning. It is
not a test which requires that 100% of soils on a subject property be Class 1-6.
I find that the applicant's argument is more persuasive. The law allows for land that is not
predominantly class 1-6 soils to not be considered agricultural lands. As such, it makes sense that
the test under the farm unit rule would not require property to be 100% class 7-8 soils to meet this
test. The applicants also argue:
The farm unit rule is written to preserve large farming operations in a block. It does this by
preventing property owners from dividing farmland into smaller properties that, alone, do not
meet the definition of "agricultural land." The subject property is not formerly part of a larger area
of land that is or was used for farming operations and was then divided to isolate poor soils so
that land could be removed from EFU zoning. As demonstrated by the historic use patterns and
soils reports, it does not have poor soils adjacent to or intermingled with good soils within a farm
unit. The subject property is not in farm use and has not been in farm use of any kind. It has no
history of commercial farm use and contains soils that make the property generally unsuitable for
farm use as the term is defined by State law. It is not a part of a farm unit with other land.
I agree with the applicant that the property was not formerly part of a larger area of land that was
used for farming operations. As such, I find that the application complies with this part of the
administrative rules.
OAR 660-033-0030 Identifying Agricultural Land
(1) All land defined as "agricultural land" in OAR 660=033-0020(1) shall be inventoried
as agricultural land.
(2) When a jurisdiction determines the predominant soil capability classification of a
lot or parcel it need only look to the land within the lot or parcel being inventoried.
However, whether land is "suitable for farm use" requires an inquiry into factors
beyond the mere identification of scientific soil classifications. The factors are listed
in the definition of agricultural land set forth at OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(8). This
inquiry requires the consideration of conditions existing outside the lot or parcel
being inventoried. Even if a lot or parcel is not predominantly Class I -IV soils or
suitable for farm use, Goal 3 nonetheless defines as agricultural "lands in other
classes which are necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent
or nearby lands". A determination that a lot or parcel is not agricultural land
requires findings supported by substantial evidence that addresses each of the
factors set forth in 660-033-0020(1).
FINDING: The Applicant addressed the factors in OAR 660-033-0020(1) above. I find that the
properties are not "agricultural land," as referenced in OAR 660-033-0030(1) above and contain
barriers for farm use including poor quality soils and lack of irrigation as described in the soil study
produced by Mr. Gallagher. I also find that the Applicant has provided adequate responses
19
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
indicating the Subject Property is not necessary to permit farm practices undertaken on adjacent
and nearby lands. Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or
argument, I find that the administrative rules do not require the Subject Property to be inventoried
as agricultural land.
(3) Goal attaches no significance to the ownership of a lot or parcel when determining
whether it is agricultural land. Nearby or adjacent land, regardless of ownership,
shall be examined to the extent that a lot or parcel is either "suitable for farm use"
or "necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby
lands" outside the lot or parcel.
FINDING: As concluded in other findings above, the Subject Property is not suitable for farm use
and are not necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands. The
ownership of the Subject Property is therefore not being used as a factor to determine whether the
Subject Property is agricultural land.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that
the Application is consistent with this part of the administrative rules.
(5)(a) More detailed data on soil capability than is contained in the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil maps and soil surveys may be used to
define agricultural land. However, the more detailed soils data shall be related to
the NRCS land capability classification system.
(b) If a person concludes that more detailed soils information than that contained in
the Web Soil Survey operated by the NRCS as of January 2, 2012, would assist a
county to make a better determination of whether land qualifies as agricultural
land, the per son must request that the department arrange for an assessment of
the capability of the land by a professional soil classifier who is chosen by the
person, using the process described in OAR 660-033-0045.
FINDING: Mr. Gallagher's soil study concludes that the Subject Property contains 58 percent Class
7 and 8 soils. The submitted soil study prepared by Mr. Gallagher is accompanied in the submitted
application materials by correspondence from the Department of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD). The DLCD correspondence confirms that Mr. Gallagher's prepared soil study
is complete and consistent with the reporting requirements for agricultural soils capability as
dictated by DLCD. Based on Mr. Gallagher's qualifications as a certified Soil Scientist and Soil
Classifier, the staff found the submitted soil study to be definitive and accurate in terms of site -
specific soil information for the Subject Property.
I find that the Applicants have elected to provide a more detailed agricultural soil assessment,
conducted by Mr. Gallagher, a Certified Professional Soil Scientist approved by the Department of
Land Conservation and Development. The analysis under section OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a), above,
also applies here to address the comments by COWL. Based on the undisputed facts in that report,
the Subject Property do not qualify as "agricultural land."
20
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
(c) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 apply to:
(A) A change to the designation of land planned and zoned for exclusive farm
use, forest use or mixed farm forest use to a non -resource plan designation
and zone on the basis that such land is not agricultural land, and
FINDING: I find that this administrative rule does not establish a particular standard and simply
confirms when this section of the administrative rules applies.
(d) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 implement ORS 215.211, effective on October 1,
2011. After this date, only those soils assessments certified by the department
under section (9) of this rule may be considered by local governments in land use
proceedings described in subsection (c) of this section. However, a local government
may consider soils assessments that have been completed and submitted prior to
October 1, 2011.
FINDING: The Applicant submitted a soil study by Mr. Gallagher of Red Hill Soils dated September
26, 2022. The soils study was submitted following the ORS 215.211 effective date. The Applicant
submitted to the record an acknowledgement from Hilary Foote, Farm/Forest Specialist with the
DLCD, dated October 27, 2022, that the soil study is complete and consistent with DLCD's reporting
requirements. Staff found this criterion to be met based on the submitted soil study and
confirmation of completeness and consistency from DLCD
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that
the Application is consistent with this part of the administrative rules.
DIVISION 12, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
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 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
21
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
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.
FINDING: This above language is applicable to the proposal because it involves an amendment to
an acknowledged comprehensive plan. The proposed plan amendment would change the
designation of the Subject Property from AG to RREA and change the zone from EFU to MUA-10.
The Applicant is not proposing any land use development of the properties at this time.
As referenced in the staff report, the Senior Transportation Planner for Deschutes County requested
additional information to clarify the conclusions provided in the traffic study. The Applicant
submitted an updated report from Joe Bessman, PE of Transight Consulting, LLC dated January 3,
2023, to address trip distribution, traffic volumes, and Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) criteria.
The updates were reviewed by the Senior Transportation Planner who indicated his concerns were
satisfied with the amended report. Mr. Bessman includes the following conclusions in the traffic
impact analysis dated January 3, 2023:
• Rezoning of the 40-acre property from EFU-TRB to MUA provides nearly identical potential impacts
as the existing zoning, with the potential for a reduction in weekday daily and weekday p.m. peak
hour trips, even with inclusion of the conditionally allowed uses within the MUA zoning.
• With a comparative assessment of outright allowable uses the rezone reduces the trip generation
of the property in comparison to what could be built within the EFU zoning.
• The lack of a change in trip generation potential trip generation potential between reasonable
build -out scenarios does not meet Deschutes County, ODOT, or City of Bend thresholds of
significance at any nearby locations.
• Comparison of the maximum outright development in the MUA zoning to the single existing home
would only show seven additional weekday p.m. peak hour trips and 66 additional weekday daily
trips.
• Operational analysis shows that the Stevens Road and Ward Road corridors remain within
Deschutes County's performance thresholds using either the adopted 2030 TSP or values within
the pending 2040 TSP Update.
Based on the County Senior Transportation Planner's comments and the traffic study from
Transight Consulting, LLC, staff found compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule had been
effectively demonstrated. Based on the revised traffic study, staff believed that the proposed plan
amendment and zone change would be consistent with the identified function, capacity, and
performance standards of the County's transportation facilities in the area.
22
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that
the Application satisfies this administrative rule.
DIVISION 15, STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES
OAR 660-015 Division 15 Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
FINDING: Division 15 of OAR chapter 660 sets forth the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines,
with which all comprehensive plan amendments must demonstrate compliance. The Applicants
assert the Application is consistent with all applicable Goals and Guidelines, which no participant to
this proceeding disputes. In light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any counter evidence or
argument, I adopt the Applicants' position and find that the Plan Amendment and Zone Change are
consistent with the applicable Goals and Guidelines as follows:
"Goal 1, Citizen Involvement. Deschutes County will provide notice of the application to the
public through mailed notice to affected property owners and by requiring the Applicants to post
a "proposed land use action sign" on the Subject Property. Notice of the Hearings held regarding
this application was placed in the Bend Bulletin. A minimum of two public hearings will be held to
consider the Application.
Goa/2, Land Use Planning. Goals, policies and processes related to zone change applications are
included in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Titles 18 and 23 of the Deschutes
County Code. The outcome of the Application will be based on findings of fact and conclusions of
law related to the applicable provisions of those laws as required by Goal 2.
Goal 3, Agricultural Lands. The Applicants have shown that the property is not agricultural land
because it consists predominantly of Class 7 and 8 soils that are not suitable for farm use.
Goal 4, Forest Lands. Goal 4 is not applicable because the Subject Property does not include any
lands or soils that are zoned for, or that support, forest uses.
Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces. The subject property
does not contain any inventoried Goal 5 resources.
Goal 6, Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality. The approval of this Application will not impact
the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the County. Any future development of the
Subject Property will be subject to applicable local, state, and federal regulations that protect these
resources.
Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. According to the Deschutes County
DIAL property information and Interactive Map, the entirety of Deschutes County, including the
Subject Property, is located in a Wildfire Hazard Area. The Subject Property is also located in Rural
Fire Protection District #2. Rezoning the property to MUA-10 does not change the Wildfire Hazard
23
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
Area designation. Any future development of the Subject Property will need to demonstrate
compliance with any fire protection regulations and requirements of Deschutes County.
Goal 8, Recreational Needs. This goal is not applicable because no development is proposed and
the Subject Property is not planned to meet the recreational needs of Deschutes County. Therefore,
the proposed rezone will not impact the recreational needs of Deschutes County.
Goal 9, Economy of the State. This goal is not applicable because the Subject Property is not
designated as Goal 9 economic development land. In addition, the approval of this application
will not adversely affect economic activities of the state or area.
Goal 10, Housing. The County's comprehensive plan Goal 10 analysis anticipates that farm
properties with poor soils, like the Subject Property, will be converted from EFU to MUA-10 or RR-
10 zoning and that these lands will help meet the need for rural housing. Approval of this
Application, therefore, is consistent with Goal 10 as implemented by the acknowledged Deschutes
County Comprehensive Plan.
Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services. The approval of this Application will have no adverse
impact on the provision of public facilities and services to the Subject Property. Pacific Power has
confirmed that it has the capacity to serve the Subject Property and the proposal will not result in
the extension of urban services to rural areas.
Goal 12, Transportation. This application complies with the Transportation System Planning
Rule, OAR 660-012-0060, the rule that implements Goal 12. Compliance with that rule also
demonstrates compliance with Goal 12.
Goal 13, Energy Conservation. The approval of ,his application does not impede energy
conservation. The Subject Property is located within 1 mile from the city limits of Bend. If the
property is developed with additional residential dwellings in the future, providing homes in this
location as opposed to more remote rural locations will conserve energy needed for residents to
travel to work, shopping and other essential services provided in the City of Bend.
Goal 14, Urbanization. Staff found that this goal is not applicable because the Applicants'
proposal does not involve property within an urban growth boundary and does not involve the
urbanization of rural land. The MUA-10 zone is an acknowledged rural residential zoning district
that limits the intensity and density of developments to rural levels. The compliance of this zone
with Goal 14 was recently acknowledged when the County amended its Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan recognizes the fact that the MUA-10 and RR zones are the zones that will be
applied to lands designated Rural Residential Exception Areas.
Mr. Kesner, 1000 Friends of Oregon, argues that the application does not adequately consider this
goal or seek an exception. February 28, 2023, submittal. At the hearing, the applicant testified that
the MUA-10 zone has been acknowledged to be in compliance with Goal 14. The staff concurred
with that decision.
24
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
1 find that this Goal is not applicable for the reasons above.
Goals 15 through 19. These goals do not apply to land in Central Oregon."
IV. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the foregoing findings, I find the Applicants have met their burden of proof with respect
to the standards for approving the requested Plan Amendment and Zone Change. I therefore
recommend to the County Board of Commissioners that the Application be APPROVED.
Dated this 17t" Day of March, 2023
�- ,
Alan A. Rappleyea
Deschutes County Hearings Officer
25
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
E S C0
G2a
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: August 16, 2023
SUBJECT: 2023 Spay & Neuter Grant Program Award Recommendations
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Based on recommendations from Dog Board, award 2023 spay & neuter grants to program
applicants.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Deschutes County's Dog License and Pet Identification Application forms provide an
opportunity for residents to make a voluntary donation to support spay and neuter
services. These donations, typically supplemented by general fund, are offered to local
non-profit organizations, which provide spay and neuter services in Deschutes County for
both feral animals and pets whose owners are unable or unlikely to access or afford the
procedure. Grant funds may also be used for educational or promotional programs
focused on encouraging or expanding spay and neuter procedures in Deschutes County.
To be eligible for the program, applicants must be designated by the Internal Revenue
Service as a 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization, located in Deschutes County and able to
certify that grant proceeds will be used to support services benefiting Deschutes County
residents.
On June 21, 2023, the Board of Commissioners approved a total of $10,000 for multiple
awards. Staff then issued a news release, posted a solicitation, and notified past applicants
of the available funding. Four applications were received in response to the solicitation.
