HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-97-Ordinance No. 2026-007 Recorded 4/6/2026REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
Recorder! in Deschutes County
Steve Dennison, County Clerk CJ2026-97
Commissioners' Journal 04/06/2026 3:09:42 PM
A
20Z6-91
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code
Title 18, Zoning Ordinance, to Amend the
Development Standards for Recreational Vehicle
Parks in the Tumalo Commercial District.
* ORDINANCE NO. 2026-007
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Community Development Department (CDD) reviewed applicant -
initiated amendments (Planning Division File No. 247-25-000106-TA) to the Deschutes County Code ("DCC"),
Chapter 18.67—Tumalo Rural Community Zoning Districts; and
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Hearings Officer held a duly noticed public hearing on June 16, 2025;
and
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Hearings Officer issued their recommendation on September 3, 2025,
and recommended that the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") approve the subject amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Board approved Order 2025-040 on September 3, 2025, initiating a de novo review of
the subject application and subsequently held a duly noticed public hearing on October 22, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Board approved Order 2026-007 on January 14, 2026, which reopened the record to
accept new testimony and continued the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Board considered this matter after a continued public hearing on February 11, 2026, and
concluded that the public will benefit from the proposed changes to the Deschutes County Code Title 18; now,
therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:
Section 1. AMENDING. Deschutes County Code Chapter 18.67, Tumalo Rural Community Zoning
Districts, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein,
with new language underlined and language to be deleted in strik�.
Section 13. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings Exhibit "B", attached and incorporated by
reference herein. The Board also incorporates in its findings in support of this decision, the Recommendation of
the Hearings Officer, attached as Exhibit "C" and incorporated by reference herein.
PAGE I OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO.2026-007
Dated this of 2026
ATTEST:
i
Recording Secretary
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
PHILIP CHANG, Clair
ANTHONY E, Vice Chair
PATTI ADAIR, Commissioner
Date of Is'Reading: K' day of _jjnJ, 2026.
3r
Date of 2" `' Reading: 15 day of o 2026.
Record of Adoption Vote:
Commissioner Yes
Philip Chang
Anthony DeBone �C
Patti Adair
No Abstained Excused
X
Effective date: J a day of J U n,P— , 2026.
PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO.2026-007
Attachment A: Proposed Text Amendment
18.67.040 Commercial (TuC) District
The Tumalo Commercial District is intended to allow a range of limited commercial and industrial
uses to serve the community and surrounding area or the travel needs of people passing through
the area.
A. Permitted Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright and do
not require site plan review under DCC 18.124.
1. A single -unit dwelling or duplex.
2. A manufactured dwelling subject to DCC 18.116.070.
3. Type 1 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280.
4. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition,
subdivision, or subject to the standards of DCC 18.67.060 and 18.116.230.
5. Class III road or street project.
6. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an
Irrigation District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050.
7. Residential home.
B. Uses Permitted, Subject to Site Plan Review. The following uses and their accessory uses
are permitted subject to the applicable provisions of DCC 18.67, 18.116, and 18.124:
1. A building or buildings, none of which exceeds 4,000 square feet of floor area to be
used by any combination of the following uses:
a. Retail or service business.
b. Eating and/or drinking establishment.
c. Offices.
d. A dwelling unit permitted outright or conditionally, in the same building as a
use permitted in DCC 18.67.040.
e. Marijuana wholesaling, office only. There shall be no storage of marijuana
items or products at the same location.
2. Any of the uses listed under DCC 18.67.040 proposing to occupy more than 4,000
square feet of floor area in a building subject to the provisions of DCC 18.67.040(E).
3. Child care facility and/or preschool.
Conditional Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted subject to
the applicable provisions of DCC 18.116, 18.124, and 18,128:
1. Religious institutions or assemblies.
2. Bed and breakfast inn.
3. Type 2 or Type 3 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280.
4. Park.
S. Public or semi-public building.
6. Utility facility.
7. Water supply or treatment facility.
8. Manufactured dwelling on a lot or parcel in use as a manufactured dwelling
park prior to the adoption of PL-15 in 1979 and being
operated as of June 12, 1996, as a manufactured dwelling park
pa4, including any expansion of such uses on the same lot or parcel as configured on
June 12, 1996.
9. The following uses and their accessory uses may be conducted in a building or
buildings not to exceed 4,000 square feet of floor area.
Attachment A
Page 1 of 4
a. Farm equipment, sales, service, or repair.
b. Trailer sales, service, or repair.
c. Vehicle service or repair.
d. Veterinary clinic.
10. The following uses may be conducted in a building or buildings not to exceed
10,000 square feet of floor area:
a. Manufacturing or production.
b. Wholesale sales.
c. Marijuana retailing, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330.
11. Wireless telecommunications facilities, except those facilities meeting the
requirements of DCC 18.116.250(A) or (B).
12. Surface mining of mineral and aggregate resources in conjunction with the operation
and maintenance of irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District, including the
excavation and mining for facilities, ponds, reservoirs, and the off -site use, storage,
and sale of excavated material.
13. Psilocybin service centers, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.380.
14. Recreational Vehicle Parks.
D. Use Limitations. The following use limitations shall apply to the uses listed in DCC
18.67.040(C)(10).
1. Compatibility.
a. Any use expected to generate more than 50 truck -trailer and/or heavy
equipment trips per day to and from the subject property shall not be
permitted to locate on a lot or parcel abutting or across a local or collector
street from a lot or parcel in a residential district.
2. Traffic and Parking.
a. A use that generates more than 20 auto or truck trips during the peak hour of
the day to and from the premises shall document with facts that the affected
transportation facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use, considering
the functional classification, capacity, and level of service of the affected
transportation facility.
b. All parking demand generated by uses permitted by DCC 18.67 shall be
accommodated entirely on the premises.
E. Requirements for Large Scale Uses.
1. All uses listed in DCC 18.67.040(B) may have a total floor area exceeding 4,000 square
feet but not greater than 10,000 square feet if the Planning Director or Hearings Body
finds:
a. The use is intended to serve the community and surrounding rural area, or
the traveling needs of people passing through the area;
b. The use will primarily employ a work force from the community and
surrounding rural area; and
c. It is not practical to contain the proposed use within 4,000 square feet of the
floor area.
2. This provision does not apply to uses listed in DCC 18.67.040(C)(10).
3. For the purposes of DCC 18,67.040, the surrounding rural area is described as the
following: extending north to the Township boundary between Townships 15 and 16;
extending west to the boundary of the public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service
in T16S-R11E; extending south to the south section lines of T17S-R12E sections 4,5,6
and T17S-R11E sections 1,2,3; and extending east to Highway 97.
Attachment A
Page 2 of 4
F, Design Standards. Ground Floor Windows. The following criteria for ground floor windows
apply to new buildings in the TuC district except those uses listed in DCC 18.67.040(C)(10) and
any residential use. The provisions of DCC 18.124 also apply.
1. The windows must be at least 50 percent of the length of the ground level wall area
and 25 percent of height of the ground level wall area. Ground level wall area includes
all exterior wall area up to nine feet above the finished grade. The window
requirement applies to the ground level of exterior building walls which abut
sidewalks or streets.
2. Required window areas shall be either windows that allow views into working areas,
lobbies, pedestrian entrances or display windows.
G. Lot Area Requirements. The minimum lot area is 10,000 square feet. In addition, lot area
requirements for this district shall be determined by spatial requirements for sewage disposal,
required landscaped areas, and off-street parking.
H. Lot Coverage Standards.
1. Lot Coverage: No lot coverage requirements, provided spatial requirements for
parking, sewage disposal, and landscaping are satisfied.
2. No use listed in DCC 18.67.040(C)(10) that is abutting or across a local or collector from
a lot or parcel in a residential district shall exceed 70 percent lot coverage, including
outside storage, and off-street parking and loading areas.
I. Setback Standards.
1. Front Setback. The front setback shall be a maximum of 15 feet, except as otherwise
allowed by DCC 18.124.070 (D)(3). The front setback for structures may be reduced,
but not increased, to the average setback distance of existing structures on abutting
lots or parcels.
2. Side Setback. No requirement, subject to DCC 18.67.040(I)(4).
3. Rear Setback. No specific requirement, subject to DCC 18.67.040 (1)(4).
4. Exceptions to Setback Standards.
a. Lot line(s) abutting a residential zone. For all new structures or substantial
alterations of a structure requiring a building permit, on a lot or parcel
abutting a residential district, the setback shall be a minimum of 15 feet. The
required setback will be increased by one foot for each foot by which the
structure height exceeds 20 feet.
b. Lot line(s) abutting an EFU zone. Any structure requiring a building permit, on
a lot or parcel abutting EFU-zoned land receiving special assessment for farm
use, shall have a minimum setback of 100 feet from any shared lot line.
J. Additional Standards for Recreational Vehicle Parks
1. Recreational Vehicle Parks shall only be allowed on a single parcel or contiguous
parcels under common ownership that meet the following requirements
a. The area of the parcel(s) proposed for development shall exceed 2.3 acres
but no more than 5 acres;
b. The parcel(s) shall all be located in the boundaries of a sanitary district or
sanitary authority, or confirmation shall be provided that a sewage collection
and disposal system that can serve the proposed sewage flow from the
Recreational Vehicle Park is both legally and physically available; and
c. The single parcel or at least one of the contiguous parcels under common
ownership shall be adjacent to State Highway 20
2. Compliance with DCC 18.128.170.
a. To ensure compliance with DCC 18.128.170(G) which prohibits any
Attachment A
Page 3 of 4
recreational vehicle remaining in a park for more than 30 days in a 60 day
period, Recreational Vehicle Parks in the Tumalo Commercial District shall
only provide temporary lodging with no recreational vehicles utilized as
permanent "residential dwellings" as that term is used in ORS 197.493.
Compliance with DCC 18.128.170(0) requiring that access to a Recreational
Vehicle Park shall be from an arterial or collector street shall not be
applicable in the Tumalo Commercial District so long as an applicant instead
demonstrates that the street providing direct access to the proposed
Recreational Vehicle Park shall not be unreasonably impacted. To
demonstrate compliance with this standard, an applicant shall address
traffic capacity and flow, geometric design pavement design livability
impacts on local residents, and accessibility and convenience to amenities
and state highways.
Recreational Vehicle Parks in the Tumalo Commercial District shall impose
quiet hours from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am daily.
Attachment A
Page 4 of 4
Draft Findings for Board of County Commissioners Decision
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
BASIC FINDINGS OF FACT
The Board adopts and incorporates by reference the code interpretations, findings of fact, and
conclusions of law in the Hearings Officer's Recommendation (the "Recommendation") except to
the extent that the Recommendation is inconsistent with or modified by the Board's findings
herein. The Recommendation is attached as Exhibit C to Ordinance 2026-007.
The Board's findings are set forth below:
a. Procedural History
The applicant, Joel Gisler ("Applicant"), submitted an application on February 18, 2025, seeking
a text amendment to DCC 18.67.040 to alter the manner in which Recreational Vehicle Parks ("RV
Parks") may be permitted in the Tumalo Commercial District ("TUC") (the "Text Amendment").
