2023-351-Order No. 2023-051 Recorded 11/6/2023REVIEWED
(2�A
LEGAL COUNSEL
Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2023-351
Steve Dennison, County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal 11 /06/2023 11:51:38 AM
'�\�\` `✓ ` �(� II' I I ��I�I'�I (� I II I� i I � III I I III
2023-351
For Recordine StamD On
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Accepting Review of Hearings
Officer's Decision in File Nos. 247-22- * ORDER NO. 2023-051
000812-CU, 247-22-000813-SP, & 247-23-
000666-RC.
WHEREAS, on October 5, 2023, the Hearings Officer approved File Nos. 247-22-000812-CU,
247-22-000813-SP, & 247-23-000666-RC; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2023, Justin Homan, the Applicant, appealed (Appeal No. 247-23-
000724-A) the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's Decision on File Nos. 247-22-000812-CU, 247-
22-000813-SP, & 247-23-000666-RC; and
WHEREAS, Sectio lIs 22.32.027 and 22.32.035 of the Deschutes Comity Code ("DCC ") allow
the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ('Board") discretion on whether to hear
appeals of Hearings Officer's decisions; and
WHEREAS, the Board has given due consideration as to whether to review this application
on appeal; now therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY
ORDERS as follows:
Section 1. That it will hear on appeal Appeal No. 247-23-000724-A pursuant to Title 22
of the DCC and other applicable provisions of the County land use ordinances.
Section 2. The appeal shall be heard de novo.
Section 3. Staff shall set a hearing date and cause notice to be given to all persons or
parties entitled to notice pursuant to DCC 22.24.030 and DCC 22.32.030.
Section 4. Pursuant to Section 22.32.024, the Board waives the requirement that the
appellants provide a complete transcript for the appeal hearing.
ORDER NO.2023-051
Section 5. Pursuant to DCC 22.32.035(D), to date the only documents placed before and
considered by the Board are the notice of appeal, recommendations of staff, and the record
developed before the lower hearings body for File Nos. 247-22-000812-CU, 247-22-000813-SP, &
247-23-000666-RC as presented at the following website:
https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/247-22-000812-cu-247-22-000813-sp-homan-outdoor-
motocross-track
Going forward, all documents further placed before, and not rejected by, the Board shall be added
to the aforementioned website, and that website shall be the Board's official repository for the
record in this matter.
DAT to this May •f 13.
ATTEST:
A M-Ir �, *TJ L4
Recording Secretary
ORDER No. 2023-051
r c Ii IN TV
ANTHONY DEBONE, Chair
(-0PPO's &IS
PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair
y
PHIL CHANG, Commissioner
vT E S C0
G2a
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: November 1, 2023
SUBJECT: Consideration to hear an appeal of a Hearings Officer's decision conditionally
approving an outdoor motocross facility in the Rural Residential Zone at 7505 NW
Eagle Dr in Redmond
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
Move approval of Order 2023-051, accepting review of Hearings Officer's Decision in File
Nos. 247-22-000812-CU, 247-22-000813-SP, & 247-23-000666-RC and establishing the
review will be heard full de novo.
AN
Move approval of Order 2023-051, accepting review of Hearings Officer's Decision in File
Nos. 247-22-000812-CU, 247-22-000813-SP, & 247-23-000666-RC and establishing the
review will be heard de novo and the scope of the review will be limited to the issues raised
in the Applicant's appeal.
C07:7
Move approval of Order 2023-051, denyingreview eview of Hearings Officer's Decision in File Nos.
247-22-000812-CU, 247-22-000813-SP, & 247-23-000666-RC.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The applicant is requesting conditional use and site plan approval for a recreation -oriented
facility requiring large acreage. Specifically, the applicant proposes a commercial outdoor
motocross facility with four courses. The subject property is located at 7505 NW Eagle Dr,
Redmond, OR 97756.
The review was initially referred to a Hearings Officer and the Hearings Officer approved the
applicant's request on August 31, 2023. However, the applicant submitted a reconsideration
application requesting changes to the conditions of approval. The Hearings Officer's
Reconsideration Decision modified two conditions of approval and denied modification of
four other conditions. On October 17, 2023, the applicant filed a timely appeal of the
Hearings Officer's Reconsideration Decision.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Caroline House, Senior Planner
William Groves, Planning Manager
Legal Counsel
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Caroline House, Senior Planner
DATE: October 25, 2023
RE: An appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision Approving an Outdoor Motocross Facility
in the Rural Residential (RR10) Zone; File Nos. 247-22-000812-CU / 247-22-000812-SP
and Appeal No. 247-23-000724-A
On November 1, 2023, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") will consider hearing an appeal
of the Hearings Officer's decision conditionally approving an outdoor motocross facility in the RR10
Zone.
I. PROPOSAL
The Applicant is requesting conditional use and site plan approval for a recreation -oriented facility
requiring large acreage. Specifically, the Applicant proposes a commercial outdoor motocross
facility with four (4) courses. The subject property is located at 7505 NW Eagle Dr, Redmond, OR
97756.
11. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The applications were received on October 11, 2022. The initial public hearing before a Hearings
Officer was held on May 2, 2023. Continuances of the initial hearing were held on July 11, 2023 and
August 15, 2023. The Hearings Officer approved the Applicant's request on August 31, 2023.
Subsequently, the Applicant submitted a Reconsideration application requesting changes to the
conditions of approval. The Hearings Officer's Reconsideration Decision modified two (2) conditions
of approval and denied modification of four (4) other conditions. On October 17, 2023, the Applicant
filed a timely appeal of the Hearings Officer's Reconsideration Decision.
117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
Q, (541)388-6575 @a cdd@deschutes.org ®www.deschutes.org/cd
III. APPLICANT'S APPEAL
The Applicant requests the Board review the Hearings Officer's decision, as part of a de novo review,
but limit the scope of review to the following conditions of approval:
1. Reconciliation of conflict and confusion between application of Conditions of Approval U, V,
W, Y, and AA concerning motorcycle noise.
2. Appeal of Condition of Approval "S" addressing the Hours of Operation to be consistent with
the evidence in the record that the primary operating season is October -March.