Those applications were then reviewed and evaluated by the Dog Control Board of
Supervisors, whose scores were averaged to provide the grant award recommendations
included in today's meeting packet.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
The Spay & Neuter Grant program is funded by donations made during dog license
registration as well as the general fund.
ATTENDANCE:
Stephanie Robinson, Administrative Analyst
rml
c
0
c°
-a
o
o
0
m
0
O
Ln
ko
o
E
�
0
u
CC
Q)
Ln Ln
4-1
X_ O
4-' i
O p
�N
u
—
O.
�
LC
-o
O u
j-E
L
u 0u
Ln
Lnu
X-O
0-
p
pvcp
C
C Ln O
puV1
°
C
O
L C U '�
O
v
V to V
u r- C
Ln O
to 4-U
L_
Q E
O 4- >
N
N
C— O
Ln C
rZ to Ln
M O W
LnY LA
L
L
a
N
�
C L
°
L O
° d Ln
,U
° L
a C
a; bo
o
°°
w
op° Q
c
Q
U Q .- U
L-U M In
Ln LL
_.I to O Vl
C
4-
a)
Ln
N
N
uE
o u
v
_
a� Q
`m- I
ro
o "
O
c-
C
� C
O E=
M `n •u
b
Ln
V C
v p
�� -o
'n p C
C
C C 4=
� M
U
o
O u N+
v Ln C
Ln .N
C
C L
-0 rB
+- 4-
O av C
Q QJ w m 0
V) a) ro0
C
V) Q m U,
ul
Q- � L vdJi 4-- QJ
C % Q
N O C
QJ QJ 4- w
E Q Q C c
C O O
Ln C C 4-
0 v- X O T,
C C)-0O
v C
Q1 ru ,cn
U O NC- in
m ,_, M
0 Ln v-
Qf O u Ln -0
U*)
Q1
L/)
L
In
C
C
In Q1
U
�
C �
: 7 C
0-C
N
Q)
O
C O -
O i
�. a
C - Q1
rB
°
E�
E V
Ln i m
a
m
A QJ
-0 O QJ
v 0
i O C
O N.
C C
v ra
N
C
C bp
m
J
_
r0
C OC
C
= Q •� mo
_
.-
C 4--+
_0 -0 mr
Qom'
Ln — C
_0 u
° Q c
QJ
O
L � E In
�' (n
C Q C
QJ C®
u tU C
O O
1, N mu
In •- Q! i
u bA Q)
O o
O m Ln U
C
J L-4� v
p
Ln u cz
J -0 4�
L ojj
°
4mJ
o m
o
c
= °
= n
0
=
o
m
0 a
�� v
W O
0
0
F-
O
CL
w f
,0 E i
L
a,
QJ Q
L
L
V
Lu Q m
IL LL
VL
1
VTES Co
o
MEETING DATE:
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
August 16, 2023
SUBJECT: Deliberations: Remand of LBNW LLC Plan Amendment and Zone Change
application 247-21-000881-PA, 882-ZC (247-23-000398-A)
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
The Board will deliberate on the proposed Plan Amendment and Zone Change request.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Board will deliberate in consideration of a remand decision of the Oregon Land Use
Board of Appeals regarding a Plan Amendment and Zone Change application proposed by
LBNW LLC and originally approved by the Board under files 247-21-000881-PA, 882-ZC. The
full record is located on the project webpage: https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/247-23-
000398-tuba-remand-Ibnw-Ilc-comprehensive-plan-amendment-and-zone-change
The 120-day deadline for the Board to render a decision of � this � � utter is September 14,
2023.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board)
FROM: Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner
DATE: August 9, 2023
SUBJECT: Deliberations - LBNW LLC Plan Amendment/Zone Change Remand
On August 16, 2023, the Board of Commissioners (Board) will hold a limited de novo public hearing
held to consider a remanded decision of the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) regarding a
Plan Amendment and Zone Change application proposed by LBNW LLC (Applicant). The record
associated with this remanded review is located on the project webpage'.
I. BACKGROUND
On September 30, 2021, an application was filed for a Plan Amendment and Zone change application
for a 19.12-acre property located at 65301 N Hwy 97, Bend (Taxlot ID 1612230000305), 65315 Hwy
97, Bend (Taxlot ID 1612230000500), and 65305 Hwy 97, Bend (Taxlot ID 1612230000301)
approximately 4.5 miles south of Redmond and approximately 4.25 miles north of Bend. The
applicant is requesting to rezone and re -designate the property from Agriculture/Exclusive Farm Use
- Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzone (EFU-TRB) to Rural Industrial (RI).
The Deschutes County Hearings Officer issued a decision recommending approval of the application
on July 12, 2022. The second hearing, as required by the County procedures ordinance, was held
before the Board on September 7, 2022. The Board then adopted Ordinance 2022-011 on December
14, 2022 approving the application with conditions.
Central Oregon Landwatch appealed the county decision to LUBA. On April 24, 2023 LUBA issued its
Final Opinion and Order remanding the decision to the County for further findings and conclusions
of law. On May 17, 2023, the Applicant initiated remand proceedings under local file no. 247-23-
000398-A. A work session was held before the Board on June 26, 2023. The final day on which the
County must issue a final decision on this application is September 14, 2023.
I1. BOARD DELIBERATIONS
1 https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/247-23-000398-luba-rema nd-Ibnw-1 Ic-com prehensive-pla n-a mend ment-and-zone-
chane
On August 16, 2023, the Board will deliberate on the proposed request, If the Board finds that
additional deliberations are necessary, the Board may schedule a future date for continued
deliberations. This would, however, potentially conflict with the state -mandated 120-day clock, the
deadline of which is September 14, 2023. If the Board finds no additional deliberations are necessary,
the Board may then vote on the proposal.
The record is available for inspection at the Planning Division and at the following link:
https://www deschutes o g/cd/page/247-23-000398-tuba-remand-lbnw-llc-comprehensive-plan-
amendment-and-zone-change
Board Decision Matrix
A more thorough review and discussion of the subject proposal's compliance with the applicable
approval criteria and issues is provided in Attachment 1 - Board Decision Matrix, prepared in
conjunction with this deliberation memorandum.
III. NEXT STEPS
If the Board determines that additional deliberations are necessary, staff will work with the Board to
schedule a future meeting for continued deliberations. As mentioned previously this would
potentially conflict with the state -mandated 120-day clock, the deadline of which is September 14,
2023. If the Board concludes their deliberations during the August 16, 2023 meeting, the Board may
then vote on whether to approve the proposal. If the Board renders a vote during the August 16,
2023 meeting, staff will intends to come back to the Board for a 1It reading of the Ordinance on
Wednesday August 30t", 2023 and a 2nd reading of the Ordinance on Wednesday September 13tn
2023.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Board Decision Matrix
Page 2 of 2
B�F�JT�
Ma
�y
Sff sM ��
c
tr( 3�
•
i z�zi
5p S
0
0
Z
O
Q
V
J
a
a
Q
W
W
Z
u
W
O
N
H
SW
G
CW
G
Q
Q
J
a
V
J
J
ZM
W
J
L.
O
0
Z
a
W
I
X
L�
r
5Q
G
Z
O
u
W
v
u
O
m
v -`O
;
u�
C
O
O VI
by C
evil bA v
O
V O
_C L
>+ v
C N
u v
a
�
N
a
7 N
O
°c
Y
O E
U
O V
N O
L
o
O a)
L
L L a+ ✓�
C
O=
a= N
n
ab0o
v v a
V >
ix
y Q V
> u
Q
0 a!
6
E
bca
Y
N Ln
E 0 ac a
+O+ �6
p
C O
C > L
O m C
N O
C l7
O a)
0_
O C C
N N v O
`u° c
v v ai
a
E a =0 v
N .> O
N > O
al aJ
-O v X
`a,p v
Y Y
� 0
°
.0 C
O
Y O E
E 'O
>
v cam.
�
E O
O N U
0 v E c
N T C
aX
T C C
T v m W
C U
ro n-
c y
E
_O aJ aJ
-O o
00 �
"O
0 C 'N
o c
e
C
m C) p
o
N _ O
O
m a,
v$
m c>
o_
E
o ° o
0_
> z .X
w
° aa) N
in U
Q m _ a, ro
.�
w- '> w
w a
O U
n o )
u c o c
o 9 @
v O
rp
o co:
N O '6a)
(v bb iri .°U
v- v
a) O V Q o
a O N n
Y o E o a
C Ot ,,,E ° E O u
n C N _ c o O_
w o (v - a v v v o 0
a> o o v a a
vi v� 0 0 0 Y o Q
3 v
ti Cc: o O N L -0 O al
0 0 Y o, '3 � bnl7
a) C V N al bl _v J N C t0 Y .� bq O c: C N
a o v Q� c v w o y o a c N
c u^ o v 'N c 0 o a
n3 N o Z ,n Q c X o c u d O.^-0 c 'X C 0
Q 0
m IV y v o a 0 v M o^ c p a>
b4 0 L c o p n a c c C u v
J y E° a 'u v a = a a as ° m a N v
a'- C O b�.0 �' C N O o Q. 'Q '"6 'O O a1 3 o>
p_ bCA o 2 -p C u0 i A o bD N U Q °' O_ C O Q°
Q� v '5 v -0 c v Q v o a E Q>° � c c a v E
L O v v E C Y °' o O vOi L ° v N Y o 0 7 e -3
7 N 7 Q F- °- O V V1 v U v�
N
0
N
N
N mpcu
CD
N V� 7 !J �-• �'
E
o o
^
w .= o ,4
F u
�+ 0 N t6 N L _ LT J u (�•
N In -6 U1 '0
C ut °i O N N W .o J
O
O
C X
ul N N
'. -O
.tn
O E
2C n N 1
lO
.� C
Y L C v C a N Q
Q
v c o V N c
o? L� O
O
v 3 N
° a>' v a v
Y C Li
L
N d
Q°C ^ N
C o p L a�
7
E N T 6
N
o >, r6 .v o ra -N6 cp
a
Q> u o E v
v
(uN E
mq 6 N o
Y m4
N N N C° E N L _° .V
> 3 o
N
C
0
C C t
Z ° N
o c n o
° c u C c o p m v°
o o_
c E E c
c a N N N ro c .°J = v c
N C -o 9" Y
a°
v o 4 v6
w N
O
�.
° O '� 3
Q Y bA C N
p- u c N o N 3
Q D Y ^� Y Q N 6
a
d
c L c
'6 N N
NW -O qp C C u -C ut bZ
C w E N O C
E
-
L O
C Yl '6
C
w C O W
L V1 6 'co:Y N .D X=
W O
-o
O 7 N V
-Y
i C
.3 O ro C C .L..• O
N rJ E p �l ut C C
vNi
o
rp O� E O Y.
E ?+ 7 3 N
o ° `_` ra u m (u oE°
m 0 W X
CL
o
o= N N N 3
bD r6 N N C pp '-
E Y w E o � v c cL
cL
Q
E w Y -O
o D Ed
-O
-6 O vNi v N o N a
O N N N N W N
c
N� C
m N M
rp N 0 N
O tO N U m° -O -o o 7 K mp +L.+
m o o c m " O YI
v
Q
m C L o X
m
N N 7 N T
C
L� Q a.� a� a.+ +' O
s
Q
N .o
+-� �' V � 5 N
v u N N
v 0 v v o ^ 3 3 v v> o
N L a } Z T O O OC C -6 >O r6 -O
N v
}
N E
o v a a
Z j p N 7 o X
N
0 O E ry @
+L--,
u, Q
mUN1 w C
O r>i1 0 o 7 O
yo V
"O C O o
C d' a)U .3 bC-0 N
U .N C>
O N _V 'a) Fz
u p a)'O O .� CY Iv
n
a
Q' N O
i' C
C CLn
lNi v L C E a
C y 0 C O
E c c
o c O� C M o M O
.�
N Y E
L b0
.o O
u 3 o c c
o M u Y N O a
rp N N v
O O U
N M C—
L '
C '7n - N
v
N v c- m E p C Op c
°6 v a
N .L-� V
Y c v
o 0 N o °' ut N 6
c° v E c c
��
ut o_ N C °- �O t0
N E- C K W
in N C C
N Y b�0 o,
o o .E c:,m
-O N_ W V W
N C -°
7 ut Q Q
°
7
N� N N .v W E
ut o 0 o O> O a
.N O O z
°0 v@ o
N b-0—' N
v o w o L w v
O_
p L c 0' Y Q C 'N Z
o C
O
N d' i s p c N
@ Ui v
r0
N N '�
u N
O- N i0 ut bA v
Q Y c)Q O_ N
M
Q Q- �
N o Y Q 6 dN0 -6 C Q
7 v6i 4
o- 6 N @ 7 i 7 mp
O E v Qa
O_ 7 Oy w
O E O_
7 v w o w N C N Q
o � L�. 0 a s
O O_ o_ v- 4
N
C —o
° N O i cm(u
a
-o
C f; V L u y
N C o Mv1 N o ut 7
p O O N C N— V
0
K
'N C N O.. N ut N
E N N o_ C N
W7:1 V
L L
N
Y N v O in E E y 0 O 9
C O
YO .v
" E C ° E o
'O
u 3
fpX C N O
v N ° c 0 V N d C J N v
N N E
N
i p°_ N N 3 L 0
N
N N
+L.+ , Q J N N— "C 30 (6
V•
N C Q o~
E= 'u)Y
v
N
c - O
° m0 o
E t6 i L
mu
U C
C
v v
iNil N N N °J N
ut O N o Q .N
C E '6
C c
E Q N o
N ut "6 ~ L
L C
Q
O C E
r6 6 y by c E C N
v 3 0 ° '� E o o Y
V
N N N
c E
v
N — yN,, 3 mp
Y v o .c a 3 '�
C O
v
E o V°
Y
`�- N o 'Y O
O
N O i-0
v= N �O N 0 N w Y_
N p .L.+
C N O_ m4 .0 T
r�
N it N N Q O C bA ° V o -O
u
¢
L
C N E O C 7 N C E 1E
7 c O
7 7
Q N r6 N o O N V V
vNi
EC N v
N E Y "O V N
rp N
m c y N E ° oo o'v o o°
N 'O
v m e
N
o c N oo E T a o
v
7
N N N
J O ut bA .O O
'D N m vi Y T �^
Y O
4i c
O N m N
>,,C > C L.+
u
to -6
N in O
o
O N W Q i 7 ° O O Y c
_
Y V
V
m 9 Q � '6 w" w
co:
C O N
ut Q N C a O C
G
aj
0 C
v .N co, O m b9 a)
W f] 3 w O N ut N E
N Q
� N O Y L N >'
c 6 6
7 d 7 4 c N N c
bQ V c bA ¢ N v N d
N ; Q
N
v p O rp V O N
v v N > C N
v V
C O
N ;Z' N
G Z v C o O c vNi '6 C o bA
V
N L' N E
N c
N N O p rp N W
'6 C u _°
a
Q N
-6 N 7 N 3 .0
@
V N N
°
V p v- "O In
m o
Q T "°
d o o L L 0 O o o O_ O E X
V1
Q V V O w V H N bA N
O_ N`
Q O- 9 o
a-V v C
Q .� ia)n .� N .° V N N
L C
F- N E
N
O M
vNi
-o d'
-6 LL
N W
Y
+L-+
N
v
O M
NO
(..