On June 9, 2025, a staff report was issued in advance of the public hearing before the Hearings
Officer, scheduled for June 16, 2025. Following that public hearing, the Hearings Officer issued
his Recommendation on September 2, 2025. The Hearings Officer found that the application met
all applicable text amendment criteria but declined to make a formal decision, based on a finding
that only the Board has the authority to amend DCC. Noting that the application invoked
"legislative/policy" decisions that needed to be considered by the Board, the Hearings Officer
recommended approval of the proposed text amendment, "unless the [Board] detennines there is
a legislative/policy reason not to adopt the amendments" (emphasis in original).
The Board voted to "call up" the Recommendation on September 3, 2025, pursuant to DCC
22.28.050(A) via Order No. 2025-040. The Board conducted a de novo public hearing on October
22, 2025, and thereafter held the written record open until November 12, 2025.
The Board's deliberations were originally scheduled for January 7, 2026. However, numerous
public comments were submitted after the record closed on November 12, 2025. To provide clarity
on the nature of the proceedings and to ensure that all parties were provided ample opportunity to
present evidence and testimony, the Board approved Order No. 2026-005 on January 14, 2026.
Order No. 2026-005 reopened both the written and oral record and continued the public hearing
so that public notice could be provided.
The Board held a continued public hearing on February 11, 2026. County staff clarified that,
consistent with the Hearing Officer's Recommendation, the Board was considering the proposed
Text Amendment as a legislative matter to address the "legislative/policy" issues the Hearings
Officer stated were left to the Board's consideration. Following the public hearing, the Board
closed the record, deliberated, and voted 2-1 (Commissioner Adair opposed) to approve the
proposed Text Amendment. The Board subsequently approved Ordinance No. 2026-007 on April
1, 2026, memorializing the Board's oral decision.
b. Clarifying Findings
The Board addresses several issues raised before the Hearings Officer concerning the staff report
submitted on the application and makes the following clarifying findings at the outset:
Map: In order to detennine the maximum number of properties that could potentially be
eligible for an RV Park under the applicant's proposal, staff produced a map identifying
properties in the TUC that consist of parcels under common ownership which are 2 to 5
acres in size and contiguous to Highway 20. This map did not include information on
whether a property was located within a sewer district and did not confirm that an RV Park
could be developed on any specific property. This map identified two properties in the
TUC that met the size requirement and were contiguous to Highway 20, with one of the
identified properties located west of Highway 20 on Wood Avenue. The Wood Avenue
property is not located within a sewer district and the applicant later revised the proposed
text amendment to increase the minimum RV Park acreage from 2 to 2.3 acres. Therefore,
only the Applicant's property located to the east of Highway 20 is presently eligible to
apply for a conditional use permit to develop an RV Park with approval of the text
amendment.
• Onsite Wastewater: Whether on -site wastewater permits could be approved for the
Applicant's property is not relevant because the Text Amendment requires that any RV
Park in the TUC be connected to a central sewer system.
• State Building Codes: The Text Amendment does not change DCC 18.128.170(I) which
requires any RV Park developed in the County to provide "toilets, lavatories and showers"
based on the number of RV spots. Compliance with DCC 18.128.170(I) and OAR 918-
650-0050(I) will be addressed in review of a subsequent conditional use permit application
for any RV Park proposed to be developed in the TUC.
• "Adding" RV Parks as a Conditional Use: The Text Amendment will not "add" RV
Parks as a conditional use in the TUC. RV Parks are allowable as a conditional use in the
TUC subject to a historical limitation. The Text Amendment replaces that historical
limitation with a geographic limitation. i
II. FINDINGS
These findings address issues raised in the Board's proceedings. The Board has no obligation to
address arguments not related to applicable criteria or to address insufficiently developed
arguments. See, e.g., Wolverton v. Crook County, 39 Or LUBA 256 (2000); Gould v. Deschutes
County, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No 2018-140, June 21, 2019) (slip op at * 15), gff'd, 31 Or
App 868, 484 P3d 1073 (2021) (citing Deschutes Development v. Deschutes County, 5 Or LUBA
218, 220 (1982). Any issue raised or argument asserted in the Hearing Officer's proceedings that
By "geographic limitation" the Board is referring to the requirement that the tract proposed for any RV
Park development in the TUC must be at least 2.3 acres but no more than 5 acres in size, be located within
the boundaries of a sanitary district or sanitary authority or otherwise be served by an adequate sewage
collection and disposal system and include at least one parcel that is adjacent to State Highway 20.
is not addressed in the Hearing Officer's Recommendation or in these Findings has been
determined to be insufficiently developed and/or not related to applicable code criteria.
A. Procedural Findings
a. The Hearings Officer Conducted the Initial Public Hearing.
DCC 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.
DCC 22.28.030 Decision On Plan Amendments and Zone Changes
A. Except as set forth herein, the Hearings Officer or the Planning Commission when acting
as the Hearings Body shall have authority to make decisions on all quasi-
judicial zone
changes and plan amendments. Prior to becoming effective, all quasi-judicial plan
amendments and zone changes shall be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners.
B. In considering all quasi-judicial zone changes and those quasi-judicial plan amendments
on which the Hearings Of has authority to make a decision, the Board of County
Commissioners shall, in the absence of an appeal or review initiated by the Board, adopt
the Hearings Officer's decision. No argument or fisrther testimony will be taken by the
Board.
FINDING: There is no provision in DCC Chapter 22 setting forth the procedures for processing
an application for a quasi-judicial text amendment, even though DCC 18.136.010 allows both "text
or legislative map changes" applications to be submitted. The Board agrees with the Hearings
Officer's findings that the proceedings before the Hearings Officer were quasi-judicial.
Accordingly, the Board interprets DCC 22.28.030 as applying to the subject Text Amendment and
finds that the initial hearing was properly conducted before a County Hearings Officer. No party
objected to the initial hearing not having been held by the Planning Commission under DCC
22.28.030(A), nor demonstrated that their substantial rights were impaired by the County Hearings
Officer conducting the initial hearing.
b. The Hearings Officer Issued a Recommendation.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer proceedings followed those of a quasi-judicial text amendment.
The Hearing Officer determined that amendment of the Deschutes County Code must be by
adoption of an ordinance. Therefore, the Hearings Officer issued a Recommendation to the Board,
noting several "legislative/policy" issues that the Hearing Officer determined were best considered
by the Board.
3
No party appealed the Hearing Officer's Recommendation or otherwise objected to the Hearings
Officer issuing a Recommendation. Because the Board initiated its own review, no party's
substantial rights were impacted and any potential procedural errors were cured. All parties who
participated in the Hearings Officer proceedings were given notice of the public hearings held by
the Board and were provided the opportunity to participate in the Board's proceedings both orally
and in writing.
c. The Board of Commissioners Conducted Legislative Review.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer determined that the Text Amendment complied with all
applicable DCC provisions. The Hearings Officer recommended that the Board adopt the Text
Amendment unless the Board determined that "there is a legislative/policy reason to not adopt the
amendments" (emphasis in original). As understood by the Board, the Hearings Officer's
Recommendation detennined that the first required step was a quasi-judicial process before the
Hearings Officer with the second step then being a legislative process before the Board.
The Board takes no position on the Hearings Officer's processing of the Text Amendment
application. The Board finds that no party appealed or otherwise objected to the Hearings Officer's
Recommendation or otherwise argued that the Board was required to continue following a quasi-
judicial process in its review. Any procedural errors that may have resulted from the Hearings
Officer's Recommendation were corrected by Board Order No. 2025-040 initiating review, and
Board Order No. 2026-005 re -opening the public hearing to clarify that the Board's proceedings
were legislative. By re -opening the public hearing, the Board notes that all submitted public
testimony was added to the record and considered by the Board., All parties were provided three
(3) opportunities to present argument and testimony in this matter: once before the Hearings
Officer, and twice before the Board.
The Board finds that no individual's substantial rights were prejudiced by the Board considering
the Hearing Officer's Recommendation and following a legislative process in deciding whether to
approve the Text Amendment.
B. Technical Findings
The Hearings Officer's Recommendation is focused on applicable DCC provisions governing text
amendments. Based on his analysis, the Hearings Officer recommended that the Board adopt the
proposed Text Amendment unless the Board determined there are legislative/policy reasons not to
adopt the amendments. To distinguish the Hearings Officer's analysis from the Board's own
analysis, the Board describes the Hearings Officer's Recommendation as primarily including
"technical" findings.
The Board adopts and incorporates by reference the Hearing Officer's code interpretations,
technical findings of fact, and conclusions of law in the Recommendation, except to the extent the
Hearings Officer's technical findings are inconsistent with or modified by the Board's findings
herein. The Board adds to the Hearings Officer's technical findings as follows:
a. The Text Amendment is Consistent with Applicable Traffic Impact Standards.
OAR 660-012-0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments
.19
(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. If a
local government is evaluating a performance standard based on projected levels of motor
vehicle traffic, then the results must be 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 trafc generation, including, but not limited to,
transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate
the significant effect of the amendment.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional
classification of an existing or planned transportation facility;
(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such
that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or
comprehensive plan; or
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that
is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP
or comprehensive plan.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer found that the Applicant met the applicable traffic criteria for
text amendment applications by demonstrating compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule
("TPR"). The Hearings Officer rejected opposition comments claiming that an RV Park will cause
adverse traffic impacts in terms of volume and safety.
During its deliberations, the Board voted 2-1 (with Commissioner Adair opposed) in favor of
adopting the Hearings Officer's finding that the Applicant demonstrated compliance with the TPR
through the three reports submitted by its licensed traffic engineer on February 18, 2025, October
21, 2025, and October 29, 2025. The Text Amendment does not have the potential to create a
significant impact on the transportation system, which satisfies the TPR . As the Applicant's traffic
engineer determined in its October 21, 2025 report, a 30-unit residential developmenta use that
is already permitted within the TUC on the Applicant's property —would generate an estimated
166 more daily trips compared to a 30-space RV Park. RVs can safely navigate Tumalo streets as
needed to connect an RV Park on the Applicant's property to Highway 20, as determined in the
Applicant's traffic engineer's October 29, 2025 submittal.
61
Commenters opposed to the Text Amendment argued that the Board should disregard the
Applicant's traffic engineer's submittals and instead give more credit to lay testimony arguing
generally that Tumalo's local roads cannot accommodate traffic associated with an RV Park
developed in the TUC. However, no oppositional comments questioned the data or assumptions
used by the Applicant's traffic engineer to show compliance with the TPR; no one presented any
alternative analysis demonstrating that an RV Park will have greater traffic impacts compared to
other uses allowed in the TUC.
As understood by the Board, the opponents' traffic objections present a substantial evidence issue.