3. Appeal of Condition of Approval "T" which limits the number of "visitors" on the property
does not relate to any approval criterion.
4. Appeal of Condition of Approval "BB" requiring construction of a new restroom facility.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
There are several factors staff believes the Board should consider when deciding whether to hear
this appeal. Below staff has summarized key issues that staff recommends the Board consider as
part of their decision.
Reasons to hear the appeal:
• The appeal issues are primarily associated with local code requirements. For this reason, the
Board decision will potentially be given deference on these matters if appealed to the Land
Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA").
• Staff believes conditions of approval relying on the Department of Environmental Quality
("DEQ") Noise regulations may be difficult for the County to enforce, and the Board could
consider imposing clearer conditions as part of any approval.
• There was significant public interest in the proposal.
• The Board may wish to concur, reverse, or modify the Hearing Officer's decision.
Reasons to not hear the appeal:
• The County's Noise Ordinance (DCC 8.08) will likely impact the Applicant's proposal
regardless of any potential changes to the conditions of approval. Staff believes that the
Applicant likely needs to initiate a Text Amendment to resolve this issue.
• Staff believes the Hearings Officer's decision to limit visitors is reasonable to ensure
compatibility with the surrounding uses.
• The Board will not be afforded deference on the restroom facility requirements as this
authority is given to DEQ and the County's Onsite Wastewater Division.
247-22-000812-CU / 247-22-000813-SP / 247-23-000724-A Page 2 of 4
If the Board decides to hear the appeal, staff recommends the Board hear the appeal de novo and
not limit the scope of review.
V. BOARD OPTIONS
First, the Board must decide if it wishes to hear the appeals. In determining whether to hear the
appeals, the Board may only consider:
1. The record developed before the Hearings Officer;
2. The Notice of Appeal; and
3. Recommendation of staff'
Option 1: Hear the Appeal
If the Board decides to hear the appeal, the Board must make a decision on the scope of the review.
As noted above, the Applicant has requested a de novo review and to limit the issues to be reviewed
by the Board. Per the Deschutes County Code ("DCC"), the Board has two choices for the scope of
the review:
1. On the Record
- This means parties can only present their arguments and the Board must rely on the
record developed before the Hearings Officer. No new evidence can be submitted.
2. De Novo
- This means parties can submit new evidence and present their arguments.
Next, the Board may wish, but is not required, to limit the issues it will consider as part of the Board's
review.
Lastly, the Board should give staff direction on when to schedule the appeal hearing and the Board
may want to establish time limits for testimony at the hearing.
Option 2: Not Hear the Appeal
Should the Board decline to hear the appeal, the Hearings Officer's decision will become the final
decision of the County. Upon the mailing of the Board's decision to decline review, the party
appealing may continue their appeal as provided under the law.
1 Deschutes County Code 22.32.035(D)
247-22-000812-CU / 247-22-000813-SP / 247-23-000724-A Page 3 of 4
VII. 150-DAY LAND USE CLOCK
The 1501" day on which the County must take final action on this application is April 27, 2023.
VII. RECORD
The record for File Nos. 247-22-000812-CU & 247-22-000812-SP and the Notice of Appeal are
presented at the following Deschutes County Community Development Department website:
https://www deschutes.org/cd/page/247-22-000812-cu-247-22-000813-sp-homan-outdoor-
motocross-track
Attachments:
1. DRAFT Board Order 2023-051 Accepting Review of the Hearings Officer's Decision - Full
Review
2. DRAFT Board Order 2023-051 Accepting Review of the Hearings Officer's Decision - Limited
Scope of Review
3. DRAFT Board Order 2023-051 Declining Review of the Hearings Officer's Decision
4. Notice of Appeal - 247-23-000724-A
247-22-000812-CU / 247-22-000813-SP / 247-23-000724-A Page 4 of 4
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Accepting Review of Hearings
Officer's Decision in File Nos. 247-22- * ORDER NO. 2023-051
000812-CU, 247-22-000813-SP, & 247-23-
000666-RC.
WHEREAS, on October 5, 2023, the Hearings Officer approved File Nos. 247-22-000812-CU,
247-22-000813-SP, & 247-23-000666-RC; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2023, Justin Homan, the Applicant, appealed (Appeal No. 247-23-
000724-A) the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's Decision on File Nos. 247-22-000812-CU, 247-
22-000813-SP, & 247-23-000666-RC; and
WHEREAS, Sections 22.32.027 and 22.32.035 of the Deschutes County Code ("DCC") allow
the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board") discretion on whether to hear
appeals of Hearings Officer's decisions; and
WHEREAS, the Board has given due consideration as to whether to review this application
on appeal; now therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY
ORDERS as follows:
Section 1. That it will hear on appeal Appeal No. 247-23-000724-A pursuant to Title 22
of the DCC and other applicable provisions of the County land use ordinances.
Section 2. The appeal shall be heard de novo.
Section 3. Staff shall set a hearing date and cause notice to be given to all persons or
parties entitled to notice pursuant to DCC 22.24.030 and DCC 22.32.030.
Section 4. Pursuant to Section 22.32,024, the Board waives the requirement that the
appellants provide a complete transcript for the appeal hearing.
ORDER No. 2023-051
Section 5. Pursuant to DCC 22,32.035(D;, to date the only docun-cents placed before and
considered by the Board are the notice of appeal, recommendations of staff, and the record
developed before the lower hearings body for File Nos. 247-22-000812-CU, 247-22-000813-SP, &
247-23-000666-RC as presented at the following website:
https://www deschutes.org/cd/page/247-22-000812-cu-247-22-000813-sp-homan-outdoor-
motocross-track
Going forward, all documents further placed before, and not rejected by, the Board shall be added
to the aforementioned website, and that website shall be the Board's official repository for the
record in this matter.
DATED this day of , 2023.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ANTHONY DEBONE, Chair
PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair
PHIL CHANG, Commissioner
ORDER No. 2023-051
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Accepting Review of Hearings
Officer's Decision in File Nos. 247-22- * ORDER NO. 2023-051
000812-CU, 247-22-000813-SP, & 247-23-
000666-RC.