Sc
V
C
O
O
O
Y
ip
0
N
VI
N
N
—
C
N
-6
O
O
N
5
N
C
O
o
a
o
u
m
O
i
0
l0
V
o
Q
°u
N
N
i
7
Q
0
Q
ut
vNi
o
C
N
o
O
_O
o
N
c
L
U
c
N
E
6
I
Q
0
O
o
6 6 N
°
2
6
O
M
�
w
a Y
m
6
r m
a v
v
o
X
w >;
N V
N
CV
aL+
m m✓>
I
x
m o
w c:N
ru v
C
m y
.V
? E w
R,
00.0 t
m N
ra
C
C
C O-
O
O' C
'•J O
X w `,
w oo N
E O
w o
-C w
C O
a) a)
in Q
� C
Y by
m '6 m
w >+ c
m O
v l0
>
w O
E>
m O
m
C N
w
N a m ._
E 6
E E
m
E
w
_^ c
w m
w Q: v
L
p u w
C C w
u Q
w
m
m
w
w N �J
N w w
w Y w
y, w
O m
w O N
O' O
E
_o
�I
O
C --
C
"Ci w
C m N
>, m Q
-
`!6
3 O
m O
N C m
O Q
w w E C
2i -6 T v
O N Y w
E y
y
m It
O
O
O
O
C
O -O 3
��, a)
.
Q
(
V c?
m
O
"=
E
,N
Q
w
bA w�
v
C m
w N aN+
6
bA —
b0 m
E G
-
>, w 'a
'-^ E Y u in
N w c
aTi `J
Q
w
d.
c: m )
>, �-
uul
w v
t c:: N m
>+
CO w
p
=- p
o
V p
m
C O
w
C
w C
O
7
w w
N� _z N
N Y N
C N
a)
w N
m
v 6
-p m
m
N -6_
O N
Y a O O
c�
w C N
'O -o T
tlA
v� C
i
w i
C 6
O
m E Q w Zo
it C al C
C
fp 6'
Q
u O —O
i N ai -6 �
aJ U '� Q
"p
aLi N
L
rn
N C
O
bA C N 6 Q
r6
W
L
� to
C C
pp �6
C
Q j
O w
w
6' X w
Q'O
w O N w
Q
w
-o m
C W
C
� m
W
to
V- Iw/1 i V
m m V aL.+
y b4
V- W
w W
-C U
Y O E w 6
w m v C
L C
O
ywi W
w W
Y
3 n
E x 6 o
E E
v
3 m
E Y
E Y
N .0 m
>> Y vwi '�
aj
N C
v w
>' L
L
y v
m
m O C w
E s Y p °
U V
m C w
E m° ,
C
R? m
V
E m
v
E m
O
o >
-° N p W v
—
-6 w-
`°
o E
E
6 E
m N a
w
m_ w m
o m o w .�
m w
Y c
o a) O
>+ U
m y
o.>_
m o
O w
m
o
o w
m N
w C C
�,,
w m> _6 6
m -6
w m 7 -o
w
m
w m
7
O C N
m 7
w C VN
"6
O w
E N
y O w N
V w
m E b
E u U
V- C
.Q
w
'= N
5�
w
w.
L� w '
w.
p(v VO >-
Z T E "6 w
C ip w
p m >- Z
i
T O `p
i
C O i6
0 6 a Q
ro- m a m
w v°
0
E
Q E
N
v
p -6 w
N
a)c 75
c 2 o w e
w> c c
O o
v> c c c
o o> Q
r
o> vNi
Q� 'N
c N O
p- O"
O
Q
o o E o w
M N
p o E o w o
0
Q
a) a° o Q
v
w
w v
N
m
0
w
4d
N C O
o N In O
^
v
Y ,'C,, > OV
W
w
OC o w
'O m N v
0
'� 3 C O N iO C
awoQ�o
N N m a N OO
w
to N
v w tCp
>
0 E .�
6 v
v Q
to E
O
w v
6 '6 m Q '- N
�YM
co Q N
-C
ao m
c -6 Q vw
c
v o v w a Q
°° m u w s 0
m o
O
a o
v v° 6
`.'= u
u c Q N° Q c
m o
a m°
o w
C
C Q
Q
N c ro s
C O O '6 v .-. OJ
w in is M j
C v E w ,6 lfl
u w
C_ c0 y ..-.
Q o
LO
N- O
Q c wo v 6-a
w
w .0
c W 1 v o 6
m W N_ "6
a Q aa) w o p
N Q
� c �>
O N C
vwi
o N
Q o m
Q w Y a
m w O Q
.� 3 c o
0 N O
Q w w-
Q u o Q v
w C v
O
E o
M
bp.0
N>
O c
a w w
.0 (A w- �
o m V v
Q 7 -6 O N ¢"i
-O
v6
t N -w6 w N C¢
7
4 cCO N
L N
V1 O
u
O w C
N m
O m
m N O
Q
Y
v
v
N
W
m
C
v)
u
6
N
6
6
w
E
m
-
c:
a)m
v
C.-
aE
m
w
w
w
N
v
w>
m
C
m
s
w
>
V
w
Vm
m
v
v
m
E
w
Y
cE
O
E
V
�
w
�
m
E
C
a
4
w
v
E
O
v
v
U
w
C
v
6
N
7
cl
—
v
v
N
y
v
c
O
c
Ol
c
�
m
V
a
u
O
IT
z
0
H
u
J
a
a
Q
W
0
TQ
i
V
W
z
N
Z
We
C
W
Q
Q
J
a
V
J
J
m
J
U.
0
Q
cQ
G
W
I
Q
Z
0
v
W
Q
u
u
m
yvpi
N O
lli
W
u O
ra
> 4 0
L N
> D
a oo
T v
E 7
O
N
N C C
fl.
u
N Q o
O
pl
c p
C Q w V O"
`
N lw n I
O
C
G d
o o v
N O N
1. N ;7
C C 'u
bfl
N
v
p
N N
T Q v L O
v -° d v
v m bCD v
f1 m° `�
ra
N
v C
C
W V7i 0) a
v V C
`1
m N
C
N a
W v V L C
w ro m
; C N O
a) :E v
N
c
O
w
C
Q o
Y c o N
o ri°
c E> >
N o
o
�.
v
W
x
w w
w -o =
p v E
c u
w
vwi a)
N o v c
N O
N -o
o-
N O_
o m
v E
w u
'wT
f1 a C
O
v
N C a N Y
L C T
N a) v--
- V N N
N N
Q2 N
C
a
°-
fi 0 0 N
�
a
v
� N
N
v — N
— C rca bC0
aL.�
C b�0
o 5 w -o
° E u Y
'c
N v
v o
o
Nb-0 w
o C rNa
�'
ru
O_ O
c
-aw
_ Y
Y n
9 v
ao o o ao
c
c v -
Q Q
Q>
o
Q>
C
v v c
ww
v
Y E
v
c
o o c is °
fl_
a)ap c
in Ln
w
a
Y
v
Y N
a ra as v
- ad Y
c
ra >
'C
v
ra pa Ln C V
p,p 72
N
L
Y
C 1. N
o 3 ° c
v
L
C a) C
=o E°
a C
a
C
6 a
C ra
E
-o p N 'ra
C � Q '—''
w
`+=
T
a v
YO
o N
�
ra a3 °�° N um
EE
N
E
-p
E
a)
Q u a m 3
.Q
> .� o X
C
O
T o
a
V C T N v
rua v
= c o-
76
E O ra E m
a"
w o
O
E a`o
m N
E
4-.
-a o_ ° E
N ko v
m
ra Q N
N N
v
C
N N
O
m O O Q
Q O c
m C m,
v m v C
m ba
f0 .�
v Q
�° N C
vv
v
w c v°
'O
v v
L e o Lv
v
Y
y°
v .2
Y o
m
N t6 ._
V N
vw c s n v v p
N O o_ Y Z
N
v? n O o >'
r6 C C
V N
v w v °
C Y z
Q_
aN Q
C1 V
o
C o °-
N
T C
O
T ra
> o o v
w T C �
S
v � L
> a >, o
m w-c d C
v 3
O
vi
C
m E o
E C v lwn V °- 9 7 N a
E_�
aJ O
_c
E C N V7 p E
L O_
C
p r6
a C O C
¢
O L w o N
N
o N N OV r^ L -7 O
N o w
L C
O W N
r6 N O ra N m
6 N
Y
p o
O Lu
O
vOi
vNi O° C O u
¢ N
O
',�-, N O
'� V
toil n
C N O
Q W
U O N
E
N U v d' N
o=
N 'N
a W Q. N
S
N � U -p
? -o v a v o
N
0 0
bD W
t E
D -o -a = o3n a
in v E l a o rn w aco C
Ln o v
F w 2
`N
i° v E �°� rn
W °C° c
o a
'� - C° ai
ra 3 C N N un C W
o Oi rraa o a O w i) p
vo
ra ra N
d' >, . o
ra 3 YO N
o O ruo -6 O
Vl C
w, V O
W o m
d' v Q a
C= V- _ C O N w N N
N t? N @ C Z
CC N
4 v
C _ a O
N N d N N A
C
z Q> v
C N C Cz
N v Q ° u acoL
c a °
Q
Y
c Q c c
n v v
Q o v c¢ v N w
c
o n ra o v
o- v
a o Y .N v¢
�os v
.N u N
v
o o v ro
o
O v _c> v 0 > ra o o
L.+ a N L v fl Q
E 0 L' a v
'- Q Q_ N
O v o > O
v L
T ra o
N fZ
o E E v
Q '- C 7 Q
+aj o
L V-- LJ C C o O N L f1 C=
F- o ra m a 3 ra �«-. Q .-, �- H ¢
aL.+
L V- C ``�
H o ra ra -0 3
C o OV
ra a
�Q v a i0 fl
... f- -o ra ¢
m a s c o
Y N N O
N
ra b0 v v N = bb
C Q
C v o w N O a Q
a " o
o a
d N v N Q N v@¢
Q, u N w >, 3 ro p
v L C v w r6 o D 3
H= °u D W M ra vOi
s
A
yj
yE
d,9
L
O
N
N
a
z
O
H
Q
u
J
a
a
Q
W
tm
z
Q
u
W
z
O
N
H
z
cW
G
z
cW
G
Q
z
Q
J
a
u
J
J
z
m
J
N.