Accordingly, the Board is obliged to weigh the evidence in the record while giving particular
attention to testimony from qualified experts that pertain to technical issues. The Oregon Land Use
Board of Appeals ("LUBA") determined that expert testimony must be relied upon when the
approval standard is "a more technical transportation standard such as OAR 660-012-0060 [the
TPR]." See Falcon Ridge, LLC v. City of Klamath Falls, 57 Or LUBA 651, 659 (2008). In this
case, the majority of the Board (Commissioner Adair opposed) is not persuaded by the lay
testimony from opponents. The Board finds that the Applicant's traffic engineer's submittals
constitute substantial evidence in the record supporting a finding that the Text Amendment
complies with the TPR. The Board further finds that any potential impacts to local traffic and any
mitigation of these impacts, if needed, will be addressed during review of a conditional use permit
application for an RV Park in the TUC. Any traffic related issue beyond compliance with the TPR
is not currently before the Board because no RV Park is currently proposed.
The Board notes that the Text Amendment amends DCC 18.128.170(0) which requires for any
RV Park proposed to be developed anywhere in the County that "[a]ccess * * * shall be from an
arterial or collector street." The Text Amendment alters that requirement for RV Parks proposed
in the TUC, instead requiring a demonstration that an RV Park will not unreasonably impact the
streets providing direct access by addressing "traffic capacity and flow, geometric design,
pavement design, livability impacts on local residents, and accessibility and convenience to
amenities and state highways."
The. Applicant argued that the existing requirements in DCC 18.128.170(0) would prevent an RV
Park from being developed with access from a local access road, regardless of whether such road
could be shown to provide safe and viable access. Arguments to the contrary were made by several
opponents who generically asserted that road standards should not be lowered in Tumalo.
The Board is unpersuaded by opponents' comments. For the foregoing reasons, the Board finds
that the Applicant's proposal to amend DCC 18.128.170(0) to require a site -specific traffic
analysis for RV Parks in the TUC does not functionally lower the road standards required. The
Text Amendment's reliance on a site -specific traffic analysis will help foster RV Parks in the TUC
while likewise ensuring safe and adequate access to such developments.
b. The Text Amendment is Consistent with the Tumalo Community Plan
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan- Appendix B-Tumalo Community Plan
M
Economic Development Goal. Retain the economic vibrancy of'Tumalo's historic core and
industrial areas while providing economic development opportunities that are compatible
with the small town rural character of the community.
Economic Development Policies
I...1
3. Allow residential uses and mixed residential/commercial uses, without inhibiting
future commercial development opportunities in the Commercial Zoning Districts.
4. Support economic development initiatives and tourism in the Tumalo area.
FINDING: Several opponents argued that the Text Amendment is inconsistent with the Tumalo
Community Plan. Most oppositional comments did not address any specific goal or policy in the
Tumalo Community Plan, and instead generally asserted that an RV Park does not preserve the
rural or "small town" character of the community.
The Applicant cited the Tumalo Community Plan's Economic Development Goal and
corresponding Policies 3 and 4 in support of the Text Amendment. Policy 3 is to "[a]llow
residential uses and mixed residential/commercial uses, without inhibiting future commercial
development opportunities in the Commercial Zoning Districts." Policy 4 is to "[s]upport
economic development initiatives and tourism in the Tumalo area." The Applicant further argued
that RV Parks are not inherently an urban use that would impact Tumalo's "rural" character. The
Applicant noted there are many RV Parks throughout the state that are not within urban growth
boundaries. In Deschutes County, RV parks are permitted as a conditional use in other rural zones.
Additionally, RV Parks significantly contribute to rural recreational opportunities. Last, the
Applicant noted and the Hearings Officer found that "lands in the TUC District [... ] are located in
close proximity to the adjacent State Hwy 20, thereby promoting an orderly and efficient transition
from rural to urban land use to the extent applicable."
The majority of the Board (Commissioner Adair opposed) agrees with the Applicant and Ends that
the Text Amendment is consistent with the Tumalo Community Plan including Economic
Development Policies 3 and 4. The Board further notes the letters of support in the record from
the owners of two local businesses in Tumalo which stated that local businesses in the TUC cannot
thrive without customer bases that reach beyond the limits of Tumalo, and finds that increasing
opportunities for RV Parks to be developed in the TUC is the very definition of "supporting
tourism in the Tumalo area" as mandated by Policy 4 of the Economic Development Goal in the
Tumalo Community Plan.
With respect to comments asserting that RV Parks will change Tumalo's intended rural character,
the Board agrees with the Applicant's arguments and evidence. The Board refers to the recent
adoption of the 2040 Tumalo Community Plan, Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2023-016,
Exhibit C, Tumalo Community Plan, Residential Area Policy 4. In developing the Plan, the
community did not call for prohibition of short-term rental use of 4-unit developments, thereby
evidencing the community's determination that short-term rentals do not change Tumalo's rural
character. The Board further Ends that the TUC currently allows for a range of commercial uses,
any of which could have significantly greater traffic impacts than an RV park.
7
Within the TUC, multi -unit residential developments are not allowed. The maximum density for
residential development is one duplex per lot. As demonstrated by the Applicant's traffic
engineer's October 21, 2025, submittal, the Applicant could build up to 15 duplexes (30 units) on
his property. His property also could qualify for an RV Park under the Text Amendment. If
duplexes were built, they could be used as short term rental properties. Just as with multi -unit
development in the Tumalo Residential zone (TUR), development of duplexes in the TUC that are
used as short term rental properties do not change Tumalo's rural character. The Board therefore
finds that if the use of multi -unit housing or duplexes in Tumalo as short term rentals does not
change Tumalo's rural character, then neither will an RV Park.
C. Policy/Legislative Findings
The Hearings Officer found that legislative applications "generally involve broad public policy
decisions" and "[i]n the context of a proposed text amendment, the County Board must eventually
make a policy decision as to what uses may be allowed outright and conditionally in the TUC
zone." The Board makes the following policy findings in support of its approval of the Text
Amendment.
a. The "Purpose Statement" of the TUC Should be Amended.
FINDING: The proposed Text Amendment includes a request to update the TUC's purpose
statement. Currently, uses allowed in the TUC are intended to "serve the community and
surrounding area." The Text Amendment clarifies that such uses may also serve "the travel needs
ofpeople passing through the area."
For background, the Board notes its previous 2019 decision denying a proposed commercial use
in the TUC because the use was determined to be inconsistent with the TUC's purpose statement.
See County File No 247-18-000545-CU/546SP/811-MA/247-19-000141-A. Therein, the County
determined that the purpose statement in DCC 18.67.040 is enforceable as a regulatory
requirement. That decision was upheld by LUBA. See H2D2 v. Deschutes County, 80 Or LUBA
528 (2019).
The Board finds that the TUC's purpose statement in DCC 18.67.040 is stricter than a similar
provision in OAR 660-022-0030(4)(c). Under OAR 660-022-0030(4)(c), commercial and
industrial uses in the TUC that "serve the community and surrounding rural area or the travel needs
ofpeople passing through the area," would not be precluded.
The Board finds that amending the TUC's purpose statement in accordance with OAR 660-022-
0030(4)(c) will align with existing uses in the TUC that currently serve "the travel needs ofpeople
passing through the [Tumalo] area, " as well as local residents. These existing uses include two
cideries, multiple restaurants, a coffeeshop, the Tumalo Farmstand, "The Bite" food cart pod, an
antiques store, a bicycle store, a gas station, etc. All these uses serve both residents and travelers
alike. As a policy matter, the purpose statement of the TUC should be amended in recognition of
existing uses serving the traveling public and to ensure that similar future uses are not determined
to be inconsistent with the purpose of the TUC.
The Board finds that the purpose statement in DCC 18.67.040 should be updated such that the
language is consistent with OAR 660-022-0030(4)(c).
b. The Text Amendment Supports Increased Camping Opportunities in Deschutes
County
FINDING: The record includes a study commissioned by Deschutes County and completed in
November 2023 (the "County's Study"). This Study focused on the need for more campgrounds
and RV Parks throughout the County. See Applicant's Exhibit 1. The County's Study cites
statistics that Deschutes County attracts over four million visitors annually, largely for outdoor
recreation, and that this tourism contributes over $1.41 billion to the local economy each year. The
County's Study found that the County currently has a scarcity of short-term lodging capacity that
caters to outdoor recreationists including campgrounds and RV Parks. This shortage thereby
prevents visitors from extending their stays, limiting the area's economic growth potential. The
County's Study concludes the County's lack of camping opportunities, "including for recreational
vehicles," has increased dispersed camping in the Deschutes National Forest and along roads in
the County resulting in added forest maintenance and damage to natural habitats, such as sanitation
issues, problems with trash management, and increased fire risks. The County's Study found that
Tumalo State Park, which is located near the TUC, "has consistently outperformed the state-wide
occupancy rate, often exceeding other state parks [... ] by as much as 30 percent during peak
seasons." Exhibit 10 of the County's Study provides data detailing that Tumalo State Park often
reaches full occupancy during the busiest tourist seasons.
Considering the County's Study, the Board finds the Text Amendment will enable greater
opportunity for the development of RV Parks in the TUC and therefore will help alleviate the
above -discussed issues. The Board finds that allowing new opportunities for an RV Park to be
developed in the TUC will allow more travelers to visit the County and therefore contribute to the
County and Tumalo's economic growth.
c. RV Parks Are Already Conditionally Permissible in the TUC
FINDING: Several comments assert that RV Parks are not a compatible use in the TUC. The
Board finds those arguments unpersuasive because DCC 18.67.040(C)(8) lists the expansion or
continued use of RV Parks as a conditional use in the TUC, provided the RV Park was established
prior to the adoption of PL-15 in 1979 and operated as of June 12, 1996. The Board interprets the
current DCC provisions that conditionally allow RV Parks in the TUC —even subject to historical
limitationsas confirmation that RV Parks may be compatible with other uses in that zoning
district. If past County Commissioners determined that RV Parks were per se incompatible in the
TUC, then the County would not have listed RV Parks as a conditionally permissible use.
Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that RV Parks may be a compatible use within_ the TUC,
subject to conditional use permit review. Replacing the historic limitation with a geographic
limitation as proposed by the Applicant does not run counter to the TUC.
d. The TUC District is Proximate to Tumalo's Commercial Center and the
Deschutes River
FINDING: Any RV Park proposed to be developed in the TUC will be located close to other
commercial development in the TUC and will be adjacent to Highway 20. Many visitors to
Deschutes County either stop in or pass through Tumalo and have an opportunity to visit
0
commercial development (including restaurants and shopping) that serve locals and tourists alike.
Tumalo State Park is in relatively close proximity to the TUC and currently provides campground
and RV park facilities. This indicates there is a demand for these facilities in the general Tumalo
area and that such facilities are consistent with the character of the general surrounding area.