WHEREAS, on October 5, 2023, the Hearings Officer approved File Nos. 247-22-000812-CU,
247-22-000813-SP, & 247-23-000666-RC; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2023, Justin Homan, the Applicant, appealed (Appeal No. 247-23-
000724-A) the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's Decision on File Nos. 247-22-000812-CU, 247-
22-000813-SP, & 247-23-000666-RC; and
WHEREAS, Sections 22.32.027 and 22.32.035 of the Deschutes County Code ("DCC") allow
the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board") discretion on whether to hear
appeals of Hearings Officer's decisions; and
WHEREAS, the Board has given due consideration as to whether to review this application
on appeal; now therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY
ORDERS as follows:
Section 1. That it will hear on appeal Appeal No. 247-23-000724-A pursuant to Title 22
of the DCC and other applicable provisions of the County land use ordinances.
Section 2. The appeal shall be heard de novo and the scope of the review will be limited
to the issues raised in the Applicant's appeal.
Section 3. Staff shall set a hearing date and cause notice to be given to all persons or
parties entitled to notice pursuant to DCC 22.24.030 and DCC 22.32.030.
Section 4. Pursuant to Section 22.32.024, the Board waives the requirement that the
appellants provide a complete transcript for the appeal hearing.
ORDER No. 2023-051
Section 5. Pursuant to DCC 22.32.035(D), to date the only documents placed before and
considered by the Board are the notice of appeal, recommendations of staff, and the record
developed before the lower hearings body for File Nos. 247-22-000812-CU, 247-22-000813-SP, &
247-23-000666-RC as presented at the following website:
https://www deschutes.org/cd/page/247-22-000812-cu-247-22-000813-sp-homan-outdoor-
motocross-track
Going forward, all documents further placed before, and not rejected by, the Board shall be added
to the aforementioned website, and that website shall be the Board's official repository for the
record in this matter.
DATED this day of , 2023.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ANTHONY DEBONE, Chair
PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair
PHIL CHANG, Commissioner
ORDER NO.2023-051
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Denying Review of Hearings
Officer's Decision in File Nos. 247-22- * ORDER NO. 2023-051
000812-CU, 247-22-000813-SP, & 247-23-
000666-RC.
WHEREAS, on October 5, 2023, the Hearings Officer approved File Nos. 247-22-000812-CU,
247-22-000813-SP, & 247-23-000666-RC; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2023, Justin Homan, the Applicant, appealed (Appeal No. 247-23-
000724-A) the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's Decision on File Nos 247-22-000812-CU, 247-
22-000813-SP, & 247-23-000666-RC; and
WHEREAS, Sections 22.32.027 and 22.32.035 of the Deschutes County Code ("DCC") allow
the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board") discretion on whether to hear
appeals of Hearings Officers' decisions; and
WHEREAS, the Board has given due consideration as to whether to review this application
on appeal; now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY
ORDERS as follows:
Section 1. That it will not hear on appeal Appeal No. 247-23-000724-A pursuant to Title
22 of the DCC and/or other applicable provisions of the County land use ordinances.
Section 2. Pursuant to DCC 22.32.015, the County shall refund any portion of the appeal
fee not yet spent processing the subject application. If the matter is further appealed to the Land
Use Board of Appeals and the County is required to prepare a transcript of the hearing before the
Hearings Officer, the refund shall be further reduced by an amount equal to the cost incurred by
the County to prepare such a transcript.
Section 3. Pursuant to DCC 22.32.035(D), the only documents placed before and
considered by the Board are the notice of appeal, recommendations of staff, and the record
developed before the lower hearing body for File Nos. 247-22-000812-CU, 247-22-000813-SP, &
247-23-000666-RC as presented at the following website:
ORDER NO. 2023-051
httDs://www.deschutes.org/cd/- a-e/247-22-000812-cu-247-22-000813-sp-homan-outdoor-
motocross-track
DATED this day of _, 2023.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
ANTHONY DEBONE, Chair
PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair
PHIL CHANG, Commissioner
ORDER NO. 2023-051
\3T Es
APPEAL APPLICATION - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FEE:
EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE:
1. A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal.
2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board
stating the reasons the Board should review the lower decision.
3. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a
request for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de
novo review as provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22.
4. If color exhibits are submitted, black and white copies with captions or shading delineating
the color areas shall also be provided.
it is the responsibility of the appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22.32 of the
County Code. The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must include the items listed above.
Failure to complete all of the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be
included on the Notice of Appeal.
Staff cannot advise a potential appellant as to whether the appellant is eligible to file an appeal (DCC
Section 22.32.010) or whether an appeal is valid. Appellants should seek their own legal advice concerning
those issues.
Appellant's Name (print): -J U `s+y o Rote Phone: (�54/ & (5 !�51 Z
Mailing Address: --7 5 0t:) N w (�-&x !1 le p2l v.,e— City/State/Zip: R ad Mond, 412. g7754
Email Address: 5a V i4-G�yca Anil ASP a fU
Land Use Application Being Appealed: y7 - Z Z 81 Z -7 - Z Z-- 513 P . f4cl s, Zy ), Z.31.
Property Description: Township Range 2-- Section Tax Lot (kob Cc u, 1" KG
Appellant's Signature: �ftA ASA kUA-c- -j Date: f 0 (1, 2
By signing this application and paying the appeal deposit, the appellant understands and agrees that
Deschutes County is collecting a deposit for hearing services, including "whether to hear" proceedings.
The appellant will be responsible for the actual costs of these services. The amount of any refund or
additional payment will depend upon the actual costs incurred by the county in reviewing the appeal.
Except as provided in section 22.32.024, appellant shall provide a complete transcript of any hearing
appealed, from recordings provided by the Planning Division upon request (there is a $5.00 fee for each
recording copy). Appellant shall submit the transcript to the planning division no later than the close of
117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
V„ (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes.org ® www.deschutes.org/cd
FITCH & NEARY
LAND USE AUTHORIZATION FORM
For: Deschutes County Community Development
Re: T 15 S-R 12E- I I Tax Lot 600 (Tax Account 124991)
7505 NW Eagle Drive, Redmond, Oregon 97756
Lisa Andrach
Lisa Gafitchandneary.cm
Let it be known that the firm of Fitch & Neary PC has been retained to act as my authorized agent to
perform all acts for development on my property noted above. These acts include: Pre -application
conference, filing applications, and/or other required documents relative to all Permit applications.