O
C
z
cQ
G
W
w
x
E
0
u
a
0
v
v
0
m
Q
rn
m
0
0
N
r
V
N
U
N
N
W
d
00
0
0
0
N
r
N
h
L
L T
O L
Q �
N
° O
7 'T
O °
L °
N N
N Q
v
N Oo
bA �
C �
v Q
C O
O
u C
N cu
y i
Y �
w N
_ 3
o
o v
v � v
0 N
v
C ° O
`6 (In
v
o ° v
L O 9
lu
v 7
(p L N
N L
7 E O
N N a+
� v v
X C
bCA N
._ bA
V �
O � �
C _Q
o Ou E
Z O
N V
� Y
v �
� � J
O1
N
co:N i v
N o O
a o c
ra m o
0
m Y ro
N N
s o a
o a
a a
O
> z
Q m
C
Vi N
C
N C
j N
Ul
bA G
C 0O
o_ E
V
7 O
y
= N
C
C N
O N
N N C
O
T
E C
m
Y 3 ci
o
c o_ v
N L
E > O
E V
C c O
= N
0
Q N-0
0-a)N
T N N
in E j
D 7 L
v O N
L a
v
U
C
O
C w
o
u O T
v 0
w c
c y O
a o
0
u
— C O
r O V
p` O
1 O
OO M
Y
>O IN
w Y L
C_
v N
C
O L
a.+
by
O N 7
N ''
N L
0
-o O
p
L 3
(v c
3
a.v
0 a
v
3
o 0
v w
> C 0
:
-6 �
'O u
C C N
N 0 f6
N O
U .o "O
>>
N
N U
O N C
N � �
C D 7
O X
N C
C
Ou .
p C
N N
y
p
3 n
D
y C
O o O
N N
L
O L
v ) N
a 3
o c
c v o
o °
o
� � 3
N _ °
_ Ul
E° v7 d S d v E N 7 o aco °° o 7= v
o N O c bA b7`o 3 v °c " o cobo 6@ o
v a a � vcm
v c a D o c 3 n rn Y E
Q a _ o 0 Q v c F o T
w�. �Ymvc
c v° uO
° Lc °) E -oLo N
L00 bo vO
o -°E�xa)co
aQo,ooco $OvLsO N C7 N
a. "O w E OUovi
_
O
w�
v
o u
v
v
O
>
L
C u a to
._ T N
pq t_
C �'
C .._. a
C A _
Q,
O C
, Q
v m
a 0 9 Y
-p
t a r .�
dj
C C
O
N Y LI7
tp aJ G QJ
o ,@ 'O 2 Q .OJ
O
> a o 0
3 E o s J Q
Q
c C7 N
°
o o T
-p m
a o u o
c w v a c
>
o'
3 a
o T o
o v
a v' v ca v
m
v
m c
0s
o'er cQ Q
°
° o
m C
c 0 V
m Q
> Q :ii N a)
"Od O m N>
pJ
L
aJ V1
Q
tp '� Q Q
0 o
= Q O
4t2� pq
p°
u a E
Y v
o
c
a
D o c
N m by
9 Y v v
m N m N O
'/�
o
'V
o 0
V C yv. p_
7 p
s:. 9 Q
+L.+ aJ o O'
�J O aJ .� N
aJ
a
au,
O
a E V
ip O Q �i
T N
Q
bC0 Y c E C -Q C
C a �n�
a '�
in
a
m
T
m p
E
m >
v c y v
c
fl Q v
O -o
aJ
a
aJ
Z 7 N
m CO m C L a C
N
Ou
p
N O
N
0 7 m --� 0
aJ
T °- O C
aJ a n
"6
N
aJ
X N
L -c
X H
aJ N O
>i in l7
E >> a al
4 N o C 7 Lu
L
i. 7
�O b-0
i T
ip m'i `op QQ
aJ
m by v v
m_ a,m°
c 3 w
a
@
.E
,� =
3 E m
Y a u
o c
O �.
-c
O° a o ^
0� Q
p
�]
_^
^ °_ a v
m .v N
o
QJ @°
Y E 'o E v E o
N
> C
aJ p
> O O L
0
a E 7
c v
O7 o-a a v
v
O ° u a a:
v u T Q (D
>-
Z a, bo v
a co:
6
Q
m
L m C p
E m Q ¢
T p L
E O
m w Q m °u m m
C
_
r
O
O >
0 N aJ N
O m 'V '0 o 3 0 a .0 4
O Q N La m E CL
Y C m y w aJ C 2 c 7= c @
m N T L a b0 N O bhp C
a Q O aJ O m N Cc:o a) N O
a O .off 7 m i u L
V a N
o> Y o_ T.v o Q o o c a
aJ n v Q Q aJ 3 v a,
y oO)nLm a mvi
v EQ)oa O
�3 _yal
v `ca) a)Q
C°ccC ap
-L> j OO N N O Q -.O
a Ln
3 aJ o — a,
0� aJ
U ELn.
p m 3 m aJ Q
n c a ctu
N
'2o m
v ° v
o v c
aj 7 m o °
a a C ,o O
o c Y v >
m u aJ al
p] '� O m aJ
v o a O �
V
V> aJ
aJ m
V >) v m
0
0
co
b�0
z
O
a
u_
J
a
a
Q
W
Q
z
Q
u
W
z
O
N
H
z
CW
G
z
CW
G
a
z
Q
J
a
u
J
J
z
m
J
L.
O
Q
z
Ca
G
W
w
x
5Q
G
z
O
u
W
u
u
O
m
0
0
m
x
E
0
v
v
0
U
U
0
m
o�
m
0
0
M
N
r
V
oo
U
N
N
w
of
Q
d
y
w 7s
4:�
y
i
y Y —
� m_ y .� J
C C � c' 'N
W p
d �n ra N
r
T h t6 ai 'L 4p
N
°c° :c
'6
Y v
�°�
o^
y y N
a,
N y
T v
V
Q N C
O C C vi
C
o
( c c
v a M c v o
11
to
a
Q
n
t0
"o vN°
I w UC
�� X cA
7 'J E O
v1 O
y� l7
aJ
N
O
N y C i1
N C
.w O
by t b0 t6 O u"
C c_ �' =�
v
a)
L
-p
mo y
7 L
y
V o '6 y L
_o
c N
C
m
V E 6
v -o
J aJ
— C
c Y y 3 a
V u
o
N L U C
p c a1 L -p
Z
y
a o
C w
°1
l0
y
a � -6
V to C
0)
n.
Q E 6
y
_^ y
�,
y
>
y y c
.°Jc -o E =
c u = p o
y w
L o
C >'
V
N
—
al VL-' C
O C p
E
�6 aJ N
L E E C O O O
-o
"6
L �J O
6 Q
E
Gp -6
X
T' '2
bi0 -o b0 >
-p O C
bQ N C c ra
`6 a
vi
3 a
y
c
o
m .� o
y c E
c E c E `0
p o m° .E E y> m
c c c o
aj E o
m
w y
v
'i
c E c
y
v nL n o c v
u Q
Y y O L N
Ou
E N
-6
y
E O
N O
'6 a)iLir
N h0
3
Q
Q O N C
Q a)E X
N J a1 >, E L
C r6
N
C
E
O
a1 O, E y
L O N
>+ a1> N N
C y o is
E E"
w-
a
h
N
O E a
v1 Y
7 a1 O aJ "o "
p E E
O ro
m
N
0
O
o V E
�O y
O
t6 O L L N C.
O L y O ,�- N
m, C O
m y p
a
C
y o
�O
c 9 u
a a m O i
y 3 -o
y N E
Y .Y
ai
v o
a) c
E E o
T aJ y
L }
o o '6
Z > N
to Y O a) y O
CO Li N } Z
w � U C m Q
> O '6 ra
o C
O Q ton Q
m w O
—
6'
U >i i E Q m
E y C-a o
'- N N N Y '—�' m m
a)
c -o O y
y Y
c o y
o O>
o >
O
O vNi
E M V
o v
f
E O @ [ y
O E
O p
C Q u
6° y v
o.
C E V 0
y ° v y y
16 S it �- N
L
L v
C v op u N_
y > _>
V
y c '6
YO
in
C y
E p N a Cvi al ^
OC
N y
2 C O
C vci u
-o >'
v �= N N
y E O" o �n
E_ '� y by
y s
y y o a) v °�° a
E o
o- L o v v
a) O 75
v
E
m
m E y D p N o c
—
ao v y
o 3 a
'6 v O
T o y co E y y
C C a/ N C_
Ou
E y
o c p o N C
N y
vi O w N
a
H aJ C N
vs
p oD N vi o
Vi U V o
A L G
o
m 3 a
N
y C C y E O �+ Q
c o
a) U
C a)y -6
o c D y
L o
6- u a c o E
v OV 16
a) c
w V O ,C Q
N 'C aJ i Q
N@ p u v
O E m —� N O
1�+ N `p E> -O N
C O c
N L U y y
w y Y c
y ° m
c E y y y ,., c a
6 0° Y L Y v T
N
u o y
a ao E u^ y a
c c
v ao
aL, to O 3
_o N N aJ w C E G
Y
c" C in N !� 0 N
.p O V C aJ
C O C L 7 N O
v
y C v Y �_ > L b0
6 V O .o
E
L N N y a+ C a
9 — C
'D aJ C
+' C t^ y 0 6 C
aJ In E 0
N = _a
N E@—
7� . C O ra
C Q
Q
v C w O Q C V o in
� C
in 6 C E
N y
o N
O
E C N�
p O
✓ c O I V U
6
aLy+
y y
y
>
v Y aJ 2
.Q
N U E C �' N O O
V
C
o O by E 2o c E aJ
@
C V M c: =
7 N D. y
O N y v1 a
Q J -6 /p U +-' E c
- E C w
C o Q
_
Q O �n
Q
N 'A O i�
.N a1
o
in a, L O '6
N E C
aJ y al N C qa
al r EC O V '> L
N L E V L E v N
Y o ¢`
° c m ) a v voi
in v v 3 u m
I w
n.
Vl v
n
p N o O
c`'1
v
y
y
7
ai
oc y J
ID
a:
Lu
V1
—
L p
V>
=
to
O
O'
N
f0
@
E
O
O
O>
L
4 p
v
✓
aJ
a)
,C
Q
w
L
al a1
y
o
>
w
to
c—
p
aJ
6
d!
O
O
�
N
.D
a)
v
'6
-p
E
o
p
w
L
O
Q
U
'n
N
N
O<
Q
y
Y
O
Y
C
0J
N
N
m
n
w
N
p
v
N y
y
y
o
O
y
c
y
c
v
a'o
o
0
i6
O
c
N
E
C
c
a1
Y
C
°
F=
7
c
o o
-o
y
a,
v
N
L
c
y 7
v°
C
—°
Q
O
y
V
E
O
u
y
Vy1
7
L
v
L
Q
3
0
n .0
C
p
V
y
N
N
o
—
n
O
in
y
-o o
y
o
_o
C
�
E
a
C
c
0
E
c
o c
V
-o
E
y
.D
E
.>
�n
c
y
L
O
V
N N>
N v
V
�
v1
n)
y
o
a.,
y
E
O
C
i
O
U
N
C
'O
y
L
c
L
@
7
0
O,
C
v
w
'a.+
o
m
cc
0
C
O
C
m
E
O
C T
',.+
'�
N
O
y
i
O
C
O
C
Q y
In
aJ
y
V
V7
'o
N
.�^
E
i
0
0=
y
a)
6
O
E
U
N
cp
0
E
O
y_
y
0
O
O
7
vVi
O
O
N
y
o
co
O
O
a)
d
z.. �., w�, .-,
rV,. r.,. , ,. , r. N , Z�- .s, , �...,. r ,...v. <...
_ s,.,.. < .. �s1
, ., ,,. . I , v' . _. � 1
e S , <.. 1 „ N 4. ?,
r`1 SI \-,. �S
E"s -,.. "� ";< �
,L.
< U, ,f , �rvv\
.-> <LF` `.i
L,. � L. '.k C
..owl
.<,. ... :. �
J.v .. s. .'?„,.. v� ,...... �" :
. _ 5., Ya
', .(C ,> . s.s ,r2. ., S <., <. .,
., . ,�, r,..-. Sw a .`\ ..,
s , ,>
-Y i �.."nt<n?
, .r, v. ,. r. 'TE
.. , ... N,,. ,. ,< c T., ..£,..: v- .X .. >v. ? rw✓,. Lx
?Ue -,.. r F+.. ..r. `\ ., .: ..,. ... _ . ,,. � `2 .,. ., ., i
a..,m �.
,tx a �-<.. .& .. ''h`>3 <n.. <,`: � ,.=✓i "`�>.A
?Yx
�'r<^... ',<. r: -t k � �N
.-�� � 2 G , . .. N;,:�,�<: �;� .z u. .,-....,,
.. � "•-:
33. t, �a�
�
�
,2�
rY,,.�-.
. � F s..,, ,„.z.,�.>,. .. v:..r. - S<,re . ,N,,r,. �.,
f <'>.. ,,,., , _•,e., x . S .x-.,.,. .> f�' ..<v,.....c, :,'c„ , .ur, . �
�?. <, ,_. ."f
.. , t; a, _,
� ,.. ,,.�. .., ,. , �. •�'. G. 'e^, . <� > .t.. �, .S � ��`
.,20�srr . `k, t "Y
.,r T,,. g.. ,. ..r en ...1�..: 'Y,<r,d i'
.,y'a };.:
, _;,. � .� :C,
a' c-`'� < x
<;c,; � Ea
.,"7,n, ,.<, ' �:�,',:. .c.,.
st,-r , ...,. s. <.,,., �..t � s
S: � �� �: >u
,t;�w,- 1 i Z .
`-: .r.J ". _ .. ,. , �'r5'. 7.
r, : K,. tS "; t \
s t,. 3i V..
�... .< Y 6,
�.
.,2 .
, _nh.0 <: > : e r ,� �
.� ., ....:. .Z;, ,. kA.. .� -.:..^<,.a:--�'S
c
.,, <. �?t r ,sue . , r .
a: < . , .:: � b< . , c .:. ",.�k n. .,}'i�"w _�i,.., .. <. ,. .>.