The TUC is also proximate to the Deschutes River. Guests of a future proposed RV Park located
in the TUC near Tumalo State Park may have outdoor recreation activity opportunities as
contemplated in the County's Study.
e. Long Term Occupancies of an RV Park are Precluded by DCC 18.128.170(G)
Opponents expressed concern that a future RV Park will allow long term tenants that may bring
unwanted effects to the surrounding area. The Board is not persuaded by those arguments, and
notes that all RV Parks developed in Deschutes County must satisfy DCC 18.128.170(G), which
states that "[n]o recreational vehicle shall remain in the park for more than 30 days in any 60 day
period." Although duplicative of this code requirement, the Text Amendment includes this same
limitation on any RV Park developed in the TUC. The Board finds that concerns that the potential
development of an RV Park in the TUC could create long term tenancies are unfounded.
III. DECISION
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Board of County
Commissioners hereby APPROVES the Applicant's application for a Text Amendment to DCC
18.67.040.
10
Mailing Date:
Wednesday, September 3, 2025
DECISION, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF
THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER
FILE NUMBERS:
HEARING DATE:
HEARING LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
SUBJECT PROPERTIES:
247-25-000106-TA
June 16, 2025, 1:00 p.m.
Videoconference and
Barnes & Sawyer Rooms
Deschutes Services Center
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97708
Joel Gisler
The Tumalo Commercial Zone encompasses multiple properties
REQUEST: Applicant requests text amendments to Deschutes County Code
Chapter 18.67, Tumalo Rural Community Zoning Districts. The proposed text amendments would modify
the Cody to add recreational vehicle parks as a conditional use in the Tumalo Commercial (TUC) zone.
The proposed amendments also include specific siting standards and modifications to road access
standards.
HEARINGS OFFICER: Tommy A. Brooks
SUMMARY OF DECISION: The Hearings Officer finds that the Applicant's request satisfies all
procedural and substantive criteria necessary to approve the Applicant's request for amendments to the
text of the Deschutes County Code as modified during this proceeding and by this Recommendation. The
Hearings Officer recommends the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners adopt by ordinance
the langauge set forth in this Recommendation as Exhibit B.
I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
Deschutes County Code and Comprehensive Plan
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 18.67, Tumalo Rural Community Zoning District
Chapter 18.128, Conditional Use
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE
A. Background
The Applicant requests amendment of the Deschutes County Code ("DCC" or "Code") to add a
conditionally allowable use of recreational vehicle ("RV") parks in the Tumalo Commercial (TUC) zone.
The TUC zone is one of six zones in the County's Tumalo Rural Community Zoning Districts governed
by CDC Chapter 18.67. 1 Under current Code provisions, RV parks are already allowed as a conditional
use in the TUC zone, but only "on a lot or parcel in use as a manufactured dwelling park or recreational
vehicle park prior to the adoption of PL-15 in 1979 and being operated as of June 12, 1996, as a
manufactured dwelling park or recreational vehicle park, including any expansion of such uses on the
same lot or parcel as configured on June 12, 1996."2 The Applicant requests a text amendment for the
purpose of eventually seeking an entitlement to develop an RV park on one specific property in the TUC
zone.
The Applicant's proposal initially requested the following text amendments to DCC 18.67.040:
(1) a revised purpose statement; (2) revisions to DCC 18.67.040(C)(8) and a proposed additional section
— DCC 18.67.040(C)(14) — intended to allow RV parks as conditional uses without the current temporal
requirements; and (3) a proposed new section — DCC 18.67.040(J) — establishing various siting standards
for RV parks. The Applicant included its requested text amendments in the Application. After the Hearing,
and in response to some of the comments made at the Hearing, the Applicant submitted revisions to the
specific text amendments it seeks. This Recommendation will refer to the Applicant's final version of the
proposed text amendments, attached as Exhibit A, as the "Text Amendments."
Prior to the Hearing, Staff from the County's Community Development Department ("Staff')
issued a Staff Report describing the Application and the applicable criteria ("Staff Report"). The Staff
Report does not make a recommendation, but the Staff Report does address the applicable criteria and
makes certain findings.
B. Notice and Hearing
On April 3, 2025, the County issued a Notice of Application seeking comments on the Application.
On May 15, 2025, the County issued a Notice of Public Hearing ("Hearing Notice") for this matter. The
County mailed the Hearing Notice to all owners of property within 250 feet of the TUC Zone, to the
Department of Land Conservation and Development, and to other public agencies. The County also
published the Hearing Notice in the Bend Bulletin on May 18, 2025.
Pursuant to the Hearing Notice, I presided over the Hearing as the Hearings Officer on June 16,
2025, beginning at approximately at 1:14 p.m. The Hearing took place in a hybrid format, with the
Applicant, Staff, and other participants present in the Hearing Room, while the Hearings Officer and other
participants participated remotely.
' DCC 18.67.010.
2 DCC 18.67.040(C)(8).
At the beginning of the Hearing, I noted for the record that this phase of review of the requested
Text Amendments would be quasi-judicial in nature and, therefore, I directed participants to direct
comments to the approval criteria and standards, and to raise any issues a participant wanted to preserve
for appeal if necessary. At the conclusion of the evidentiary Hearing, and at the request of the Applicant,
I announced that the record would remain open for written materials as follows: (1) any participant could
submit additional materials until June 30, 2025; (2) any participant could submit rebuttal materials until
July 14, 2025; and (3) the Applicant could submit a final legal argument without new evidence by July
28, 2025. Participants were further instructed that all submittals must be received by the County by 4:00
p.m. on the applicable due date. The Hearing concluded at approximately 3:43 p.m.
At the beginning the Hearing, participant Nunziata Gould stated a preliminary objection to the
time the Hearing was held and to any time limits placed on participants. The Hearing was held as set forth
in the Hearing Notice, and participant Gould did not assert that the Hearing Notice or the time of the
Hearing are in violation of the Code or any other legal requirements. Further, the Hearing followed the
procedures set forth in DCC Chapter 22. While I indicated that public comments would be limited to three
minutes each during the Hearing, some individuals, including participant Gould, were given additional
time. No participant asserted that the actual time allotted to each was insufficient or in any way impaired
a substantial right. Based on the foregoing, I find no action was required to further address participant
Gould's preliminary objection.
C. Nature of Decision
The Text Amendments propose revisions only to the language of the Code, and not a map
amendment. The adoption of Code language is generally legislative in nature. Because the Code allows
individuals to request text amendments to the Code and establishes a procedure for processing an
application, the adoption of Code language could also be viewed as quasi-judicial in nature when requested
by an individual. As explained below, this is a unique situation in which the Text Amendments are both
legislative and quasi-judicial in nature. DCC 18.136.010 governs amendments to the Code:
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.
By its express terms, this provision states that the process for a text amendment is as set forth in DCC
22.12. But DCC 22.12 broadly governs "legislative" procedures. DCC 22.04.020 defines legislative
changes as follows:
Legislative changes generally involve broad public policy decisions that
apply to other than an individual property owner. These include, without
limitation, amendments to the text of the comprehensive plans, zoning
ordinances, or the subdivision or partition ordinance and changes in zoning
maps not directed at a small number of property owners.
As Staff points out in the Staff Report (attached to this decision as Exhibit Q, the Text
Amendments do not fit squarely within this definition. Further, the Code does not expressly define "text
amendment" in the context of legislative changes or in the context of a quasi-judicial land use application,
even though DCC 22.12.030 allows an individual to seek legislative changes through an application
process. The Staff Report suggests that the Text Amendments should be processed in the same manner as
a quasi-judicial plan amendment, which is governed by DCC 22.28.030.
In support of its conclusion, Staff provides a detailed analysis under Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers
v. Benton Co. Bd. of Comm., 287 Or 591, 601 P2d 769 (1979) ("Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers"). In that
case, the Oregon Supreme Court set out a multi -factor test to determine what process applies to a land use
application:
Generally, to characterize a process as adjudication presupposes that the
process is bound to result in a decision and that the decision is bound to
apply preexisting criteria to concrete facts. The latter test alone [applying
preexisting criteria to concrete facts] proves too much; there are many laws
that authorize the pursuit of one or more objectives stated in general terms
without turning the choice of action into an adjudication. Thus a further
consideration has been whether the action, even when the governing criteria
leave much room for policy discretion, is directed at a closely circumscribed
factual situation or a relatively small number of persons. The coincidence
both of this factor and of preexisting criteria of judgment has led the court
to conclude that some land use laws and similar laws imply quasijudicial
procedures for certain local government decisions. Strawberry Hill 4
Wheelers at 602-03.
As Staff correctly notes, the Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers decision sets out three factors which must be
considered:
l . Is the inquiry bound to result in a decision?
2. Are there preexisting criteria that are applied to concrete facts?
3. Is the inquiry directed at a closely circumscribed factual situation or a relatively small
number of persons?
I agree with Staff that the three factors listed above, in this case, warrant following a quasi-judicial
process for the Application, at least initially. First, even if the Text Amendments are legislative changes,
the Code provides an opportunity for an individual to make an application to initiate amendments. Whether
the County approves or denies that application, a decision will result, so the inquiry is bound to result in
a decision. Second, the Code contains preexisting criteria applicable to the Applicant's request. Although
those Code provisions are largely procedural, the quasi-judicial process can determine if those
requirements are met. Third, this matter is directed at a relatively small number of persons because the
Text Amendments, as initially proposed, contain siting criteria that effectively limit the impact of the
changes to only two properties.
10
At the same time, the Text Amendments carry the qualities of a legislative act. The language in
DCC 22.04.020 provides that legislative changes "generally involve broad public policy decisions that
apply to other than an individual property owner" (emphasis added), and that definition does not state that
decisions applicable to only one individual property owner cannot be legislative. Indeed, that Code
provision goes on to list examples of legislative decisions, including amendments to the text of zoning
ordinances.
An important component of DCC 22.12 is DCC 22.12.050, addressing final decisions. That Code
provision states that "[a]ll legislative changes shall be adopted by ordinance." That language does not
distinguish between purely legislative changes and those legislative changes that may be processed using
a quasi-judicial process. This makes sense because the DCC is adopted by ordinance, and any changes to
the text of the Code requires an amendment to that adopted ordinance. It also makes sense because ORS
215.503(2) requires that "[a]ll legislative acts relating to comprehensive plans, land use planning or zoning
adopted by the governing body of a county shall be by ordinance" (emphasis added).
Based on the foregoing, I find that, in this case, the adoption of text amendments proposed by an
applicant is a two-step process. In the first step of the process, the Applicant has a right under the Code to
submit and to have considered an application to amend the Code's text. This phase of the process is quasi-
judicial in nature, and it is appropriate to have a hearing and to build a record following the principles of
a quasi-judicial process. As part of that process, the Hearings Officer addresses the application only of the
County's exiting laws. The second step of the process is for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners ("County Board') to adopt an ordinance to incorporate any text amendments to the Code.
Amendments to the text of a zoning ordinance are a change in the County's law, and only the County
Board can make such a change. In other words, the Hearings Officer is without authority to issue a decision
that amends the County's Code. The Hearings Officer, however, can make a recommendation to the
County Board based on what develops in the quasi-judicial phase of the process. The County Board is free
to accept, modify, or reject the Hearings Officer's recommendation.