Property Owner: Justin Homan
f�N e0a�6 PD7) Sep 8 2023
Justin Homan (Justin Homan date
210 S W 5°i St.. Ste. ii2 l Redmond Olt 97756
Phone: 541316.1588 1 Fax: 541.310.1943
NOTICE OF APPEAL
TO DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
FILE NUMBER: Reconsideration file 247-23-000666-RC;
Planning Files 247-22-000812-CU/247-22-000813-SP
(hearings officer)
APPLICANT/OWNER: Justin Homan
APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY: Lisa Andrach
Fitch & Neary, P.C.
210 SW 5"' St., Ste. #2
Redmond OR 97756
P: 541-316-1588
Email: lira a� itchandneary.com
Appeal of specific conditions of approval set forth in a hearings officer decision approving a
recreation -oriented facility ("ROF") requiring large acreage. Specifically, the applicant
proposes an outdoor motocross facility for training classes.
I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA
22.32.010 Who May Appeal
A. The following may file an appeal:
1. A party
FINDING: The appellant is the applicant in Deschutes County File Nos. 247--22-000812-
CU/247-22-000813-SP that are the subject of this appeal. This criterion is satisfied.
22.32.015 Filing Appeals
1. To file an appeal, an appellant must file a completed notice of appeal on a form
prescribed by the Planning Division and an appeal fee.
2. Unless a request for reconsideration has been filed, the notice of appeal and appeal
fee must be received at the offices of the Deschutes County Community Development
Department no later than 4:00 PM on the twelfth day following mailing of the
decision. If a decision has been modified on reconsideration, an appeal must be filed
no later than 4:00 PM on the twelfth day following mailing of the decision as modified.
Notices of Appeals may not be received by facsimile machine.
Page 1 — NOTICE OF APPEAL —247-22-000812-CU/247-22-000813-SP Homan, Justin FITCH & NEARY, P.C.
210 SW 5" St., Suite 2
Redmond, OR 97756
Phone: 541-316-1588
Fax: 541-316-1943
3. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and the Board declines
review, a portion of the appeal fee may be refunded. The amount of any refund will
depend upon the actual costs incurred by the County in reviewing the appeal. When
the Board declines review and the decision is subsequently appealed to LUBA, the
appeal fee may be applied toward the cost of preparing a transcript of the lower
Hearings Body's decision.
4. The appeal fee shall be paid by method that is acceptable to Deschutes County.
FINDING: The appellant has filed herewith the required notice of appeal on the prescribed form,
and the appeal fee, within the 12 days from the date of mailing of the decision on reconsideration.
This criterion is met.
22.32.020 Notice Of Appeal
Every notice of appeal shall include:
A. A statement raising any issue relied upon for appeal with sufficient specificity
to afford the Hearings Body an adequate opportunity to respond to and resolve each issue in
dispute.
FINDING: Appeal concerns specific conditions of appeal imposed by the hearings officer.
Because the hearings officer found that the concerns with the conditions of approval below did not
"meet the standards for reconsideration of the decision," and that "resolution of [a] conflict
[between conditions of approval] is best left to the Board of Commissioners and not a hearings
officer," the hearings officer declined to modify the decision to address the applicant's concerns.
Specifically, the appellant requests review of the following conditions of approval:
1. Reconciliation of conflict and confusion between application of Conditions of
Approval U, V, W, Y, and AA concerning motorcycle noise.
The decision approves a recreation -oriented facility ("ROF") for an outdoor motocross
facility in the RR-10 zone. Specifically, the language in the code for the RR-10 zone identifies an
off -road vehicle track or racetrack — such as the motocross facility proposed - as an example of
the type of recreation -oriented facility that the Board considered may be allowed in the zone. The
express language of DCC 18.60.030(G) provides
The following uses may be allowed subject to DCC 18.128:
G. Recreation -oriented facility requiring large acreage such as off -road
vehicle track or race track, but not including a rodeo grounds.
(underline emphasis added)
Page 2 — NOTICE OF APPEAL —247-22-000812-CU/247-22-000813-SP Homan, Justin FITCH & NEARY, P.C.
210 SW 5°' SC, Suite 2
Redmond, OR 97756
Phone: 541-316-1588
Fax: 541-316-1943
The hearings officer imposed five (5) conditions of approval to address potential noise
impacts from the approved use. However, as written, the conditions of approval are conflicting
and irreconcilable, and the applicant/appellant (hereinafter "applicant") asks the Board to clarify
the conditions and resolve the conflicts. The applicant is concerned that the conflict and
confusion between the Conditions of Approval regulating noise impacts has the potential to
nullify the approval for motorcycle use and asks the Board of Commissioners to clarify and
resolve the conflicts between the Conditions of Approval imposed.
Specifically, the Condition of Approval "AA" requires that "[w]here any condition
imposed by this decision is less restrictive than any comparable conditions imposed by which is
more restrictive, the more restrictive shall govern." As written, it is not clear and objective which
of the Conditions of Approval that address motorcycle noise (U, V, W, Y) is "more restrictive,"
and as a result it is not clear which of the four (4) Conditions of Approval ultimately "governs"
as set forth in "AA."
This issue is extremely important because the applicant is required to make substantial
improvements and financial investment to commence operation of the use, but as written is
concerned that he could end up in complicated code enforcement litigation and/or be shut down
if the Condition of Approval "U," which imposes the county noise ordinance, could be construed
as the most restrictive and controlling under COA "AA."
While the applicant agrees that the county noise ordinance generally applies to
`'unreasonably loud or raucous noise," the hearings officer added language to "U" which creates
confusion as to how the noise ordinance applies to the approved motorcycle use. Specifically,
Condition of Approval "U" provides:
The Property Owner will comply with the County Noise Control Ordinance
DCC Chapter 8.08 and shall not allow or engage in any uses on the
property that result in "unreasonably loud or raucous noise, defined in
DCC 8.08.040(N) as "the use of any off -road motorcycle where it is heard
by the occupant from the premises of an inhabited residence not owned by
the user."