!a ..'y
, [. ..., �
k'°x .. �.. $ < . a � a,. .. ?,
t<a f �
C . i. ..
f> z�a ",e., ' C �. kaF<. v,.. .. 4 . .. ., .. ,.✓c..,.....,....,...,\�,.,.<1v ,. .. e ,�
�.k«' .:3
m,... lv`.< t ". ":. '<F.:. .,J. .
{. v.. .. , < ,. ,. rr-
v � T
e "C<,.. � � �
� �,a
� t� �."�
�,
�, .....,.(.
.. .. ,"v
. c
r < .,.
. .: �,
.. .. U ,.. .` , ..,"
`:,,. 2 !S:
:'.: a . . ✓. ,>.. � 4,t m.
vrs '<, .ss.? , .,, ..:. �. : a-
a `�
a .. "i,...... or, �. .,.
...`.-'r,. > , v-^D �.,.. . � , ..,.k?
.m ,. (.>, w .
..,, 3, x � .. � M2,. <..`�
...ts,:. reru',r«.7„ ��U.
- .'.s<'. ....v,t'.J'_.. _,.
: C b. . �?''-1..
4. ,`
...:.. . .i
�, .,..
. :. r, .
S,s��^. . 9
2.. .. z ,'
, _'.,. ,._ ..,
C<'t -.,. , 't,, e
L x.'t� 3 .a '!" .L
.. ,. C.`>....: \ , + �..
,.. .. <
.... <. ,. , . , . E
F -r n. .. :,. ,.
r. . , n..., r r, . .,a.
s .,
.3. .., �:l
,., 5,. .r2. ,. .'. �.,
.ervr i
Y' S f... ,,,U _l„ . .5
, :.ems v, }.
�.'rt'.' . ,.< d .�
s „<a . 2.✓.. i,.
a \
_ -.2. ,. , ,.
, . ,
: ,
,-r .. .,e ... .
... -.. ,v o.
�. �.. t . .£"' 3 ' . �?<., >l� �\P a , .. _ d
., >1n.,. , ., uN. ,.
.. s. "Y'. ..',.. <>.�. ., .. ,.. v s,.. „>1: f,,. .d uS 3 v
`ae,_::
.4..,.c ., ..s
... ,.. .. ,.<.
a ., w., ni
s. � ,. ,,:"" <..
„x- ..<, .,Y
. 2' : ?„
.. _,', _', .�.,\
.?' . r ....... ..?,. ..:,a'
�,"'"`
.._.. .: r, ..:..w. ....
. at: , c„,.<t
�., .rc r
,.. c
,. ,... ,. .,, , .
(Crr_ . .C', , ........,: c. S \.v.,...✓v.,,, nod.,;,
_... .s r. .k.,, .,� �x :.":-.. ".2'
�. �,. ., ..^n _..
.. ay. r.
i xi , .. ,.
!- .,� .,z< ,.
.5. ,... < zG... ., , 2' .; 2
.,..:.», a ., '�: ,... r ., �; �
.,<..e 3. 7... n1-:- .. c:.:.
,�.�m�>... }.;,.. ., A... ,....
ra„�eo-
• The Applicant argues that
The Opponent argues that
Does the Board agree with the Applicant's testimony suggesting that LUBA's remand
the ESEE analysis should
applying Goal 5 pursuant to
does not require more than an analysis considering the ESEE consequences of
not consider issues beyond
OAR 660-023-0250(3)
allowing uses under the RI Zone?
the enumerated economic,
requires a "broad inquiry"
social, environmental, and
into impacts on inventoried
A. Yes
energy consequences
Goal 5 resources of a
(Applicant Final Legal
decision to allow, limit, or
B. No
Does LUBA's remand require the County to conduct
Argument pg. 3)
prohibit various conflicting
an analysis beyond considering the economic, social,
uses (Opponent New
If yes, the Board may find that the proposal does not require analysis beyond the
environmental, and energy consequences of allowing
Evidence and Testimony, pg.
economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences of allowing uses under
uses under the RI Zone (that differ from the uses
2)
the RI Zone (that differ from the uses currently allowed under EFU Zoning) on the
1
currently allowed under EFU Zoning) on the subject
subject properties and move onto the next matrix issue.
Staff notes that this
properties?
identified issue really
If no, the Board may find that the proposal does require analysis beyond the
considers
considers the scope of
economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences of allowing uses under
remand, asking
"broad
the RI Zone (that differ from the uses currently allowed under EFU Zoning) on the
whether a inquiry"
subject properties and move onto the next matrix issue.
requires an ESEE to
consider issues beyond
economic, social,
environmental and energy
consequences
247-21-000881-PA, 882-ZC, 247-23-000398-A BOCC Decision matrix Page 1 of 10
•
Is the County required to amend or modify its Goal 5
scenic view inventory under OAR 660-023-0030 or
may the County rely on the existing inventory set
forth in the Comprehensive Plan?
The Applicant argues that
nothing in LUBA's remand
decision suggests or
requires the County to
amend or modify its long-
standing Goal 5 scenic view
inventory. The Applicant's
understanding is that
LUBA's decision relied on
the County's existing Goal
5 program to conclude that
uses allowed under the RI
Zone could be conflicting
uses (Applicant Final Legal
Argument pg. 3-4)
The Applicant further
provided draft findings
responding to OAR 660-
023-0030 consistent with
the understanding that the
County was continuing to
relying on its existing Goal
5 scenic view inventory
currently set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan
(Applicantjuly 19, 2023
submittal)
® The Opponent. argues that
the County needs to
address OAR 660-023-0030
(Inventory Process) to
locate and evaluate
resources and develop
programs to protect such
resources (Opponent New
Evidence and Testimony, pg,
2)
• Staff nntes there are fniir
steps as part of a Goal 5
inventory process: (a)
Collect information about
Goal 5 resources; (b)
Determine the adequacy of
the information; (c)
Determine the significance
of resource sites; and (d)
Adopt a list of significant
resource sites.
Does the Board agree with the Applicant's testimony suggesting that the County
should continue relying on the existing Goal 5 scenic view inventory set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan?
A. Yes
If yes, the Board may make findings responding to OAR 660-023-0030 relying on the
existing Goal 5 inventory of scenic view resources set forth in the Comprehensive Plan
and move onto the next matrix issue.
If no, the Board may direct staff to amend or modify the established Goal 5 scenic
view inventory in the Comprehensive Plan and then proceed with conducting a new
ESEE analysis if the amended or modified inventory determines that there are still
significant Goal 5 scenic view resources on the subject properties.
U
247-21_nnnRR1-PA RR2-7C ?47-23-QQQ3gR ;A ROCC f)Pricinn matrix Page 2 of 10
BOCC DECISION MATRIX - REMAND OF LBNW LLC PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION
✓^'
a{'
. 1 .
'�. <
<b`.,. °°y,.. ? C 'avwa%M-.,. ~Kn
:•;,' N � G.�
.� '' C •. rM�' :in '"'>�"' ,`z'R .'"i•; .'uSv Sl �
c.° � T �
e
"
���.
,,yy ` i' `.�•' ^z �:
�
nT.1xl"•a- i 'L"+4,
�~ ,. M rJ , .� w �
xu�... P „ 4K „S -. .A '"ex: •="`e
..mot",..• '� ' .� . �'
.-.ate f. l2w . �-. ., . S� ". . "S
�v . � :�°r a >F• s, ,..fir , •'
r rk
�?r
�«t;•
?ss :. ,S
�s �
r,$ �
yr `�",`'`
,.'ix"%k.:C,� a^z'2
Aram
,a'. S `° w „'�`. ``ssi
.."vim, '` . � '-,v Kb F?s3 "' <£ ; �'. a, ay.,„ ;T '£°
:?:e,?'s� .2.3,^ '; %r. % .✓.. .. ,-,' '" L,�,'.
�lv`., '•e yr v 42
��i'>o.
e��"��n_. gh .'�`
aF.%> �`
"' �. €�
. Y `; �. r .,,.
'"z��
S ' "W . +L'3� F�-��.'< a
y''`°,lam': `�
L
za. `""�'R`ay�..'mc ..sY/ • ;y
.A�'��'`` P � 2-.'.. �a
.sk .;,T,... .a.:`•^ c3 n'w.'^,l?,ra,. o.
_a,'t •..
C ?.,. FmG e .aa i -:Y "3, .,,,;.n;o /?k .cy�'zi' �:�L� ' ,� fo'
�'a("', '&:. >F.'a..`" "�
�£,.. fr. b ` �� �
..-'St;.s'3i�
�r
. K+��.a•:, .
...
. v?•s, . s . •.�; . y.. , a' „ -
• Applicant argues that LUBA has already identified the -
Opponent argues the County cannot
Does the Board agree with the Applicant's testimony that the County complied
conflicting uses as those uses allowed under the RI Zone on
make a decision pursuant to OAR 660-
with OAR 660-023-0040, ESEE Decision Process, by considering as "conflicting
Are the
the subject properties that are not otherwise allowed under
023-0040(5) and adopt comprehensive
uses," those uses allowed under the RI Zone that are not otherwise allowed
conflicting
the current EFU zoning such that no further identification of
plan provisions and land use
under the current EFU zoning?
uses identified
conflicting uses need be made pursuant to OAR 660-023-
regulations to implement the decision
0040(2). (Applicant Final Legal Argument pg. 5)
pursuant to OAR 660-023-0050 without
A. Yes
pursuant to
OAR 660-023-
Staff notes that OAR 660-023-0040(2) states, "Local
first properly analyzing conflicting uses
governments shall identify conflicting uses that exist, or
pursuant to OAR 660-023-0040(2)-(4)
B. No
0040(2) those
could occur, with regard to significant Goal 5 resource sites.
(Opponent New Evidence and Testimony
uses allowed
3
To identify these uses, local governments shall examine
pg. 3)
If yes, the Board may make findings identifying the conflicting uses as those uses
under the RI
land uses allowed outright or conditionally within the zones
allowed under the RI Zone on the subject properties that are not otherwise
Zone that are
not allowed
applied to the resource site and its impact area. Local
allowed under the current EFU zoning and move onto the next matrix issue.
under the EFU
governments are not required to consider allowed uses
that would be unlikely to occur in the impact area because
If no, the Board may either findings additional
y er make alternative g identifying y g
Zone?
existing permanent uses occupy the site."
conflicting uses on the subject properties, which are beyond the uses allowed
under the RI Zone and not otherwise allowed under the current EFU zoning and
move onto the next matrix issue, or the Board may find that the applicant's EESE
analysis regarding "conflicting uses" is insufficient under OAR 660-023-0040(2)
and deny the application.
• Applicant argues that the impact area includes all
Opponent argues that the impact area
Is the Applicant's proposed "impact area" consistent with OAR 660-023-0040(3)?
properties west of Hwy 97 in the LM Combining Zone
must be larger than the three subject
between the 615Y Street intersection and the Tumalo Road
properties. It argues that minimizing
A. Yes
off -ramp (Applicant Final Legal Argument pg. 5)
the impacts of conflicting uses on the
• Applicant revised and broadened the "impact area" to
subject property's Goal 5 scenic view
B. No
What does the
include properties beyond the three subject properties in
resources based on conditions outside
onents arguments. response to Opp
of the identified impact area is contrary
If yes, the Board may make findings identifying the impact area as including all
County
to OAR 660-023-0040(3), which
properties west of Hwy 97 in the LM Combining Zone between the 615t Street
identify as the
• Staff notes that OAR 660-023-0040(3) states, "Determine the
requires that the "impact area defines
intersection and the Tumalo Road off -ramp and move onto the next matrix
4(a)
"impact area"
impact area. Local governments shall determine an impact
the geographic limits within which to
issue, which includes two subparts of Issue 4.
pursuant to
area for each significant resource site. The impact area shall
conduct an ESEE analysis for the
OAR 660-023-
be drawn to include only the area in which allowed uses
identified significant resource site"
If no, the Board may make alternative findings as they see fit and move onto the
0040(3)?
could adversely affect the identified resource. The impact
(Opponent New Evidence and Testimony
next matrix issue, which includes two subparts of Issue 4.
area defines the geographic limits within which to conduct
pg 4)
an ESEE analysis for the identified significant resource site."
• The Applicant's final legal argument noted that the ESEE
analysis includes consideration of "consequences," which
may be documented outside of the "impact area"
247-21-000881-PA, 882-ZC, 247-23-000398-A BOCC Decision matrix Page 3 of 10
_ �,
;,:
,.
T
.�;.,
n
+.
:,.:,,.. „�:. rim
. . .... .. .... . ...� ..
....Yu .,/ r, .,, ,
..,. t. .,t. . , ,,.�
� .z ,..v
s 3 , u✓' , x . t .
G< .�:,,. � .. .emu ,. 3.. F.
.-,":✓ K ..... '4 .J
..... . 'J ,.. '�;'.
-.f < {
f {
`y.. '>' , T "`� , A rY
." .... 5 .. ., �:n F,.
✓. �, 'K,
.. ,r" s> � -,. �
�...< ., { r ... ..
,T S s'
l sly. ,. ✓
.,.,,�. .<� <.,,. ,... r,r..M„ ..., ,,..::. .._�..c. ._., �.:,,....,, a ,
r r
<
.,;. d :;.Crn, , r.... ✓ .G .,o < v .,.a ... \ r n
.. �.,. rv:;�'-:- .> . „x,.ti .�...✓r ..,t :- ., ,. •.,:. .x s � s ...
>, r;
1.