III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Adoption and Incorporation of Findings in Staff Report
The Staff Report contains a comprehensive discussion and conclusion of the criteria applicable
to the Application. Many of the conclusions in the Staff Report are not challenged in this proceeding. In
some areas of the Staff Report, Staff requests that the Hearings Officer either modify Staff s findings or
make the findings directly. I find that the Staff Report correctly lists the applicable criteria, and I hereby
adopt the discussion and conclusions in the Staff Report as my findings. The remainder of the findings in
this Recommendation are intended to supplement the Staff Report and to address specific issues raised
during this proceeding. To the extent any of the findings in this Recommendation conflict with the
discussion and conclusions in the Staff Report, the findings set forth in this Recommendation control
anything to the contrary in the Staff Report.
B. Issues Raised in Opposition to the Application and in the Staff Report
Several participants submitted comments to the record in opposition to the Application. The vast
majority of those comments did not address specific Code provisions. Instead, those comments introduced
general concerns about RV parks. In the findings below, I examine the specific criteria that were addressed
by participants, and I attempt to identify and address criteria that may be invoked by the participants who
testified in opposition to the Application. These findings also address the issues raised in the Staff Report.
1. Sewage Disposal Services
Multiple participants expressed concern over how a new RV park in the TUC zone would handle
wastewater disposal. DCC 18.128.170 regulates wastewater disposal in RV parks and is applicable in all
zones. Under that Code provision, eac;i RV space in an RV park is to be provided with piped potable water
and sewage disposal service, and the RV park must provide a laundry facility.
The Applicant initially proposed language that would require any parcel proposed as an RV park
to be "located in a sewer district," but also proposed creating an exception to certain provisions of DCC
18.128.170, such that an RV park in the TUC zone would not have to comply with the sewage disposal
and laundry requirements "until a sewer district is willing and able to provide service." As acknowledged
by the Applicant, an RV park that developed under that proposal could rely on septic systems until a sewer
system became available.
The concerns raised by some participants generally asserted that septic systems in the TUC zone
are not sufficient and that reliance on that technology would pose environmental and health risks. While
these comments did not identify any particular criterion to which they are relevant, and did not provide
supporting evidence addressing the adequacy of septic systems, the Applicant nevertheless modified the
proposed Code changes to address these concerns. Specifically, the final version of the Text Amendments
remove the originally -proposed exceptions to DCC 18.128.170, while also clarifying that an RV Park
must be located in a sewer district or otherwise provide confirmation that "a sewerage system that can
serve the proposed sewage flow from the Recreational Vehicle Park is both legally and physically
available." According to the Applicant, this proposed revision will ensure that each space in an RV park
will be connected to a central sewer system, thereby negating the need to address the sufficiency of septic
systems.
I agree with the Applicant that the removal of the originally -proposed exception to DCC
18.128.170 will address any sewage disposal concerns. Before a conditional use permit for an RV park
may be approved, an applicant must demonstrate that a central sewer system is legally and physically
available. Under DCC 18.128.170, the owner of the RV park would then have to ensure that each space
in an RV park is actually connected to an available sewer system. That being said, I recommend that the
County Board slightly modify the proposed language if it approves the Text Amendments. As proposed,
the language refers to a "sewer district." The actual district that exists in the area is the Tumalo Sanitary
District, and "sanitary district" is the term used in ORS Chapter 450 that allows such districts. I also note
that ORS Chapter 450 allows the creation of a "sanitary authority." I recommend that the Board adhere to
that more precise description by modifying the Applicant's language to read as follows for DCC
18.67.040(J)(1)(b):
M
b. The parcel(s) shall all be located in the boundaries of a SWAW sanitary
district or sanitary authority, or confirmation shall be provided that a
sewer -age sewage collection and disposal system that can serve the proposed
sewage flow from the Recreational Vehicle Park is both legally and
physically available; and
2. Comprehensive Plan Policies
The Applicant identified several provisions in the County's Comprehensive Plan ("Plan") as
potentially relevant to the Application. Staff recites those Plan provisions on pages 13 through 16 of the
Staff Report and asks the Hearings Officer to determine if the Applicant has demonstrated compliance
with those provisions.
Participant Kris Cranston submitted comments asserting that the Text Amendments are not
compatible with the County's Plan, which comments were repeated verbatim by other participants. Those
comments, however, simply state that the Plan emphasizes the protection of the rural residential character
and the promotion of orderly, compatible development. Participant Cranston (and others) does not identify
any specific Plan policies on which those comments are based, and, to the contrary, simply state that the
proposed Text Amendments would "violate" Deschutes County Code Title 18 — County Zoning. Other
comments in the record similarly invoke the Plan in broad terms, without reference to specific Plan
provisions. I find that participant Cranston's arguments (and similar or identical arguments of other
participants) are not developed enough for me to address in this Recommendation with respect to
consistency with the Plan. I therefore find that the Applicant's assertions with respect to the Plan
provisions identified on pages 13 through 16 of the Staff report are sufficient to demonstrate compliance
with the Plan.
The Applicant and multiple participants also address the Tumalo Community Plan ("Community
Plan"), which is a component of the Plan. The Applicant points to the economic development goal of the
Community Plan, which is to "[r]etain the economic vibrancy of Tumalo's historic core and industrial
areas while providing economic development opportunities that are compatible with the small town rural
character of the community." Policy 4 under that Goal is to support economic development initiatives and
tourism in the Tumalo area. The Staff Report finds that the proposed Text Amendments are consistent
with that policy. Participants in opposition to the Application do not address the economic development
portion of these goals and policies and, instead, assert that an RV park does not preserve the rural or "small
town" character of the community.
Having reviewed and considered all comments submitted by participants, I find that the Text
Amendments are not inconsistent with the Community Plan. Evidence in the record supports a finding
that RV parks exist in rural areas. Indeed, RV parks are already allowed (albeit in limited circumstances)
in the TUC zone. Further, the Community Plan expressly contemplates that commercial activities should
be encouraged. The Community Plan, as with most Plan provisions, requires a balance between competing
considerations. Based on the record before me, I find that the development of RV parks in the TUC zone
can achieve that balance, and there is nothing inherent about such a development that would require the
prohibition of RV parks in the TUC zone. I also note that the County will still have to review specific
V/
development proposals through a conditional use process, during which impacts to surrounding areas will
be considered and a decision will be made based on a fact -specific proposal. At this stage, where the
County is simply determining if some new RV parks may be conditionally allowable in the TUC zone, I
find that the Applicant has demonstrated that they can be, and there is a sufficient basis for the Board to
approve the Text Amendments for that purpose.3
3. Statewide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules
Multiple participants mentioned Statewide Planning Goals ("Goals"), but did not specifically
address those goals. For example, participant Brady submitted comments stating that "the project may be
inconsistent with Statewide Planning Goals 2 (Land Use Planning) and 14 (Urbanization), which prioritize
the containment of high -intensity uses within Urban Growth Boundaries." That assertion was repeated
verbatim by other participants. Because these comments are couched in terms of generalized allegations
that the proposal "may be" inconsistent with the Goals, but do not offer evidence or any specific argument
to support such allegations, I find that these arguments are not sufficiently developed for a response in
this Recommendation.
One Goal that some participants seemed to invoke is Statewide Planning Goal 12 ("Goal 12"),
which relates to transportation. In the context of a text amendment to a land use regulation, the applicable
part of Goal 12 is set forth in OAR 660-012-0060, the Transportation Planning Rule ("TPR"). Under the
TPR, the County must consider whether a proposed text amendment will significantly affect a
transportation facility. The Applicant submitted an engineering analysis that concludes the proposal will
not significantly affect a transportation facility. The County's Senior Transportation Planner reviewed and
agreed with the assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions in the Applicant's report.
The majority of comments in the record relating to transportation assert that an RV park will cause
unwanted traffic impacts, both in terms of volume and safety. None of those comments credibly assert
that traffic resulting from the Text Amendments will significantly affect a transportation facility as that
term is defined in OAR 660-012-0060, nor do they provide any analysis that disputes the findings in the
Applicant's report. At best, those comments questioned some of the assumptions in the report. Having
reviewed the entire record, I find that the Applicant's has met its burden of proving that the Text
Amendments satisfy the TPR and are consistent with Goal 12.
The Staff Report notes that OAR 660-022-0030 imposes certain requirements the County must
follow when planning unincorporated communities. Among those requirements, OAR 660-022-0030(8)
requires that zoning of rural communities must ensure that cumulative development will not result in
public health hazards or adverse environmental impacts that violate state or federal water quality
regulations and will not exceed the carrying capacity of the soil or of existing water supply resources and
3 The Applicant and the Staff Report also highlight Policy 5 of the Community Plan's economic
development goal, which guards against adverse effects on water resources and wastewater disposal. As
discussed above, I find that the Applicant has adequately addressed waste water disposal. I also find that
the evidence in the record supports a finding that amending the TUC zone to conditionally allow RV
parks will not adversely affect water resources. The Applicant has documented the availability of
municipal water to the properties where RV parks could be developed.
8
sewer services. The Staff Report asks the Hearings Officer to determine if the Text Amendments satisfy
the rule language. While other participants addressed broad concerns relating to public health,
environment, water resources, and wastewater disposal, no participant asserted that the Text Amendments
will violate OAR 660-022-0030 generally, or subsection (8) of that rule specifically.
Based on the information provided by the Applicant, I find that OAR 660-022-0030(8) is satisfied.
As concluded above, the Applicant has adequately addressed water resources and wastewater disposal.
Further, no participant asserts that the Text Amendments will cause development that, cumulatively, will
violate state or federal water quality regulations, or that will exceed the carrying capacity of the soil.
4. Policy -Related and Development -Specific Issues
The majority of comments submitted in opposition to the Text Amendments expressed a desire
that the County not allow new RV parks in the Tumalo area. Those comments center around statements
regarding what the County "should" or "should not" do as a matter of policy. Similar comments addressed
site -specific concerns based on assumptions of how a specific RV park would be developed, even though
no development proposal has been submitted
I find that these comments are not relevant at this time. In the context of a proposed text
amendment, the County Board must eventually make a policy decision as to what uses may be allowed
outright and conditionally in the TUC zone. If the Board does approve the Text Amendments, review of
a future conditional use permit application will be the appropriate venue for addressing site -specific or
development -specific concerns.
V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the Findings above, which augment the findings and conclusions in the Staff Report, I
find that the Applicant's proposed amendments to DCC Chapter 18.67 comply with the County's
provisions for amending the Code. However, I find that one portion of the Text Amendments could be
revised by the Board of Commissioners in its adoption of an Ordinance approving the application and
amending the Code to better reflect statutory language related to sanitary districts. I therefore recommend
that the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners adopt the proposed text amendments presented in
Exhibit A, as modified in Exhibit B by ordinance, unless the Board of Commissioners determines there is
a legislative/policy reason not to adopt the amendments.