(underline emphasis added)
The confusion and conflict is caused by the underlined language that the hearings officer
added to the Condition of Approval "U." If "U," as written is construed to prohibit any
motorcycle noise "where it is heard by the occupants from the premises of an inhabited residence
not owned by the user," even if generated from the use of the motocross facility, it could be
applied as the most restrictive under "AA," and such a construction would effectively nullify the
ability to use the ROF as otherwise permitted.
Page 3 — NOTICE OF APPEAL —247-22-000812-CU/247-22-000813-SP Homan, Justin FITCH & NEARV, P.C.
210 SW 511' St., Suite 2
Redmond, OR 97756
Phone: 541-316-1588
Fax: 541-316-1943
As written, it is ambiguous if "U" is the "]Host restrictive" condition of approval that
"governs" the use. The other three (3) Conditions of Approval addressing noise (V, W, Y) all
impose requirements to comply with the DEQ Noise Control Regulations for In -Use Motor
Vehicles as regulated by state adopted DEQ administrative rules, with maximum decibel levels
and ambient noise restrictions. (Exhibit A) How are these three (3) conditions of approval
reconciled with "U" as required by "AA" which provides that the most restrictive shall govern?
The applicant wants to avoid future confusion and possible code enforcement proceedings to
determine whether "U" is the most restrictive, or how it applies.
Some of the confusion is created by an error in the language of DCC 8.08.040(N)1 which
carves out an exception to the noise ordinance for permitted motorcycle noise. DCC 8.08.040(N)
refers to an exception for motorcycle noise if the user has a pennit and is operating the
motorcycle within the terms of the permit. However, the confusion is caused by the reference in
DCC 8.08.040(N) to a noise permit issued under DCC 8.08.080(B). This cross-referenced
section no longer applies to permits for noise in general because the county amended DCC
8.08.080(B) in 2005 and it now only applies to permits for road construction noise. When DCC
8.08.080(B) was amended in 2005, the cross-reference in DCC 8.08.040(N) was not also
amended.
However, while awkwardly worded, the code clearly intends to allow for an exception to
motorcycle noise when the user has a permit and is operating within the terms of the permit.
Unfortunately, the hearings officer did not include the balance of that language from the code in
the Condition of Approval "U," which would have clarified how the conditions of approval U, V,
W, Y are reconciled as required by "AA." On reconsideration, he stated that he "believe[s] the
resolution of that conflict is best left to the Board of Commissioners and not to a hearings
officer." (Reconsideration, Pg.2)
1 Specifically, the County Noise Control Ordinance 8.08.040 regulates off -road
motorcycle noise generally. Then it defines "unreasonably loud or raucous noise" to mean:
B. Noise, which violates the standards of the Environmental Quality
Commission, adopted pursuant to ORS 467.030 which are not exempt under
ORS 467.035 or permitted by a variance issued under ORS 467.060;
N. The use of any off -road motorcycle or snowmobile where it is heard by the
occupant from the premises of an inhabited residence not owned by the user.
If the user has a permit issued under DCC 8.08.080(B), such person may
operate the motorcycle or snowmobile within the terms of the permit;
(underline emphasis added)
Page 4 — NOTICE OF APPEAL —247-22-000812-CU/247-22-000813-SP Homan, Justin FITCH & NEARv, P.C.
210 SW 5" St., Suite 2
Redmond, OR 97756
Phone: 541-316-1588
Fax: 541-316-1943
A modification to the COA "U" to make clear that the use of the motorcycles in
compliance with the other Conditions of Approval shall not be a violation of the DCC 8.08.040
Noise Control Ordinance would reconcile the conflict and allow clarity in applying the
Conditions of Approval U, V, W, Y, and AA.
The applicant is prepared to make substantial changes to the property and investment into
the operation of the ROF consistent with the approval, including but not limited to: purchasing a
water truck, landscaping, irrigation, restroom facilities, parking, moving berms, and paying
System Development Charges (SDC). The foregoing could all be nullified if the track cannot be
used because of the conflict, confusion and ambiguity in the Conditions of Approval.
2. Appeal of Condition of Approval "S" addressing the Hours of Operation to be
consistent with the evidence in the record that the primary operating season is
October -March.
Condition of Approval "S" provides:
The hours of operation are limited as follows:
OCTOBER-MARCH: two weekdays per week and one day per weekend.
The Property Owner has the ability to select these days based upon weather, other events
and customers.
Hours of operation on the 2 weekdays is limited to 10 am to 3 pm.
Hours of operation on the one weekend day is limited to 10 am to 3 pm and 6 pm to
7:30 pm. Total hours per week are limited to 10 hours.
April to September: two weekdays per week and one day per weekend. Applicant has
the ability to select these days based on weather, other events and customers.
Hours of operation on the 2 weekdays and the one weekend day is limited to 10 am
to 3 pm and 5 pm to 8 pm. Total hours per week are limited to 10 hours. If applicant
opts not to operate during October -March, applicant shall be limited to 20 hours per
week.
(underline emphasis added)
The applicant appreciates the need to limit the hours of operation for the proposed use in
general, but makes the following request to the October -March operation schedule to be
Page 5 — NOTICE OF APPEAL —247-22-000812-CU/247-22-000813-SP Homan, Justin FITCH & NEARY, P.C.
210 SW 51" St., Suite 2
Redmond, OR 97756
Phone: 541-316-1588
Fax: 541-316-1943
consistent with the evidence in the record that the primary operating season is October -March
("winter") due to weather conditions and event schedules. As written, the Condition of Approval
allows more operating time in the summer.
The applicant testified that he works full time, and that the primary season for the use of
his training course is in the winter when the track is naturally moist and there are not other
courses open, or other competitions and/or events which the riders all participate in. He testified
that the track is not used as much in the April to September ("summer") season because in the
summer, conflicting schedules with other events, other open courses, wind, and dry soil limit the
use of the track.