.ys, ..� r .-r:. .. ,E ✓.k ,f .. ,Yr .. .-�i ._.r ......., r t .<..,. :,,.r, ,., ";, ,. 1 ";:,��
h . . ... . . .... .. .,%w �=<>2 i' r; n s a ., k, ..-.,,�. ,,: , 5 '�
..3 .0 <> < ... '✓\ r/. J .. .Y ... �"I
t.. ).. .,...\.. d' .a. ....r.
� .. � ., r, r„
ar .s..>.., urr?,r.,. .� ,,,_ �..>.-.w r.., ;f f-a.:. .. r:. max.., mac., „�>, w,...r., ..,5„n... T, .;�; :`��z.,.. ✓ /,
The Opponent argues that the Board
Consistent with the Applicant's testimony, does the Board find the conflicting uses should be allowed
• The Applicant recommends the
Board decide to allow the conflicting
should decide to prghibit the conflicting_
fully pursuant to OAR 660-023-0040(5)(c)?
uses fully pursuant to OAR 660-023-
uses pursuant to OAR 660-023-
A. Yes
001A0.11�1!r1 fAnnl;r-nnt C;nr,l ! c rr.!
! `h'N^.....,, ,.. , „,.n, i�. u,
vv—r ✓1F�-+i !✓ia1 ,1 ,ri ,vuvv U,rU
I
Argument pg. 10-11)
Testimony pg. 6)
B. No
Does the Board
While the Applicant originally
The Opponent argues against the
wish to allow
6 (a)
supported a limiting option as
allowed by OAR 660-023-0040(5)(b)
in addition to the allow fully option,
the Opponent has urged that the
Board not consider the limiting
option in response to Opponent's
arguments. Therefore, the Applicant
in its final legal argument submits
louid proceed under tlj^� e
the Board should
"allow fully" option.
• The Applicant's final argument and
recommendation is to allow the
conflicting uses fully.
limiting option allowed by OAR 660-023-
0040(5)(b) because, as asserted by the
Opponent, the LM Zone was not
developed to address visual impacts
caused by rural industrial uses.
• The Opponent further argues that
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Policy 2.7.3 and relevant open space
and scenic view goals can only ensure
protection of the scenic resources
through a prohibition on the conflicting
industrial uses. (Opponent New Evidence
and Testimony pg. 7).
If yes, the Board may make findings that the proposal's conflicting uses should be allowed fully under
the existing zoning provisions and move onto Matrix issue 7 below.
If no, the Board has two options:
A. Prohibiting the conflicting uses and deny the subject application.
B. Allow the conflicting uses in a limited way, against both the Applicants and Opponent s
n4 r --4 *„ nn-,rr;,, I—— Ctk\ -„-,A G/�-\ h„l1,,,,,
i C�'vI 1II I I=I Iuauul I'), Of IU F1 Vk-'C=lA LU IVIOU IA IJJUCJ V,U, 01 IU U`f-) UC:IUVV.
fully, allow in a
limited way or
prohibit
conflicting uses
under OAR 660-
023-0040(5)?
247-21-000881-PA, 882-ZC, 247-23-000398-A BOCC Decision matrix Page 6 of 1n
BOCC DECISION MATRIX - REMAND OF LBNW LLC PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION
,s'aS J�
2„".
Y .,,s. `.'-r ,. , >.✓ tia$'
$ t" $
w 9
y nx, r, .. C � =max_ . 3
-eifi `2Y
.Y `t'. tiav'1. v,.,
.•,zroi... :�^2 :s „ti.,'>
'S�), v.?%o-, rl .m'�.,
f" \: bS ,.,� ..:c't... „S
a✓` '`°- ,"s,4 ... �. -<>.
. -�,. '.. '3 �F ,. .-! ° >t'. ?„
4. '�` n "'z` .t7 r�rx _t',<-, y(�
.R � dk�
. -"a^.. . FI'.
„ t,3„
� i .. W .�.'... T'='.: ..\U"
2- �
1`. ti:. �
s=�<:,•`<. Y .v �,c
i-u.. vJA `. �In.. �
3 �y °i
r
c�4` ��,r
.Y`'E , S-. �k:'. ,'" ✓r� .<" '�.' ' , r." .E`+'lv. ,n
yr ':,%, .<.a:?< < F -r? h v, M� .. '1 '3 .
.,'x k ;. A-.2w.S' ... � .. �'ts 1 aJ.,r _ f n,.:, �", S ,^ h' .. 'fit-. ,.
d'-i">'S o>, �h....,.sv','` ,.,>N., Y cSa. ,. .. 4>,�vle... r?r1 4- �.te`vA�<. Ee
i r a .n,J,.. ^`.?tip' . , n, r \ �? „d✓. rs . > < _
ra,< .. Y, e, G'.'N: ,.� ,S +>�. ..>y `v<,� .,. �,'n .e'✓` 'w s ram,.
. a.. „es .u+," i-, . i- r��� , r.,.`y• » ,`�.0 ..,,. ,Yr<.`��k>'�'` ,
E.;..-t_: •.. ,;'t. � ..`hln:+ y ..'tv,r'sr:Ma¢a,':. ° .c� "
.�;.-
n
y n.:. ., x
�. %S;'.
'�, `s`fi
.,,,: "-• ..�., a ,,,. S . t.
S'Y`?•+ < ♦ �
k", <F a' 6
�r� ctr.n ,.5. -f-,
<n k' '`-�
. , .. n ,,. 'k ' ..x " z. ' , ,:..a. ,,, .,
2, < '�. %,£.:
-,,,J,a, .vz`,. _ �,f.
�.:
�.,ca, n. e " ,=,'+ti4%;. e�
}} �
_-�, a�
"�r<.:��,�" �„ -
u?' - ks' e' �' ,_� ., -� ma's � ,
=<n2v,.. n.?nJ .x,: , .^,tir" '4 l ,.a4`.<�", fi ' ; . � , , H�. Y.
���.��AA1 � $'�:
;"4 a z✓ �`v �.t=-?. �`�,�
2 'r*5. � �C �. .,. a A i.
2> �.Sir<..
�x E.. :,�s<.;....�... �s" � 'S � '. ���,,.>a.>.-,,.6�:-cs �
* .":.
5
3
v,..
<,
.� .<�.,.
.'_,,' „'.� e •�. "
s`�.-. ,. ..c . -,� n ,n., ,.., e�k..
✓:
€k' .ems•. c;��
. Y° � ^.
.'�, C
. }` �
"E ,� ' }'
�. , ..
<. <,a,'Yc.
+^,c' �s<. ...".`N✓t.. e",r,
., se=:'•, ,3,`S`�`
.�, s,.� �<,s-
..,, .�,.�>a ,v.:"n' .,� x "z
2'E'a
vim, -. � ✓ � . �
�> ..3 `:at.. >�`,�' _4.
.� � .
h N. e.,
'� .. ' � `fi'^s- . .. �
j m, ,n
.n � r +, 3�- . '
.'4S .y
'�>... n� . ,,,,t �•, "' 1 "">�•"v: n¢�
,.,�% ,�:�e,
r� <m'
� �
..•a�a, :>> a'
...,r ,.� �• ��
.C. „>{>rW
. »<,' ,'P.
=F>✓ n,.Ja �' ,a f, � s
. st, mF
Y� ,..
.,%✓:.. .✓'�.. .�,." ,1 ✓ „tea
s. ..�<
.,�. .K "�,.... .�a etc .. £... r�.,.
,� .L�u�`o4`,�'r c., . ...,,i` <
,."3 „<�� h< -^.�� •�,�:` %ca, -,..", "Kzr" :�.,� ak
r �° a:�. t �<: S , <a.'.�^' Z s'�.-:. � � .`',S' �',<.,.,� . 9 � � t>-:.>
, ? `"a....... x t c-'z... s=x < ' x - ,., x ^ ✓'�.. ", . , :.
ram'. ,. < �. � Y >,�.. b�,
:. ' �` .t ia:r.' `r":.,���`'�" $ ,x'�:.' ' a
�iW 2F e"'^ ,'fr ..�:. tv�,a, �` F. Y l- .f:.loE":.:a b �, x."„ S
.. `� M >G. h tri`'�, > <;,+A , �S , f . .•.;,rvs, , $ , a �:, ,. r3rvrn.
�l 2 .? . L-c,:'•>,:. r'S<.. � k.fF",s 4 x�n* S, -
5
3s � .ya. <Wl,,..; ... �.. .. E ~dx', `3 .k`'�3.. ,/ .".�4. q�
< 2 �, {` � " , U �• sf .`j'c�..-",3'-Y'.: ,.:.�"' SS`��'' . �i^� s rf• rin' . ..:. 2. ."'R,4e^ v{i::. �y�^,� ., � .
',�v.a '4 F.<Jvsn/., „'> �Z`
1 Fr..
:v .,:
..
,", .h ..: ,.,
.,>,....,:,., ,» N<,. »„ .ter,, ... .: v, r ....a ?',
. i" °c`r•
,.ac= J 4. ' ,.��
. ?',„....,: .,..r> ,. ,., .. .arL ,_,.
->';
,.,5 ..,.. 1 „i
^:.. .,..; r,. > ,,. v>e « w����� ,c ,<
`N .kT` .
x-Fr t2J d
. �,> .-.,tom, -�,
v=.,.� � ?_ •,,. �� . ,r, v.. -, .,�... r<
>✓T � �
."..+:.. s w �. n,p;y .. ""w .�
.Sa.w .�,"
.`"1. ' . S r_ , V'C'r
�X' �. a2:L'• r .,,:.s
ns Ti.� ''.< ,. ...,.. �,;,:
� �f-."
,^.. ..:"„•i l -C,. �r o
,v iz'> •?s ",'`x''>: �.��.' 'a .iM
.,,.2„^ � e . arS.,r „ 3.�,,._ ..%Y. ?, d: ..� ✓r:'�, >-
�." �,. .kFt, �" ,vs°<�h . � . "'�: . G„ Y "� . `.<:>..
- .�c r"•:
'..,:r< , � > r. ic.. "..ar' ;;.
� �i `t �'',
... �, ?
i ,, r.
by ?.v
r. ,
.. a .. ,.
3.
, .,y >. ., r_.c .v" : .> _..,
m _y S� . ., m �
v, ., .W .`ia .'S , v
r;"s .'Ae. , ^uu n.t ., .. a .. HS..
.. � n-y.- > . �,t z"`3 ,,.
n'-. .tan ,, � c-,,. ,... .r . ,.a. „
'r > <
/..<
:� _ .,m..., r .. .>. "s.. �
L r .. „ vtl.` R. r ° ,. �<,. t` S. v, ra:.
., � , >. S" =.. �, 1.. a:9`E
x .. N+ r. a2" w "v'L L
,... , 7 r ....w. , . . u, z, y.., S,
a r.�.. tir . ,. ✓ . ,.....
2 �.. '✓ `tcr^ e . � .. `,..
�
a s ..�i � -.-
1. r, ".,,. ,,, F:
r.-4r � n x. .,"v
'3d x." . ,.. � � ..,,.rc .
.. °.< ,,. .,, ., >,S Y'2 e. 3.
, r... ,_ , `>„- n . „ y„ "
,.>'. "ar:: "� Ln.�. , e,+ nSX< }ns > SC>xU.
v � �.. cc..,.' �G, .,,,2, >;,.
S.
S�>.:"-F..".'-, :�•.
�, .�-. ..
a.� .. > .*x. �... ,,. e: ,> a, a C .:
, Y,. .£ . "a'r r err�t� .."' ✓is�
. S , ,. '"? .fi Ya '1 .. .'� :4 d>. 1 /�'� �-•t .,>i "-
+. ,. .. .. ; Co-."r"w � . r .'.°'b . rs. N �,. z ., T .� � rr, ' /✓ ,.a... J ..:.... :V: S-'ra !zu F1 "=i"`.
, , `✓ v,a. 't, San. h ' _ta„'' `v3, ., .^"�` S. \. "u` .nD S" .
x , ',.. `. ". � ,t. .,'a«�`k ✓ ;emu w, sus' *ram. k .�-. , `r �k'4.s J,n,<I>%' �,..
�£°.m k � � s�Ln,:`. "a'i. . �:.:t-v'i,> .-
,y, N. tm t eJ 'rF 4 _,.fin,. /`n � . , . � -,
� N} "� `i'. 'rc,,@ �3
.3,..v ,
.. .n i
., 2
il_
,
,.. .. .,^
u; „" e n ., rxti,✓' .,
,n � .'n. , 2 E. ?.
x , ,- . E.,. ,< .. -.
..,C ,. _. r au:> ,.
. :.,,. ., , ,. .E � . ,... ., ,-,,... .<
. � ..
v .,, w.t , r <Tr. ._� , .. , ."'r'k
>✓ , , . .J". -v .: ra..