Dated this 2nd day of September 2025
Z��_ -
Tommy A. Brooks
Deschutes County Hearings Officer
Attachment:
Exhibit A — Text Amendments (Applicant's Version)
Exhibit B — Modified Text Amendments (Hearings Officer's Version)
Exhibit C — Staff Report
I
EXHIBIT A
APPLICANT'S TEXT AMENDMENTS
DCC 18.67.040 Commercial (TuC) District
J. Additional Standards for Recreational Vehicle Parks
1. Recreational Vehicle Parks shall only be allowed on a single parcel or contiguous
parcels under common ownership that meet the following requirements:
a. The area of the parcel(s) proposed for development shall exceed 2.3 acres
but no more than 5 acres;
b. The parcel(s) shall all be located in a sewer district or confirmation shall be provided
that a sewerage system that can serve the proposed sewage flow
from the Recreational Vehicle Park is both legally and physically available;
and
c. The single parcel or at least one of the contiguous parcels under common
ownership shall be adjacent to State Highway 20.
2. Compliance with DCC 18.128.170.
a. To ensure compliance with DCC 18.128.170(G) which prohibits any
recreational vehicle remaining in a park for more than 30 days in a 60 day
period, Recreational Vehicle Parks in the Tumalo Commercial District shall
only provide temporary lodging with no recreational vehicles utilized as
permanent "residential dwellings" as that term is used in ORS 197.493.
b. Compliance with DCC 18.128.170(0) requiring that access to a
Recreational Vehicle Park shall be from an arterial or collector street shall
not be applicable in the Tumalo Commercial District so long as an applicant
instead demonstrates that the street providing direct access to the proposed
Recreational Vehicle Park shall not be unreasonably impacted. To
demonstrate compliance with this standard, an applicant shall address traffic
capacity and flow, geometric design, pavement design, livability impacts on
local residents, and accessibility and convenience to amenities and state
highways.
c. Recreational Vehicle Parks in the Tumalo Commercial District shall
impose quiet hours from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am daily.
10
EXHIBIT B
MODIFIED TEXT AMENDMENTS
DCC 18.67.040 Commercial (TuC) District
J. Additional Standards for Recreational Vehicle Parks
1. Recreational Vehicle Parks shall only be allowed on a single parcel or contiguous
parcels under common ownership that meet the following requirements:
a. The area of the parcel(s) proposed for development shall exceed 2.3 acres
but no more than 5 acres;
b. The parcel(s) shall all be located in the boundaries of a sir sanitary district or
sanitary authority, or confirmation shall be provided that a sewerage sewage collection
and disposal system that can serve the proposed sewage flow
from the Recreational Vehicle Park is both legally and physically available;
and
c. The single parcel or at least one of the contiguous parcels under common
ownership shall be adjacent to State Highway 20.
2. Compliance with DCC 18.128.170.
a. To ensure compliance with DCC 18.128.170(G) which prohibits any
recreational vehicle remaining in a park for more than 30 days in a 60 day
period, Recreational Vehicle Parks in the Tumalo Commercial District shall
only provide temporary lodging with no recreational vehicles utilized as
permanent "residential dwellings" as that term is used in ORS 197.493.
b. Compliance with DCC 18.128.170(0) requiring that access to a
Recreational Vehicle Park shall be from an arterial or collector street shall
not be applicable in the Tumalo Commercial District so long as an applicant
instead demonstrates that the street providing direct access to the proposed
Recreational Vehicle Park shall not be unreasonably impacted. To
demonstrate compliance with this standard, an applicant shall address traffic
capacity and flow, geometric design, pavement design, livability impacts on
local residents, and accessibility and convenience to amenities and state
highways.
c. Recreational Vehicle Parks in the Tumalo Commercial District shall
impose quiet hours from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am daily.
11
EXHIBIT C
STAFF REPORT
12
STAFF REPORT
TUMALO RV PARK TEXT AMENDMENT
FILE NUMBER(S): 247-25-000106-TA
SUBJECT PROPERTY: The Tumalo Commercial Zone encompasses multiple properties.
APPLICANT: Joel Gisler
APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY: Adam Smith, of Schwabe, Williamson and Wyatt
REQUEST: Amendments to Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapter 18.67, Tumalo
Rural Community Zoning Districts. The proposed amendments will
modify the Deschutes County Code (DCC) to add recreational vehicle
(RV) parks as a conditional use in the Tumalo Commercial (TUC) Zone.
The proposed amendments include siting standards for new RV parks
in the TUC Zone, including that the development area must be two -to -
five acres in size, contiguous to Highway 20, and located within a sewer
district. In addition, the proposed amendments will modify the
standards for road access and wastewater facilities for RV parks in the
TUC Zone.
STAFF CONTACT: Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner
Phone: 541-388-6679
Email: Audrey.Stuart@deschutes.org
RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from:
https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/247-25-000106-ta-tu malo-rv-
park-text-amendment
I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA
Deschutes County Code (DCC)
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 18.67, Tumalo Rural Community Zoning Districts
Chapter 18.128, Conditional Use
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
�,(541)388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org @www.deschutes.org/cd
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
Ill. BASIC FINDINGS
LOT OF RECORD: DCC 22.04.040(B) does not require lot of record verification for Text Amendment
applications. The proposed amendments will apply to all properties within the TUC Zone. Anyfuture
development of an RV park would require property -specific land use review, and lot of record
findings would be made at that time.
SITE DESCRIPTION: The TUC Zone is located within the unincorporated community of Tumalo,
which is located along Highway 20 to the northwest of the City of Bend. The TUC Zone is
predominantly located to the north of Highway 20, but also includes approximately 8.7 acres located
to the south of Highway 20. The development pattern within the TUC Zone includes a variety of
small -to -medium size commercial uses such as food cart pods, a gas station, eating and drinking
establishments, and two small strip malls. The TUC Zone also includes a number of undeveloped
lots as well as existing residential development.
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to amend section 18.67.040, regarding the Tumalo Commercial
(TUC) Zone. The proposed language of the Text Amendment is included as Exhibit 1 and summarized
as follows:
• The Applicant proposes to modify the Purpose statement of the TUC Zone to include the travel
needs of people passing through the area.
• The Applicant proposes to add an RV park as a new conditional use within the zoning district.
• The Applicant proposes siting standards for new RV parks in the TUC Zone and also proposes
certain exceptions to the standards of DCC 18.128.170 for RV parks in the TUC Zone.
Specifically, new RV parks in the TUC Zone would not require road access from a collector or
arterial, and would not be required to provide laundry facilities and sewage disposal until
sewer service is available to the property.
The submitted Burden of Proof provides the following background on the proposed Text
Amendment:
This application is submitted in anticipation of two upcoming companion conditional use
applications. The subject text amendment to DCC Title 18, Chapter 18.67.040, TuC District is
intended to only allow RV Parks on a limited number of parcels in the TuC District owned by
the Applicant, with the two upcoming conditional use applications then seeking approval for
related uses on the Applicant's parcels.
PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice on April 3, 2025, to several public
agencies and received the following comments:
Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner Tarik Rawlings
247-25-000106-TA Page 2 of 27
I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247-25-000106-TA for a text amendment
requestto DCC Chapter 18.67 (Tumalo Rural Community Zoning Districts)to add recreational
vehicle (RV) parks as a conditional use in the Tumalo Commercial District (TUC).
I have reviewed the application materials for potential Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)
OAR 660-012 effects, including the applicant's transportation memorandum produced by
Transight Consulting, LLC, (dated January 8, 2025) and I agree with its assumptions,
methodology, and conclusions. The memorandum adequately addresses reasonable worst
case scenario analysis through a comparison of the existing outright allowed uses (utilizing
ITE category 822 for Strip Retail Plaza as an aggregate category encompassing
eating/drinking establishments, small retail, and offices each totaling less than 10,000
square -feet) to the proposed Campground/RV Park (ITE 416) use and ultimately concludes
that no significant impacts will be anticipated with the proposed text amendment. Staff notes
that, should the proposed text amendment receive approval, further traffic analysis may be
required at the time of future development depending on the future development's vehicle
trip generation potential. While the current text amendment does not absorb County road
capacity, any future proposal for the development of a Campground/RV Park under the
proposed use category must demonstrate compliance with the transportation analysis
requirements of DCC 18.116.310, including p.m. peak hour vehicle trips related to System
Development Charges (SDCs), mitigations, and adequacy of access.
Thanks for the opportunity to provide comment and please let me know if you have any
questions.
Deschutes County Onsite Wastewater Manager, Todd Cleveland
This proposal would allow an RV park without full connections for sewer, water and not
require a central comfort station. This would not require connection to a community
wastewater system. However, once a wastewater treatment system becomes available in the
Tumalo , it would be beneficial to provide full connections and services at RV locations. The
lack of sewer connections would limit the length of stay because RV users would need to take
their RV to an approved dump station.
Onsite prefers to have facilities that will promote proper wastewater treatment and disposal
conveniently available. Hopefully, this facility will be able to be connected as soon as possible
when a community wastewater treatment facility becomes available.
Onsite wastewater permits would be unlikely to be approved for the proposed site.
Being in the Tumalo Sanitary District, when sewer becomes both legally and physically
available to this location the only option would be to connect to the sanitary system. An
onsite system could not be permitted once sewer is available (OAR 340-071-0160(4)).
Deschutes County Building Division, Krista Appleby, lune 4, 2025 Comments
247-25-000106-TA Page 3 of 27
OAR 650 is applicable to Recreation Parks & Organizational Camps. Per OAR 918-650-
0005(12) definition of 'recreational vehicle park' falls under the Recreation Park
requirements. Referenced Table attached as PDF.
Among other [requirements in] OAR 650, toilets are required - see clip below.
Referenced Table 3-RV is attached as PDF.
Division 650
RECREATION PARKS AND ORGANIZATIONAL CAMPS
918-650 0050
Toilets
1 e l f fa<Wsties€nttst be provided in or gan;zat ion a! camp, They must be convertiest€ and
accessible arrd must be located vithfn SOO feet of iny recreational vehicle space or camping site not provided with in
individual toilet facility or sewer coon t€on.
EXCE PTION: The require n art for toilets in p cC is parks, campgrounds and osganitatiortal Camps May be waived by the
regulating auth0r ty for areas not accessible by roue.
'�2Tia) unitary facilities must as reguire§S in Table 3�12y;
(b) Toilet Povels. Toilet bowls for public use most be elongated bowlswith Open -front seats. Any room with flush toilets
must be provided with a floor dram as required in the Oregon Plumbing Specialty Code:
kc) Signs. Toilets must either bernarked for the designat€ d sex or be provided vi to a priva£yr €ork. if not apparent, the
iracatiOn of toilets Must be ind"scaled by aporopt pate direction suns;
Ede FFush Toilets and Sl ewers. Flush toilets and Showers and the, b.rMifig', cor<ta nir , ttterr� rrt 5t E� curFstc€;ctet9 in
accordance with the State Building Code.
fO Unisex Toftets, Toilet f.arslit if" c e cfa ��d tr serve as xc, p. t r d .f 4 r
- ,. W.a vs a„+t~'�--ey�r.,Fu..r-+£C:TJ��t]<9j 3k"£`vk t,.°V.k8 s4: ti, . "✓., ;�#.ici3
t6let facilities must be cQuipped with a urinal.