Therefore, the applicant requests that the winter evening hours not be limited to only the
"weekend day" because, as set forth in the evidence, the evening hours during the week work
better for the applicant and training on a weekend evening is not ideal for people's schedules
generally. During the wet, cold winter weekday evenings, the neighbors are likely indoors with
the windows and doors closed which serves to minimize noise impacts, and moist conditions
minimize dust. It is more likely the neighbors would be outside on a weekend evening, not a
weeknight evening, during the winter, so the proposal is a win -win for both the neighbors and the
applicant, and is consistent with the substantial evidence in the record.
The applicant also requests that the same option that is applied to the "summer" schedule
which allows a maximum of 20 hours per week if the Property Owner did not operate the prior
season, also be applied to the winter operation because the winter operation is the primary
operating season as set forth in the evidence and above.
The proposed modification snakes the two operating seasons consistent and more
conducive to the operating needs of the applicant without increasing the overall operating hours.
Without the change, the primary operating season — which is winter - is extremely limited.
3. Appeal of Condition of Approval "T" which limits the number of "visitors" on the
property does not relate to any approval criterion.
Condition of Approval "T" provides that "[t]he total number of riders and visitors is
limited to 20 per weekday or weekend session." The applicant asks the Board of
Commissioners to remove the "visitors" from the cap because visitor impacts are already
regulated by the DCC 8.08.040 the County Noise Ordinance, and the limitation on parking.
Visitors generally include parents and siblings of students and including them in the cap on
riders has the effect of reducing the number of riders allowed in a class.
The decision discusses a limit of 20 on the number of riders as a means to minimize and
address potential impacts to surrounding neighbors (Decision, page 60), but then the Condition
Page 6 — NOTICE OF APPEAL —247-22-000812-CU/247-22-000813-SP Homan, Justin FITCH & NEARY, P.C.
210 SW 5"' St., Suite 2
Redmond, OR 97756
Phone: 541-316- l 588
Fax: 541-316-1943
of Approval includes "visitors" in that cap. The limitation on the number of "visitors" in the
Condition of Approval does not relate to any approval standard because visitors are already
regulated by the Deschutes County Noise Control Ordinance provision of DCC 8.08.040 (no
unreasonably loud or raucous noise), and by the limitation on the parking available, and the
hours of operation.
Any spectators on -site to watch the riders are generally the parents/guardians and siblings
of the rider participating in a class. The spectators are generally quiet and observant. The
spectators also do not create dust and there is no evidence in the record that the "visitors" cause
other concerns related to an applicable standard that requires a limitation on the number of
"visitors."
The decision already limits the hours of operation and the number of riders in response to
the applicable criteria to minimize any potential adverse impacts from the motorcycle use. There
are no known or identified potential impacts from any "visitors" so a limitation on the number of
"visitors" is not related to an applicable standard.
The application of this condition makes it extremely hard to assure riders that they will be
able to participate in classes. If a student — which are generally minors - has parents and siblings
that must be on -site during the class, the total number of riders that can participate in the class
session is reduced accordingly. With a maximum of 20 people ("riders and visitors") on site, the
applicant would have to turn parents, siblings, or riders away from a session if there are too
many people on site.
It is imperative to have the legal guardian of a minor rider on -site during the session, and
often those legal guardians/parents have other minor children in tow (ie siblings). The applicant
acquiesces to the limit on the number of riders, but asks that the limit not also include "visitors"
which is an extreme hardship in the operation of the proposed use.
In addition, under state land use law, it is impermissible as a matter of law for the county
to impose a condition of approval relating to "visitors" without finding that such limitation on
"visitors" is warranted due to the proposed use and due to such adverse impacts "visitors" may
have under the applicable standards. Without identifying what adverse impacts to the
surrounding area will result from the potential impacts of "visitors," no condition of approval is
warranted. It is not clear and objective in terms of what the condition of approval seeks to
accomplish. Therefore, the applicant requests that the reference to "visitors" be struck from
Condition of Approval "T."
Page 7 — NOTICE OF APPEAL —247-22-000812-CU/247-22-000813-SP Homan, .Tustin FITCH & NEARY, P.C.
210 SW 5"' St., Suite 2
Redmond, OR 97756
Phone: 541-316-1588
Fax: 541-316-1943
4. Appeal of Condition of Approval "BB" requiring construction of a new Restroom
Facility.
Condition of Approval `BB" requires the Property Owner to apply to Deschutes County
Onsite Wastewater Division, to the Planning Division and to the Building Division for approval
of siting and construction of a restroom with running water and full facilities including
lavatories.
The applicant appeals condition of approval "BB" to allow the applicant to work with the
Deschutes County wastewater division to determine the restroom facility requirements.
While the applicant understands the need to provide a place for patrons to use restroom
facilities, the applicant has bathrooms available in his house, and has successfully used portable
toilets without any negative issues or smells. The Condition of Approval specifically requires
construction of a new restroom facility building. The applicant appeals to ask that the decision
not limit the restroom options that may be available for use at the facility subject to Deschutes
County wastewater division approval.
B. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for
review by the Board stating the reasons why the Board should review the lower Hearings
Body's decision.
FINDING: The appeal seeks clarification and reconciliation of conflicting conditions of approval
and clarification as to how the county noise ordinance applies to the approved use. The hearings
officer also imposed conditions of approval that are not supported by or are in conflict with the
substantial evidence in the record, or which do not apply to any specific approval criterion.
C. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo
review is desired, a request for de novo review by the Board stating the reasons why the
Board should provide de novo review as provided in DCC 22.32.030.
FINDING: The applicant requests de novo review of the issues raised on appeal herein. The issue
concerning the DCC 8.08.040(N) County Noise Ordinance as it applies to an approved use for an
ROF motocross track, and the intended exception in the code for motorcycle noise when operated
within the terms of a permit, is an issue of first impression for the Board of Commissioners.
The applicant faces extreme hardship if he makes all of the improvements required and
invests all of the sums necessary to comply with the conditions of approval, if he could still be
subject to possible code enforcement proceedings to address how the county noise ordinance
applies to the approved use. Any such enforcement proceeding could result in nullifying the use if
the conflicts and clarity of the conditions of approval regulating motorcycle noise are not resolved
by the Board of Commissioners herein.
Page 8 — NOTICE OF APPEAL —247-22-000812-CU/247-22-000813-SP Homan, Justin FITCH & NEARY, P.C.