Ea
"v s..w-v .J,. <v.., ,'"�.,r, .: v._ 'v
,v< , , .. ^a, -f`
,.. � 'fi< .,,_ <
o.-• ,:-,,.. . ...;,,, , .,
<a, ✓ ", C. < v.>E <. f .. M
.a s, ,- tea," ., ,, v c ) a
-,.✓r q /"". v <. :-, rs 1, rn a>
.,. J. < u. 's,
, �`L. �. �. :i v'C ✓ i �.a.l ,w.. ..,av,
.. .� . . r ..^,E. _.).., .,.� 4 ,. G .'z
<Y.. , 3 f C,..' e '. ;~
n'£' , n $.. <. < e r✓;' u' , ,;
. rt � ." ,_".,,>S , <..,$ va„ ,,.. u.,
�+. f a`=. '>. :� �, eP ry;.. ..,5` J.� S .ev' 4,-
'".'?"z J„... ., r ..a .. �'ar}, rtb.. k .."..z v:.ar vn.<2 .x.:S,� 9,f%r\. a,,,w�.v.s.+rt,�.,=..t ?� ..±-, ,"J.v ,..bn°�.,> ,"a.. ,k�� < "c 'i -
• The Applicant recommends
• The Opponent argues
If the Board answered "No" to Matrix Issue 6(a) above and does not find that the conflicting uses should be prohibited,
the Board decide to allow
that the LM Zone was
does the Board find the conflicting uses may be allowed in a limited way pursuant to OAR 660-023-0040(5)(b) by
the conflicting uses fully
not originally crafted to
application of the LM Combining Zone to the subject properties?
pursuant to OAR 660-023-
address industrial
0040(5)(c) (Applicant Final
development such as
A. Yes
Legal Argument pg. 10-11)
those uses allowed by
the RI Zone. (Opponent
B. No
® The Applicant disagrees with
New Evidence and
the Opponent's arguments
Testimony pg. 5)
If yes, the Board may make alternative findings as they see fit and move onto Matrix Issue 7.
that the LM Zone was not
If the Board decides to
developed to address the
allow the conflicting
If no, the Board has two options:
visual impacts of industrial
uses in a limited way,
uses, and the Applicant
does the Board wish
A. Revisit Matrix Issue 6(a) and decide whether to allow the conflicting usefully or prohibit the conflicting uses, or
6(b)
provided evidence to the
to continue applying
record demonstrating the
the LM Combining
B. Proceed to Matrix Issue 6(c) and decide whether to allow the conflicting uses in a limited way in accordance
LM Zone has always overlaid
Zone to the subject
with an entirely new Goal 5 scenic view program applicable only to the three subject properties.
other RI Zoned properties
properties?
along Highway 97.
Staff notes, however, that no alternative proposed zoning overlay and comprehensive plan amendment are presently
Accordingly, if the Board
before the Board for consideration, and such an alternative zoning overlay and comprehensive plan amendment
finds the conflicting uses
would need to be subsequently developed and brought back to the Board for its further consideration.
may be allowed in a limited
way, the Board may
continue to apply the LM
Combining Zone to the
subject properties.
247-21-000881-PA, 882-ZC, 247-23-000398-A BOCC Decision matrix Page 7 of 10
i� � � j � r j � •_ i r j j _ � � r ti- j
2
r
z
5
.vr .?
� '
S c a
' jnr, ... .35` ..
,,., ,' :, z,r ., ... .... .-. , w, r. ....", ?' ..n z,<, ...,., f. .%
«>:.. v. ✓ ti :,C ., ..f ,f 9
, /' < ..✓ .,,.. .,r.. 4z.""',.. ,. ">. _-.,:.,; ? .�..'
t% ..^X ,,... ..., .L r4 m ..
s l^ ; lu '. -, f 6 .=-./. ,:'
t > ( /
• The Applicant noted that it does not
The Opponent did not provide
If the Board answered "No" to Matrix Issue 6(a) and 6(b) above and does not find that
support the development of a new
information responsive to this option.
the conflicting uses should be prohibited, does the Board find the conflicting uses
overlav zone that is only applicable to
may be allowed in a limited way pursuant to OAR 660-023-0040(5)(b) by developing
I
I
I t!^.e c:1biort !^.-eC-n::ca thn R!
I
I -n -r-.:.,, Go 'I C c-:-�-.:-.ice ::i;::;.: r.•rozr-.rri-:::rtli�-�h!(-. .-:-.1:: f.� �l,n �hr
prQperticc
a1.. -,v r...�...... a. N: vr.+�: �: :�,
i
cntir;til,;
ui : c: fui Cry i:�:vv, wui J JLLi n�, viGvv `✓i vf.i ui:: uNNii`u v:� vi uY iv a :c. u:: �.G
v
Zone has always sufficiently overlaid RI
properties?
Zoned properties along Highway 97,
such a limited overlay zone covering
A. Yes
only three properties could be
Col isidere "spot zoning," of id a new
B. No
overlay zone only covering three
If the Board decides to allow
properties would be an administrative
If yes, the Board may make findings that it will develop a new Goal 5 scenic view
the conflicting uses in a limited
burden on County staff. (Applicant Final
program applicable to only the three subject properties and make findings reflecting
way, does the Board want to
Legal Argument pg. 10-11)
that choice. However, staff again notes that no alternative proposed zoning overlay
develop an entirely new Goal 5
and comprehensive plan amendment are presently before the Board for
scenic view orogram
6(c)
cnnsirlPratinn. And such an altPrnatdvP Inning nvPrlav and mmnrPhPngivP nlan
applicable to only the three
amendment would need to be subsequently developed and brought back to the
subject properties?
Board for its further consideration.
If no, the Board has two options:
A. Revisit Matrix issue 6(a) and decide whether to allow fully or prohibit the
conflicting uses, or
B. Revisit Matrix Issue 6(b) and decide whether to allow the conflicting uses in a
limited way through application of the I-M Overlay Zone to the subject
properties. The Board may make findings that a new Goal 5 scenic view
program for the three subject properties is not necessary for approval of the
subject application.
247-21-000881-PA, 882-ZC, 247-23-000398-A BOCC Decision matrix Page 8 of 10
• ! •` •II-IM
,» v. ,
r�� m ,„,
tr,
�' r ..<-,
l -h, %:.. c. ,..:
.. ...s <-Y„;. w ,.., v .r
.a, rrv,
'.,� ,,. ...,
< .'...,.o . �
ary ,,�+� <r
� ✓...,,^vT . T .x.
,u``S a+,
,...v.. ..•,r r .. �r .. . ;.,°v„ F km-r SZ,. .., . ^a � \
y `a.,. 3':^.xG:b".' Tv v�f,<,`-x.`
'vn:Jw.�, " �`(`s"� Z'r�'
.`s,-vr
.x `..e ..'.<..
r<,u w _.'r
�.�,�
ay.r r.. �..
� ..r, ruu,,.,.».
.a, Z, u.➢ ... ' �`
n., 'A� � l�`2 ,. ,,,. .`•5iv 3.r ,.
>� �., `�' :�s: ... Y. ,.rt. r.
?-,... VL ,. mc'E,%�".-a k,.'.d
> , ..,.:,, ..:�ic .<v.'a ,m n u..ti -,� _
..,G., ,. 4v :1 «Gv^ S-c=•uti•v., ,.,,. axv '�-<.
•a} 2. ;, y'
�, �
<,., ,<r.,..,e,, .
,,. .✓ u, .. ., xY.,.= :9
z.il^ X>,
rt. ., ,. ,. „ , -, ..,
a +. _r , u ' :. ;. �a .. ,. ,y. fi: a2 ,. ., rrt
c r., 1 nv ... . ry <::.. of `•. A r. vc,F,Y . -5.: xe.'
k .. ,, t.. _ '?'i., ur�`T d\, c�>.:
1 t Ys � Y
f
�4v �
2. w,... .,M1u .. a ,.
c .<, "r,..H _�:^e. r>..=,;S PgP:., . r<f N,
-re .�` fi < 'v
,,,r >. a � ,z.. : z
.'C A?N.. a.3dfu....
`y '.:2'
^:x. t= tz �c�'
`".
^. nnC" v.,4'"'r, R
u. r� '„: °.'Y-'a rv< ^n`a.v e .�, . ^. �' <aF x2',
., 4 S ,,. 5 r� � e .F+. ca. eTryafi"c.- fr' ?4n N,' �-.v �L'•.9)
r
.,5, .7...<. ,7 � "r ✓x` � �.,: --r �. .5.
t> 'Rfi^`Yf ".g•',, .. 4' \ •ea :.,L .n.
'�«<se�< T4� x�..: b >`}c.. .6 �S.
r„v >, �,»< � ...623' 'c. >i.
A. ~� '.,.} ✓.
n`. �`n._ a,.✓�� < �' `.c. -Y,v 5r ko�L.ci'. ':'^\..
'',�.. �>F.'
.:
., .
�'
. r .>\,
., a L» ,y
u a..s,
: a:.. r^ or
_ «V,
.< ^,.
v, ✓
F, 'P°ir ..
��
,. .. . r4* ,
, ., <. ,'"r. . ..,
.. .. w . a .r N .. ,,Y <. :
.<. v.. > v a•"- ^r
. i \ 2 r, s
, r r , ,,, . � . � ..
w., .. .,,, ,'f "o. -,c a o.< ,..
.. /. '..
""zvt
w � v, �
.� t. ,,,<,. -, -c <,°., ..s .. '..
a< ^: < » <. ,.. ^*r
. ° ;.s 1,. ✓4. > �
i., .vk r., ... a. -. ,.. ..:,
.. .Y _ rt Yt > ,. .a r�
a .,. : � ..<,.c`l
.. ., ... .e .wr
. u ..,., - . , .f .. { _
:Y< y tr o C , v _
.' , a .,. »., r
r m _ n „ Z .,✓' <,( : . ,
,.. ... y . , xc .. ✓ .. s e%< x v <,. vs _ c 1 ,.. , Ls`rXe'
i„ ,Y•r .,. , z
,. _,.,� JS-, v.,•v r.3 v msF, ?;».. .ur „
. r. <�, 4 . , ✓ ,,. ,. <.,,,..:3
E' .. .,,. ��^<. -,� 'S r4 , .. .,,
.r.,,. ., ., ,.. ,w< �, ., , ,. < :..,..
.nc ;
', ... a '\.>.:., ^Y »,' ., 3,.,s , ..
, .. .. : v v . ..{'S, .,F
r,. .. r ✓ ,,. ., ,.
�x v< . 2 .. . <. :: i.,
'S
, <, /. ;'.c
<,. ♦ r. . , ,. r .
a .. .,_ ... .,.<� ...b :..\,.
, ..�,., cr >., . {rb
�< 4 s. , v ,-,.
.y..Y C r <? i" .`'z;`
'U ... ,>rin:r•r ,,.. , :r..,., n.. ,.�"".`.,'�',�Em..,
v . " Y , Yrz. ,, a\i , < , ..< ;.. vvh . ,. .
a < o•. ..,., >a. .»a<r., ,"`fir `S c.a
7.
? 4 ' . �' � ' {'£r .. . `., -. --
,? " � � N � .`G<+3. 2F ... .. .
LY „ <r,' . .. .�FxY"Y'"..,
a + Sf , .. , ., °. ,
�b .`Sr �«
r. .0 .. <.x t .� ,2:
2 x .. S �, r ,
- .n .^., °V ', nb. v . ?. nYYrr �Y`.a' '+v ot3�, ` 1`.3
..•.w r<nrf .. . , ..d rr .4:` /< ..0 Iry n'i .., ,vs. .f .: u. 'Lv '.'.s.' 4„'a,:,+,5. :i.,ft ,G`
2 .. . < GS`E, a 4'^` a ., »r „ , � Y, vFz :. L ..� ,vs
`:>,: ; •.� r .. �,,. � {"' vf'.;a - \w'' S
� .�^,' . '6 { .,,.,� .c,�`Y`a: � .1`- ',='-�c:§w,n....aa ice,.
>c%. »l.m> U.H r.aki. .`a"z:a `."va' i r .�," �::
,'.. ,. ,r^ ' ''3 ,: <<:., .r., s. 4"^""vi•. ar. ,;: �:�<, .4
+ a .<.»... H TH, rc r� t. "1` ., r•ss Y.., � " �7.0 \ , "y.. G F 'h. ,a r"a, . ..:"C Cvs-
_„� =e', ^.'^ ,:�' 3 ','a,'..
'ram �t..a ,. �., w•d`<, �. >�,..:�'�'.,
>,. iv e, � � .:vws si �,�... �;E�.., `"he. i�, . `T�[. rv"' < l�, `„
, r. , er , :. v-! ,y �v »r. 5- < r . , s'd_ :C 9 �%°
.,,, ., b !c"�Yao F:" >S
;,^{ v .w.> x >?' F,.w�. �s'. �f . �„ •y.4>o YY'-,.'�,w. s ,x' . .'+.>�a„
.. �, $[.
✓� a � K .*E' f, ,.. �v<.
ti�"i,. tcF,
,h.: » a.. ,.._.
}fi.'-J':�
... v x
.'r«
.
''', � o- -ro a-.
.v
�, �5"f�; �.
,. .. .i. ,a .. ».
aajr �..
F�o:F.. ,, L.
„
1'%3✓
., . F.,e 1- .:^5, lu, •.``:Ac_v.
ate..
N��
r .n . ,�.. , ., .. r. ..
�, t .
<: vMe•. k �
� 5�"r
I c
^k
y� `� �
,,. _ ,.,.) < .S ,r .. s✓v'. t3. ru<�
�, Y E:f<:r's'- ?, of �J< /1>>.. � c,
3 ..+' y3N'.=<. b ,f'.... l`". , c% '.i . `;4 .•A»
(,.:
a �
���.
,.,4'
c ✓,, ✓,,.�
, -r< .,c
_ ..�
,., cq1 ,«
•``tz ;,v J. 3„2.",
�.T his'4 iz•„'n�` „
o C,Cr. ..
a.. ,:.^ ..