3} Norfwater-Carried T(Aie ts. Norf%vatet' car ried to -gets-, Inc W d i rg, €itit root t imited to,. 0ern sc.'ii or v auit tOj I is oS pit
privies. must be constructed and located in accordance with the requirements of the De:•p;rtmeent of Lrrr ronfrental
Quality.
Deschutes County Building Division Randy Scheid April 3 2025 Comments
The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code mandates that Access, Egress,
Setbacks, Fire & Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. must be specifically addressed
during the appropriate plan review process with regard to any proposed structures and
occupancies.
Accordingly, all Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure,
occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review.
918-650-0010
Scope and Purpose
247-25-000106-TA Page 4 of 27
(1) OAR chapter 918, division 650 establishes minimum safety standards for the design and
construction of recreation parks and organizational camps as authorized in ORS 455.680.
(2) These rules establish design and construction requirements for recreation parks and
organizational camps for the purpose of protecting the life, health, safety and welfare of
persons using these facilities.
EXCEPTIONS:
1- These rules do not apply to parking areas offering access to beaches, marinas, boat ramps,
piers, ski areas, rivers, trails and similar facilities, where no recreational vehicle utility
connections are provided.
2- The area development permit does not include permits or related fees for buildings,
mobile home setups, mechanical, plumbing or electrical systems, boiler, or elevators, or
permits required by other agencies.
Statutory/Other Authority: ORS 455.020, 455.110 & 455.680
Statutes/Other Implemented: ORS 455.680
History:
BCD 26-2011, f. 9-30-11, cert. ef. 10-1-11
BCA 10-1987, f. & ef. 9-18-87, Renumbered from 814-029-0050
918-650-0020
Permit Required
No person may establish or enlarge the facilities of any recreation park or organizational
camp or do any construction within the recreation park or organizational camp or cause the
same to be done without first obtaining all required permits from the building official and
paying the prescribed permit fees. Multiple permits may be required when the proposed
work involves two or more code areas (i.e., structural, electrical, plumbing, or mechanical).
EXCEPTION: Applications for permits, submission of plans and payment of fees are not
required for additions, alterations, relocation and maintenance of picnic tables, play
equipment, fire pits and similar facilities in existing parks.
Statutory/Other Authority: ORS 455.020, 455.110 & 455.680
Statutes/Other Implemented: ORS 455.680
History:
BCD 26-2011, f. 9-30-11, cert. ef. 10-1-11
BCA 10-1987, f. & ef. 9-18-87, Renumbered from 814-029-0065
The following agencies did not respond to the notice: Bend Fire Department, Deschutes County
Assessor, Deschutes County Road Department, Laidlaw Water District, Oregon Department of
Transportation, and Tumalo Irrigation District.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the application to all property owners
within the TUC Zone and within a 250-foot buffer around the TUC Zone on April 3, 2025. As of the
date of this staff report, 62 comments have been submitted by members of the public in opposition
to the proposal. Concerns raised in the public comments included:
® Impacts to neighborhood livability and the transient nature of RV park residents.
® The density of an RV park being incompatible with the rural nature of Tumalo.
247-25-000106-TA Page 5 of 27
• Increased traffic and whether the kocal roads are sufficient to accommodate RV's.
• Lack of existing sewage facilities to treat the wastewater from an RV park.
• Whether the Text Amendment conflicts with the Tumalo Community Plan, which was
updated in 2024.
• Impacts to natural resources such as the nearby section of the Deschutes River.
• Whether the proposal is necessary given the nearby facilities at Tumalo State Park,
NOTICE REQUIREMENT: On May 15, 2025, the Planning Division mailed a Notice of Public Hearing
to all property owners within the TUC Zone and within 250 feet of the TUC Zone, as well as to public
agencies. A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin on Sunday, May 18, 2025.
Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and
Development on May 12, 2025.
REVIEW PERIOD: According to Deschutes County Code 22.20.040(D), the review of the proposed
quasi-judicial Text Amendment application is not subject to the 1 SO -day review period.
III. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
Amendments
The Applicant proposes to amend section 18.67.040 of Deschutes County Code to allow RV parks as
a new conditional use within the TUC Zone. The amendments also set forth standards for new RV
parks within the zone, including specific wastewater standards. Currently, wastewater disposal
within RV parks is regulated by DCC 18.128.170, which are conditional use standards that apply to
all zones governed by Title 18. DCC 18.128.170(D) requires each RV space to be provided with piped
potable water and sewage disposal service. The relevant text of the proposed amendments is
copied below, and it would allow the developer of an RV park to only provide sewage disposal
service once a sewer district is able and willing to serve the property. The full text of the proposed
amendments is included as Exhibit 1.
J. Additional Standards for Recreational Vehicle Parks
2. Compliance with DCC 18.128.170.
A. For sewage disposal service and laundry facilities only, Recreational Vehicle
Parks in the Tumalo Commercial District shall not be required to comply with
DCC 18.128.170(D) and U) until a sewer district is willing and able to provide
service to the proposed project. The County may include conditions of
approval requiring Recreational Vehicle Parks to provide sewer connection
to each recreational vehicle space and to provide laundry facilities as
outlined in DCC 18.128.170Q) once sewer service is available from a sewer
district.
Staff notes that agency comments from the Deschutes County Onsite Wastewater Division and
247-25-000106-TA Page 6 of 27
Deschutes County Building Division raise questions about the facilities that would be required under
the proposed amendments. "Though it is not an applicable land use approval criterion, comments
from Building Division staff cite concerns regarding compliance with State Building Code if toilet
facilities are not provided within an RV park. Staff notes these concerns would be addressed at the
time a specific development proposal is submitted. However, staff asks the Hearings Officer to
address these comments as they see fit and as they pertain to applicable approval criteria.
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 Applicant, as the property owner, has requested a quasi-judicial Text Amendment
and filed the corresponding application. The Applicant has filed the required land use application
forms for the proposal. The application will be reviewed utilizing the applicable procedures
contained in Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code.
DCC 22.04.020 includes the following definition:
"Quasi-judicial" zone change or plan amendment generally refers to a plan amendment or
zone change affecting a single or limited group of property owners and that involves the
application of existing policy to a specific factual setting. (The distinction between legislative
and quasi-judicial changes must ultimately be made on a case -by -case basis with reference
to case law on the subject.)
The subject application is not a request to change the zoning or Comprehensive Plan designation
of the subject property. However, as described below, the quasi-judicial process of a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment is the most applicable guidance regarding Text Amendments that are not squarely
legislative. Therefore, staff includes the definition of a quasi-judicial process above for reference
and also addresses the provisions of DCC 22.28.030, regarding final action on Comprehensive Plan
amendments. The application materials include the following analysis of the process for the subject
Text Amendment:
The subject text amendment application is not an application for a quasi-judicial map
amendment, as this text amendment will not alter the County's zoning map if it is approved.
Existing case law and the DCC allow for flexibility where text amendments may be processed
247-25-000106-TA Page 7 of 27
as quasi-judicial or legislative. See Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers v. Benton County, 287 Or 591
(1979).
Strawberry Hi114 Wheelers sets forth certain factors determining when applications are quasi-
judicial or legislative: (1) the process is bound to result in a decision; (2) the decision is bound
to apply preexisting criteria to concrete facts; and (3) the action is directed at a closely
circumscribed factual situation or a relatively small number of persons. Id. The more
definitely the questions are answered in the negative, the more likely the decision under
consideration is a legislative land use decision. Id. Each of the factors must be weighed, and
no single factor is determinative. Id.
Here, the subject text amendment application satisfies the first prong as the process is
bound to result in a decision. Either the Text Amendment will be approved or denied. The
second factor is also answered in the positive because the proposed text amendment applies
preexisting criteria from the applicable provisions of the DCC and the Statewide Land Use
Planning Goals to concrete facts i.e., whether the proposed amendments meet those criteria.
Last, and most strongly, the third factor is answered in the positive. The proposed text
amendment applies to a closely circumscribed factual situation and a small number of
persons. The TuC District itself only applies to a small geographic area of the unincorporated
community of Tumalo. Narrowing the scope even more, the text amendment will then only
apply to parcels in the TuC District that are adjacent to Hwy 20, under common ownership,
and collectively between 2 and 5 acres in size. The land use consequences are
disproportionately concentrated on a relatively small pool of persons (if not only the
Applicant), as opposed to a larger region or the general population, therefore a quasi-judicial
procedure is the correct option according to the existing case law. Id.; Van Dyke v. Vamhill
County, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No 2018-61, Dec 20, 2018) (slip op at 4).
Indeed, this is also consistent with the DCC itself. "Legislative changes" are defined as those
that "generally involve broad public policy decisions that apply to other than an individual
property owner. These include, without limitation, amendments to the text of the
comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, or the subdivision or partition ordinance and
changes in zoning maps not directed at a small number of property owners." See DCC
22.04,020. The DCC also defines "legislative" as "a planning or zoning action resulting in a
general rule or policy which is applicable to an open class of individuals or situations." See
DCC 18.04.030. By design, the subject text amendment application only applies to a narrow
scope of properties in a zoning district that is unique to Tumalo and not applicable elsewhere
in the entire county. Based on the Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers factors, this is a quasi-judicial
application and not a legislative application.
Recently, the Planning Commission used this exact reasoning as part of its basis to
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny a proposed text amendment to
allow mini -storage use in the MUA-10 zone along Highway 20. The Planning Commission
recommended denial after specifically determining that the proposed text amendment only
affected a small number of parcels and therefore, in the Planning Commission's opinion,
should have been proposed as a quasi-judicial text amendment. Subsequently, the Board of
247-25-000106-TA Page 8 of 27
County Commissioners apparently agreed with the Planning Commission and denied this
application. See County Planning File No. 247-24-000044-TA.
Although clearly a quasi-judicial application, DCC Chapter 22.24 does not include specific
provisions governing the proposed quasi-judicial text amendment. The closest comparison
is a quasi-judicial zone change or plan amendment, and the Applicant accordingly
recommends that the County utilizes the procedures governing such applications in this
matter. Notably, those procedures require a public hearing in front of the Hearings Officer
with a decision issued thereafter. See DCC. 22.24.020. DCC 22.24.030 sets forth the basic
notice requirements for the hearing. Notably, DCC 22.28.030(A) and (B) clarify that the Board
of County Commissioners then adopts the Hearings Officer's decision without further
argument or testimony unless a separate appeal of that decision is filed.
Staff agrees with the applicant's analysis of Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers and notes the subject
application will result in a decision, utilizes preexisting criteria, and will impact a limited number of
properties.
Deschutes County staff conducted a preliminary analysis to identify the properties in the TUC Zone
that may be potentially eligible for an RV park under the proposed amendments. This analysis
identified properties in the TUC Zone that consist of parcels under common ownership which are
two -to -five acres in size and contiguous to Highway 20. The results of this analysis are shown in the
figure below and identify two properties that may potentially be eligible for an RV park under the
proposed Code language. Staff notes this analysis is only intended to identify the number of
properties impacted by the proposed amendments, and does not guarantee the eligibility or
development potential of the identified properties.