210 SW 511' St., Suite 2
Redmond, OR 97756
Phone: 541-316-1588
Fax: 541-316-1943
The Board of Commissioners, as the legislative body of the county, is the only body that
can issue a binding interpretation of the county code. Here it is necessary for de novo review so
that the Board has an opportunity to fully and properly evaluate the issues on review which are of
first impression. The Board's application and interpretation of DCC 8.08.040 is important enough
and the stakes are extremely high for the applicant all which further warrant the Board of
Commissioners addressing the issues raised de novo.
2.32.024 Transcript Requirement
1. Except as otherwise provided in DCC 22.32.024, appellants shall provide a complete
transcript of any hearing appealed from, from recorded magnetic tapes provided by
the Planning Division.
2. Appellants shall submit to the Planning Division the transcript no later than the close
of the day five days prior to the date set for a de novo appeal hearing or, in on -the -
record appeals, the date set for receipt of written arguments. Unless excused under
DCC 22.32.024, an appellant's failure to provide a transcript shall cause the Board to
decline to consider the appellant's appeal further and shall, upon notice mailed to the
parties, cause the lower Hearings Body's decision to become final.
3. An appellant shall be excused from providing a complete transcript if appellant was
prevented from complying by: (1) the inability of the Planning Division to supply
appellant with a magnetic tape or tapes of the prior proceeding; or (2) defects on the
magnetic tape or tapes of the prior proceeding that make it not reasonably possible
for applicant to supply a transcript. Appellants shall comply to the maximum extent
reasonably and practicably possible.
4. Notwithstanding any other provisions in DCC 22.32, the appeal hearings body may,
at any time, waive the requirement that the appellant provide a complete transcript
for the appeal hearing.
FINDING: The appellant agrees to the transcript requirements imposed by this criterion.
22.32.027 Scone Of Review
1. Before Hearings Officer or Planning Commission. The review on appeal before the Hearings
Officer or Planning Commission shall be de novo.
2. Before the Board.
1. Review before the Board, if accepted, shall be on the record except as otherwise
provided for in DCC 22.32.027.
2. The Board may grant an appellant's request for a de novo review at its discretion
after consideration of the following factors:
1. Whether hearing the application de novo could cause the 150-day time limit
to be exceeded; and
2. If the magnetic tape of the hearing below, or a portion thereof, is unavailable
due to a malfunctioning of the recording device during that hearing, whether
Page 9 -- NOTICE OF APPEAL-247-22-000812-CU/247-22-000813-SP Homan, Justin FITCH A NEARY, P.C.
210 SW 5111 St., Suite 2
Redmond, OR 97756
Phone: 54 I-316-1588
Fax: 541-316-1943
review on the record would be hampered by the absence of a transcript of all
or a portion of the hearing below; or
3. Whether the substantial rights of the parties would be significantly prejudiced
without de novo review and it does not appear that the request is necessitated
by failure of the appellant to present evidence that was available at the time
of the previous review; or
4. Whether in its sole judgment a de novo hearing is necessary to fully and
properly evaluate a significant policy issue relevant to the proposed land use
action.
For the purposes of DCC 22.32.027, if an applicant is an appellant, factor DCC
22.32.027(B)(2)(a) shall not weigh against the appellant's request if the applicant has
submitted with its notice of appeal written consent on a form approved by the County
to restart the 150-day time clock as of the date of the acceptance of applicant's appeal.
FINDING:
1. The applicant is the appellant, and the 150-day clock is near expiration. Therefore, the
applicant / appellant hereby agrees to restart the clock to allow time for the appeal as set forth
above.
2. The substantial rights of the applicant are prejudiced by the decision on review. The
applicant requests de novo review of the issues appealed herein to allow the Board of
Commissioners an opportunity to fully understand the proposed use and reconcile or amend the
conditions of approval as addressed above.
3. Notwithstanding DCC 22.32.027(B)(2), the Board may decide on its own to hear a
timely filed appeal de novo.
4. The Board may, at its discretion, determine that it will limit the issues on appeal to
those listed in an appellant's notice of appeal or to one or more specific issues from
among those listed on an applicant's notice of appeal.
FINDING: The appellant requests that the Board limit the issues on appeal to those listed in
appellant's notice of appeal.
DATED this 171h day of October 2023.
F CH & NE
LI N CH, OSB 4040012
f Attorneys for Appellant / Applicant below
Email: lisa(a�fitchandneary.com
P: 541.316.1588 F: 541.316.1943
Page 10 — NOTICE OF APPEAL —247-22-000812-CU/247-22-000813-SP Homan, Justin FITCH & NEARV, F.C.
210 SW 51" St., Suite 2
Redmond, OR 97756
Phone: 541-316-1588
Fax: 541-316-1943
NOTICE OF HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION
The Deschutes County Hearings Officer has APPROVED the land use application(s) described below:
FILE NUMBERS: 247-22-000812-CU / 247-22-000813-SP
SUBJECT PROPERTY/
OWNER: Mailing Name: HOMAN, JUSTIN M
Map and Taxlot: 1512110000600
Account: 124991
Situs Address: 7505 NW EAGLE DR, REDMOND, OR 97756
APPLICANT: Justin Homan
REQUEST: The applicant requests conditional use and site plan approval for a
recreation -oriented facility requiring large acreage. Specifically, the
applicant proposes an outdoor motocross facility.
HEARINGS OFFICER: Alan Rappleyea
STAFF PLANNER: Caroline House, Senior Planner
Phone: 541-388-6667
Email: Caroline. House@deschutes.org
RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from:
https://www deschutes or /g cd/page/247-22-000812-cu-247-22-
000813-sp-homan-outdoor-motocross-track
STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
Deschutes County Code (DCC)
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 18.60, Rural Residential Zone (RR10) [EXHIBIT
Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS)
Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions
117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 ( P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
Q, (541) 388-6575 @cddCa)deschutes.org @ www.deschutes.org/cd
I'm
Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review
Chapter 18.128, Conditional Use
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
DECISION: The Hearings Officer finds that the application meets applicable criteria, and approval
is being granted subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
A. This approval is based upon the application, site plan, specifications, and supporting
documentation submitted by the applicant. Any substantial change in this approved use will
require review through a new land use application.