< .<E�.'S , � ,.° .0
.. .. 'utir y r'
.{i .. »7 ...
4`m
"�..,
.0
.'�•s;.. :-. is H 2u
..,�. G bK2..,. •p
`�. ,.<'s'E. �ia,< «� . a a �
� `,. :.. "(` ' r•, 6
.S �..< .r, rso _... -,4 .., z< ,
,,< ^, f v, ,. r~ Y, zz.:, _.
> 4.�'a£ x <, _ ., ., ,°�
4
.� .,o`^^, " . `. � 1� 4 2 .
.. -c.�n
,-, ..,. `ri5 .fir
2 u�'%„ti, .,<'n
v.. ._, r4y,, .3.
'� `.v., „a » ., /. '. '..
N�. .,<;� ° 4 L' . _. .. -c ...
t
,�.r
. . 9.`•'. .,
s.N . "S C . �Vr .. ..,✓hr � � s'2
Y. � ,
, � `. <£N `span S L .' �. t m h� xM1•. "i. .'% 9'. 1
� r s , ,.wr a:., m ,. -ay.c �.on ,... ., s. ,:ui•' ,,,, a\. < "L x �'..?-v v ✓ < 3 ..., <.:.. k,.. '
:.i.. .. ♦ T,y .r ..c.,"v < z xFar``l .i <. , » < r;Y
,? ,•, -w, ., »,Y >M s. ..`�' ..... �✓r^,> ,. -�2 � <v� .. �< U' >, .. .a:. G .4,. `� 6v. ., 1a..3„ .... n, ..av .vy .,a > ..,, j k. „„„, ,..., .,:r✓:
::ve' .. .. . .,v,.. ..... s. ,M1< �, \.. `✓ E, -.tA6. ..k
.,.. .. •« C,r ,s„C, 7 d„ L". it S,t',,..u_x S , 4a �
t. ✓rfi \': �'
.2
r.,. . •:t%r''
l V" �...
✓n.. ,✓^ ..., usu . w v .,
a'v �.��."�.<
.� »„ tom:,.. � <v a✓,,,. a
'L ,='t. .
. is ,. 9
� „+ ✓ r ..".,. .» ., s C <.,`,
<. s ..n.l... ,.. °2.< .,4+. � , .,v
,;,c"�. a . .9� `s"f*xr, `~<* s?Y.
�� 1 .v .?c. c. <'S' ti ,.
:`'te.. w W
-'rz"', .. �.... '3 .. . '.t. .A.. ,U ., :, .. r .,» ... ....
..,,, ,2<. ,s, ...<.
.4' 3;.
.,.. ., .,r u, ?':,
, , v.C, ., t
= 4 ,-a 7, > ., .�,.. �: ,
„ '3vw ,t .. .. -t ^. .,. .Y a ... s. ,.,° d,.
Sr ri.� me ,ss,, �/t
r.2t ,, r✓ , ... , .,^' , „uo..., Y C'
.z, ., 5-..:.,, n,6'� -, n. :.a
Sa',_. �.,..i�>w„'...c, ,, xS° .✓.,.. �ss.,r. �&.r;,.s..-rK..,o _.�...
.> .� F. ''� °, a7k s�" ��,... S>r�" ✓.
5'. _X ., .�.,+,,..r .. r .t E•, '-. � i.. a.....Ck, `? h. .� .,.. '") e.o `"c P
, as v� ...,, r,.nr ., <,,. .. ,,. .r....l. ". -.: ,v ,3... ., ., ', a .> .. .,%�
{':
,. "� .�..
?
.'�?:�.. � .a� '-�,:,,, e>'Ya.',,. a✓, r
,"?r, �.ti..}.,....,,v..
• The Applicant argues that
The Opponent did not
If the Board answers Matrix Issue 6(a) in the affirmative and elects to allow the conflicting uses fully, does the Board
the ESEE analysis
provide information
find, consistent with the Applicant's testimony, that the ESEE analysis demonstrates that the conflicting uses is of
documents that the impacts
responsive to this
sufficient importance relative to the resource site?
caused by the unique
specific issue area.
topography and existing
A. Yes
If the Board elects to
development on the hillside
allow the conflicting
to the west of the subject
B. No
uses fully, additional
properties already
findings are required
diminishes the Goal 5 scenic
If yes, the Board may make findings consistent with the Applicant's arguments or additional findings as the Board may
pursuant to OAR 660-
view resources at this
see fit.
023-0040(5)(c). Does
particular location
7(a)
the ESEE analysis
compared to other locations
If no, the Board should revisit Matrix Issues 6(a) and/or 6(b).
demonstrate that the
within the impact area, thus
conflicting use is of
indicating that allowing RI
sufficient importance
uses is now of "sufficient
relative to the
importance" to justify
resource site?
allowing the conflicting use
outright pursuant to OAR
660-023-0040(5)(c) (Applicant
r-inal Legal A;gUment pg. ; 9)
247-21-000881-PA, 882-ZC, 247-23-000398-A BOCC Decision matrix Page 9 of 10
t
�> _ .,
.z
.;..
„_„ ...,,.,.,
✓ / r
G
"'J 'C% ✓ .f., .l.
.n _ .,
G .. :>. .�. C
.b .S a .. ,
£'" /i '
a,. .., rn,, .f P.,.::.,:-" v<: ..:o.
c e .,,'; ,....,> :✓,.. ,_c.
� Y
(crS' ll r5„+ _.l .i" . ,r-`y.� .,..,
r i. J . , r ,-. 7 .,,
�
.�,.. „r. .G
:.l .,, ,.. oi. :..
. %b d ., � .,..> ., 2 C .,.a, , L r ,i ., z, '\,.",. . ✓.- 1.
«:. /'.:..,.;, 1..,,,. v'.'.:„ .<... . _... d''':.,..,, _, ..,.„. .,:
,.. _.. v. ,.. .. .,_ .<r. .. „ n. ""
r
I .YY. ,.,.
f r~,< �
_ G. V
4,.., Z
..L. f.. ' S } i
..£,. ,•.,),. /
Y 1.
nC; v
E x
/.n. ., s 'i
r' ��. ,� ✓ w � a >� a : s _ .s, ..,
v ✓ t r�
w v., .t \ L -=G:. ,/'✓f .. h K2
G' ry ^, ., >i �. ✓, t 4'=„ sT .:
t, .J .<i..
.,3 rFM1 ,t.`.. ...sin' ':F,:':', .�,..
1 N Z 'l,- ,,t':.
_ -1"h" Ad, r.l� r.+ a4, -,f +1-, .-. CCCC nl. .J .'. ,..+_ +I.,-.+
"'� ^NN"�q'i I� argue) �i Iq� �I IC L..)LL al Ig1yJiJ UVl.l.11 Ilea IlJ ll Idl
TL.R rl... v.a
I ® I I IC V'.JpVI lei Il
r[�rr
t'�,-. +4. ,. n.. w.J 5:.,. ,.I ,-a.. .,.+. ,:+L. a4. ,. n.,. .,.1: .,.+�,- +...-+:.,.,_� +L., the
VVes ll IC Board 111 rind, l.Vi lsIJL Il with I U IC /'1i.J',JlIl.al Il J L LI testimony, ly, 1Idt U IC C.�CC
the County's existing Goal 5 scenic view program has not
din not prnvlde
Analvsls demnnstrates why measures to prntect the Goal 5 scenic view on the
bee11 successful in protecting the sought after scenic views
information
subject properties should not be provided?
in this particular location to containing to allow the
responsive to this
Continuing to stem from OAR 660-
conflicting use in a limited way. (Applicant Final Legal
specific issue
A. Yes
Argument pg. 11)
area.
023-0040(5)(c)> does the ESEE
Analysis demonstrate �Ajhy
B. No
measures to protect the Goal 5
Protect
7(b)
scenic view the subject
If yes, the Board may make findings consistent with the Applicant's arguments
properties should not be provided?
or additional findings as the Board may see fit.
If no, the Board should revisit Matrix Issues 6(a) and/or 6(b).
O The Applicant noted that it did not request any amendment
• The Opponent
Consistent with the Applicant's argument, does the Board find that compliance
if the Board decides to fully allow
to the LM Combining Zone and no such amendment was
did not provide
with OAR 660-023-0050(1) is already achieved because the Applicant consented
the conflicting uses, OAR 660-023-
noticed as part of the subject application. There are no such
information
to the subject properties remaining in the LM Combining Zone means that all
00500) requires the County to
applications that are before the Board in these proceedings.
responsive to this
required comprehensive plan provision and land use regulations are already in
adopt comprehensive plan
Significantly, the Applicant further consented to the subject
specific issue
place?
8(a)
provisions and land use regulations
properties remaining within the LM Combining Zone until
such time as the County undertakes more comprehensive
revisions to that zone in a manner directly affecting the
subject properties (Applicant Final Legal Argument, pg. 11-12)
® Staff suggests that by the Applicant's consenting to the
subject properties' continuing to be subject to the LM
area.
I A. Yes
B. No
If yes, the Board may make findings that the conflicting uses may be fully
allowed without any corresponding amendments to the LM Combining Zone
to implement the decision made
pursuant to OAR 660-023-0040(5)4
is compliance with OAR 660-023-
0050(1) demonstrated by the
Applicant's consent to the subject
properties' continuing to be subject
to the LM Combining Zone land use
Combining Zone until such time that the County otherwise
elects to amend or alter the LM Combining Zone, compliance
and Comprehensive Plan. The Board may make findings explaining that any
amendment to the LM Combining Zone will be undertaken at a later date when
regulations because there are no
proposed amendments to the
with OAR 660-023-0050(1) is achieved because all required
the Board otherwise elects to amend or alter the LM Combining Zone
Comprehensive Plan and the LM
comprehensive plan provisions and land use regulations are
Combining Zone land use
already in place until such time that the County elects to
amend the LM Combining Zone.
if no, the Board may find that it cannot fully allow the conflicting uses without
adoption of new Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations, requiring the
regulations before the Board in the
application?
Board to revisit Matrix Issues 6(a) and/or 6(b).
247-21-000881-PA, 882-ZC, 247-23-000398-A BOCC Decision matrix Page 10 of 1(1
\�l E S COG��
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING
9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2023
Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Building - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend
(541) 388-6570 1 www.deschutes.org
MEETING FORMAT: In accordance with Oregon state law, this meeting is open to the public and
can be accessed and attended in person or remotely, with the exception of any executive session.
Members of the public may view the meeting in real time via YouTube using this link:
http://bit.ly/3mminzy. To view the meeting via Zoom, see below.
Citizen Input: The public may comment on any topic that is not on the current agenda.
Alternatively, comments may be submitted on any topic at any time by emailing
citizeninput@deschutes.org or leaving a voice message at 541-385-1734.
Whon in-norcnn rnmmont from thin ni ihlir is alln%niarr at thin maatina ni ihlir rnmmant Will alcn ha
allowed via computer, phone or other virtual means.
Zoom Meeting Information: This meeting may be accessed via Zoom using a phone or computer.
• To join the meeting via Zoom from a computer, use this link: http://bit.ly/3h3ogdD.
• To join by phone, call 253-215-8782 and enter webinar ID # 899 4635 9970 followed by the
passcode 013510.
• If joining by a browser, use the raise hand icon to indicate you would like to provide public
comment, if and when allowed. If using a phone, press *6 to indicate you would like to speak and
*9 to unmute yourself when you are called on.
Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all
programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities.
If you need accommodations to make participation possible, call (541) 388-6572 or
email brenda.fritsvold@deschutes.org.
Time estimates: The times listed on agenda items are estimates onlvonly. Generally, items will be heard in
sequential order and items, including public hearings, may be heard before or after their listed times.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT: Citizen Input may be provided as comment on any topic that is not on the
agenda.
Note: In addition to the option of providing in -person comments at the meeting, citizen input comments
may be emailed to citizeninput@deschutes.org or you may leave a brief voicemail at 541.385.1734.
CONSENT AGENDA
Consideration of Board Signature on letters appointing Denney Kelley and reappointing
Tony De Alicante to the Sunriver Service District Managing Board.
2. Consideration of Board Signature on letters thanking Robert Foster and Gerhard Beenen
for their service on the Sunriver Service District Managing Board.
3. Consideration of Board Signature on letter reappointing Tami Pike for service on the
Deschutes County Public Health Advisory Board.
4. Consideration of Board Signature on letter appointing Sabrina Haggerty for service on
the Deschutes County Bicycle -Pedestrian Advisory Board.
S. Approval of minutes of the June 17 and 19, 2023 BOCC meetings
ACTION ITEMS
6. 9:10 AM Public Hearing to receive testimony regarding proposed revisions to the
County contracting code
7. 9:25 AM Public Hearing on a request to vacate a portion of Schibel Road
(continued from 8/9/2023)
8. 10:25 AM First reading of Ordinance 2023-018 -Griffin Plan Amendment/Zone Change
9. 10:30 AM Deliberations: Remand of LBNW LLC Plan Amendment and Zone Change
10. 11:00 AM 2023 Spay & Neuter Grant Program Award Recommendations
August 16, 2023 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 3
OTHER ITEMS
These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of
the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS
192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor
negotiations, ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues, or other executive session categories.
Executive sessions are closed to the public, however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines,
are open to the media.
ADJOURN
August 16, 2023 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 3 of 3