B. The Property Owner shall obtain any necessary permits from the Deschutes County Building
Division, Environmental Soils Division and Onsite Wastewater Disposal Division.
C. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as
allowed under DCC 18.120.040.
D. No lighting associated with the proposed use shall project directly onto an existing runway
or taxiway or into existing airport approach surfaces except where necessary for safe and
convenient air travel.
E. Lighting shall incorporate shielding in their designs to reflect light away from airport
approach surfaces.
F. No use shall imitate airport lighting or impede the ability of pilots to distinguish between
airport lighting and other lighting.
G. No glare producing material, including but not limited to unpainted metal or reflective glass,
shall be used on the exterior of structures.
H. The subsequent use of the property for which the permit is issued shall be conditional upon
the unqualified continuance and availability of the amount of parking and loading space
required by DCC Title 18.
I. Off-street parking areas used to fulfill the requirements of DCC Title 18 shall not be used for
loading and unloading operations except during periods of the day when not required to
take care of parking needs.
J. Required parking facilities for 15 spaces shall be provided prior to or concurrently with
construction and/or initiation of the proposed use. The parking area shall be graveled and
not cindered.
247-22-000812-CU / 813-SP Page 2 of 6
L
K. Required parking spaces shall be available for the parking of operable passenger
automobiles of residents, customers, patrons and employees only and shall not be used for
the storage of vehicles or materials or for the parking of trucks used in conducting the
business or used in conducting the business or use.
L. There shall be no on -street parking for customers or visitors to the motocross course.
M. Any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking areas shall be so arranged that it will not
project light rays directly upon any adjoining property in a residential zone.
N. The service drive clear vision area shall be maintained in accordance with DCC 18.116.020(A).
O. All trees and shrubs existing on -site, not removed by necessity of the proposed development,
shall be protected, unless lawfully changed/removed by outright uses (such as farm use) or
such change/removal is approved by future land use approvals.
P. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off site.
Q. Provision shall be made for watering planting areas where such care is required.
R. Required landscaping shall be continuously maintained and kept alive and attractive.
S. Hours of Operation:
The hours of operation are limited as follows:
October -March: two weekdays per week and one day per weekend.
The Property Owner has the ability to select these days based on
weather, other events and customers.
Hours of operation on the 2 weekdays is limited to 10 am to 3 pm.
Hours of operation on the one weekend day is limited to 10 am to 3
pm and 6pm to 7:30pm. Total hours per week are limited to 10 hours.
April to September: two weekdays per week and one day per
weekend. Applicant has the ability to select these days based on
weather, other events and customers.
Hours of operation on the 2 weekdays and the one weekend day is
limited to 10 am to 3 pm and 5 pm to 8 pm. Total hours per week are
limited to 10 hours. If Applicant opts not to operate during October -
March, applicant shall be limited to 20 hours per week.
T. The total number of riders and visitors at any given time is limited to 20 per weekday or
weekend session.
247-22-000812-CU / 813-SP Page 3 of 6
U. The Property Owner will comply with the County Noise Control Ordinance DCC Chapter 8.08
and shall not allow or engage in any uses on the Property that result in "unreasonably loud
or raucous noise, defined in DCC 8.08.040(N) as "the use of any off -road motorcycle where it
is heard by the occupant from the premises of an inhabited residence not owned by the
user."
V. The Property Owner will comply with DEQ Noise Control Regulations for In -Use Motor
Vehicles OAR 340-035-0030 or as amended.
W. The Property Owner shall not allow any person to operate an off -road motorcycle on the
Property which exceeds a stationary noise level limit measured at 20 inches from the vehicle
of 99 decibels, or in a manner as to exceed a moving vehicle noise level limit measured at 50
feet from the vehicle of 82 decibels. For the purposes of this condition, terms defined under
OAR 340-035-0015 shall have the meaning(s) defined thereunder.
X. The Property Owner shall not allow any person to operate an off -road recreational vehicle
with any of the following defects: no muffler, leaks in the exhaust system, and/or pinched
outlet pipe.
Y. Ambient Noise Limits: The Property Owner shall not cause, allow, permit or fail to control the
operation of motorcycles on the Property if the operation thereof increases the ambient
- noise level above 60 decibels during the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and/or above 55 decibels
during the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. as measured from any residence located within 1,000
feet of the motor vehicle. For the purposes of this condition, terms defined under OAR 340-
035-0015 shall have the meaning(s) defined thereunder.
Z. The Property Owner will test motorcycles once every week at the facility to ensure
compliance with DEQ noise requirements.
AA. Where any condition imposed by this decision is less restrictive than any comparable
conditions imposed by which is more restrictive, the more restrictive shall govern.
BB. The Property Owner will make application to the Deschutes County Onsite Wastewater
Division, to the Planning Division and to the Building Division for approval of siting and
construction of a restroom with running water and full facilities including lavatories. These
facilities shall be reviewed, approved and provided prior to or concurrently with construction
and/or initiation of the proposed use.
CC. The Property Owner will have a functioning water truck on the site to suppress dust and
fires.
DD. The number of employees, besides the Property Owner, is limited to two.
247-22-000812-CU / 813-SP Page 4 of 6
EE. The Property Owner will abide by yard and setbacks per DCC 18.60.040(A), (B), & (C) for the
improved structures. The berms are improved structures and must be moved from the
setback areas.
FF. No structures shall be greater than 30 feet in height.
GG. Refuse storage must be buffered and screened from view from neighboring properties.
HH. No competitive racing is allowed other than for training and education.
This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date mailed, unless appealed by a party
of interest. To appeal, it is necessary to submit a Notice of Appeal, the base appeal deposit plus
20% of the original application fee(s), and a statement raising any issue relied upon for appeal with
sufficient specificity to afford the Board of County Commissioners an adequate opportunity to
respond to and resolve each issue.
Copies of the decision, application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. Copies can be purchased
for 25 cents per page.
NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIEN HOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF
YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER.
247-22-000812-CU / 813-SP
Page 5 of 6
247-22-000812-CU / 813-SP Page 6 of 6