247-25-000106-TA Page 9 of 27
Figure 9: TUC -Zoned Properties under Common Ownership and Contiguous to Highway20
as c
\\ Q
BMD Investments
2.2 Acres
r
e_ Pll(E: bA
TTM ST r
MY6t_ Ww
€o 8TH ST ._..l
z3 �
r
Joel Gisle
5.8 Acres
f
o�
W
J
}
O
Based on the findings above, the subject request will impact the development potential of
approximately two properties. Therefore, staff finds the subject request complies with the third
component of the Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers test and may be categorized as quasi-judicial based
on the small number of persons who will be affected.
When the factors above are considered in combination, staff finds they indicate the subject Text
Amendment is appropriately subjected to a quasi-judicial process. For these reasons, staff finds the
request meets the three-part test outlined in Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers as well as the intent of a
quasi-judicial process.
Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, Development Procedures Ordinance
Chapter 22.12, Legislative Procedures
Section 22.12.010, Hearing Required
No legislative change shall be adopted without review by the Planning Commission and a
public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Public hearings before the
Planning Commission shall be set at the discretion of the Planning Director, unless
247-25-000106-TA Page 10 of 27
otherwise required by state law.
FINDING: As described above, staff finds the subject request is a quasi-judicial Text Amendment.
However, the procedural steps will be similar to those of previous quasi-judicial Text Amendments,
where Hearings Officers have determined that they also carry the qualities of a legislative act. The
subject amendments will be adopted through an ordinance, consistent with the process for a
legislative amendment. The Planning Director has exercised their discretion not to set a hearing
before the Planning Commission.
Section 22.12.020, Notice
A. Published Notice.
1. Notice of a legislative change shall be published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the county at least 10 days prior to each public hearing.
2. The notice shall state the time and place of the hearing and contain a
statement describing the general subject matter of the ordinance under
consideration.
B. Posted Notice. Notice shall be posted at the discretion of the Planning Director and
where necessary to comply with ORS 203.045.
C. Individual Notice. Individual notice to property owners, as defined in DCC
22.0&010(A), shall be provided at the discretion of the Planning Director, except as
required by ORS 215.503.
D. Media Notice. Copies of the notice of hearing shall be transmitted to other
newspapers published in Deschutes County.
FINDING: Notice of the proposed Text Amendment was published in the Bend Bulletin. Staff mailed
a Notice of Application and a subsequent Notice of Public Hearing to property owners within the
TUC Zone and within 250 feet of the TUC Zone. At the discretion of the Planning Director, posted
notice was not required since the subject request is not property -specific. Staff notes a future
application to develop an RV park on a specific property would require posted notice pursuant to
DCC 22.24.030(B).
Section 22.12.030, Initiation Of Legislative Changes
A legislative change may be initiated by application of individuals upon payment of
required fees as well as by the Board of Commissioners or the Planning Commission.
FINDING: The applicant has submitted the required fees and requested a Text Amendment. Staff
finds the applicant is granted permission under this criterion to initiate a legislative change and has
submitted the necessary fee and materials.
Section 22.12.040, Hearings Body
A. The following shall serve as hearings or review body for legislative changes in this
order.
247-25-000106-TA Page 11 of 27
1. The Planning Commission.
2. The Board of County Commissioners.
FINDING: As described above, the subject application meets the definition of a quasi-judicial
application. For this reason, this application was referred to a Hearings Officer rather than the
Planning Commission for a recommendation. The adoption of the proposed text amendments will
follow a legislative process because it must be approved by the Board. For the purpose of this
criterion, staff notes the application has properties of both a quasi-judicial and legislative
amendment.
B. Any legislative change initiated by the Board of County Commissioners shall be
reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to action being taken by the Board of
Commissioners.
FINDING: The subject application was not initiated by the Board. Staff finds this criterion does not
apply.
Section 22.12.050, Final Decision
All legislative changes shall be adopted by ordinance.
FINDING: Staff finds this criterion requires action by the Board to effect any legislative changes to
Deschutes County Code. If the proposed Text Amendment is approved, it will become effective
through the Board adoption of an ordinance.
Chapter 22.28, Land Use Action Decisions
Section 22.28.030, Decision On Plan Amendments And Zone Changes
A. Except as set forth herein, the Hearings Officer or the Planning Commission when
acting as the Hearings Body shall have authority to make decisions on all quasi-
judicial zone changes and plan amendments. Prior to becoming effective, all quasi-
judicial plan amendments and zone changes shall be adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners.
B. in considering all quasi-judicial zone changes and those quasi-judicial plan
amendments on which the Hearings Officer has authority to make a decision, the
Board of County Commissioners shall, in the absence of an appeal or review
initiated by the Board, adopt the Hearings Officer's decision. No argument or further
testimony will be taken by the Board.
FINDING: As detailed above, staff finds the proposal should be viewed as a quasi-judicial plan
amendment. For this reason, staff finds these criteria apply. This application is being referred to a
Hearings Officer for a decision. If an appeal is not filed and the Board does not initiate review, the
Board shall adopt the Hearings Officer's decision as the decision of the county.
247-25-000106-TA Page 12 of 27
C. Plan amendments and zone changes requiring an exception to the goals or
concerning lands designated for forest or agricultural use shall be heard de novo
before the Board of County Commissioners without the necessity of filing an appeal,
regardless of the determination of the Hearings Officer or Planning Commission.
Such hearing before the Board shall otherwise be subject to the same procedures as
an appeal to the Board under DCC Title 22.
FINDING: The subject Text Amendment does not require a goal exception and does not concern
lands designated for forest or agricultural use. For this reason, a de novo hearing before the Board
is not required.
D. Notwithstanding DCC 22.28.030(C), when a plan amendment subject to a DCC
22.28.030(C) hearing before the Board of County Commissioners has been
consolidated for hearing before the hearings Officer with a zone change or other
permit application not requiring a hearing before the board under DCC 22.28.030(C),
any party wishing to obtain review of the Hearings Officer's decision on any of those
other applications shall file an appeal. The plan amendment shall be heard by the
Board consolidated with the appeal of those other applications.
FINDING: No other application is being consolidated with the subject Text Amendment. Staff finds
this criterion does not apply.
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
FINDING: The Applicant identified the following Comprehensive Plan policies as relevant to the
subject proposal. The identified sections of the Comprehensive Plan and the Applicant's responses
are included below:
Chapter 3: Rural Growth
Section 3.4: Rural Economy Policies
Goal 1: Maintain a stable rural economy, compatible with rural lifestyles and a healthy
environment.
Policy 3.4.1: Promote rural economic initiatives, including home -based businesses,
that maintain the integrity of the rural character and natural environment. a.
Review land use regulations to identify legal and appropriate rural economic
development opportunities.
a. Review land use regulations to identify legal and appropriate rural
economic development opportunities.
247-25-000106-TA. Page 13 of 27
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment is consistent with the County's mandate to review
land use regulations to identify legal and appropriate economic development opportunities.
This amendment provides a new rural economic development opportunity within specific
areas of the TuC District while maintaining the integrity of the rural character and natural
environment by requiring conditional use approval and expressly limiting where in the TuC
District RV Parks can be located.
Policy 3.4.2: Work with stakeholders to promote new recreational and tourist
initiatives that maintain the integrity of the natural environment.
RESPONSE: Allowing RV Park development in certain areas of the TuC District will support
new and existing recreational and tourist initiatives in the area. Such RV Park development
is consistent with maintaining the integrity of the natural environment as it provides for less
permanent building and changes to the existing landscape than several other uses permitted
within the TuC District.
Policy 3.4.7: Within the parameters of State land use regulations, permit limited
local -serving commercial uses in higher -density rural communities.
RESPONSE: Approval of the subject application will allow for a new local -servicing
commercial use in higher -density rural communities located in close proximity to adjacent
state highways. Visitors of the any potential RV Parks in the TuC District bring additional
customers and revenue to other businesses in the TuC District.
Section 3.5: Natural Hazard Policies
Goal 1: Protect people, property, infrastructure, the economy and the environment from
natural hazards.
RESPONSE: This goal is met. Any RV Parks created via a conditional use permit within the
TuC District will provide for a development that protects people, property, infrastructure, the
economy from natural hazards.
The County itself recently commissioned a feasibility study that specifically found "A scarcity
of camping opportunities in Central Oregon, including for recreational vehicles (RV), not only
reduces total visitation but also contributes to increased dispersed camping in undeveloped
forestland and along roads. While visitation and population have both rapidly grown over
recent decades, there has been no corresponding increase in camping capacity. This, in turn,
results in added forest maintenance and damage to natural habitats, such as sanitation
issues, problems with trash management, and increased fire risk." Exhibit 1 at page 1. That
statement from the County's own study speaks directly to this Goal.
Stated simply, there is a serious demand for additional RV Parks within Deschutes County
and the current lack thereof presents significant issues that can most directly be addressed
by providing more RV Parks and campgrounds. In fact, per local news coverage of recent
247-25-000106-TA Page 14 of 27
County Commissioner meetings where the above -mentioned feasibility study was the focus
of deliberations, the Commissioners noted there is an "incredible demand" for more RV
Parks, and that very few, if any, have been built in the past 40 years in Deschutes County.
See Exhibit 2 (news article).
Further, County Planning staff previously included in its 2022-2023 annual work plan an
update regarding RV park opportunities, but appeared to stop short of exploring whether
existing County zoning may be the main obstacle to developing more RV Parks. See Exhibit
3 at page 34. Examining existing zoning closely, this appears to be true. In Tumalo, potential
for development of any RV Parks has effectively been prohibited due to the historical
limitation that no RV Parks are allowed if they were not in existence before 1979, The
Applicant's own research suggests that this limitation was originally put in place because of
the lack of central sewer services in the area, a concern that is likely to be address in Tumalo
in the near future. However, even if that now -dated historical limitation were removed, other
applicable conditional use standards in DCC chapter 18,128 make it very difficult for any new
RV Parks to be feasible in Tumalo or elsewhere in the County. This proposed Text
Amendment seeks to resolve these issues, at least for several properties within the TuC
District. (The Applicant has no objection to the County addressing these concerns with a
broader text amendment, but specifically limits the subject applicant to only the TuC District
as the subject application is applicant -initiated and intended to be quasi-judicial.)
On a more local level in Tumalo itself, the County's feasibility study cites data from the
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department showing the nearby Tumalo State Park frequently
reaches close to its 100% capacity which further exacerbate the issues outlined above,
Exhibit 1 at page 10. The area proposed to be affected by the Text Amendment will
specifically provide opportunities to help mitigate these issues and ease some of the high
volume of visitors at Tumalo State Park that may cause capacity issues,
Chapter 4: Urban Growth Management
Section 4.9: Rural Service Center Policies.
Policy 4.9.11: Recreational vehicle or trailer parks and other uses catering to
travelers shall be permitted.
RESPONSE: While Tumalo itself is no longer characterized as a "Rural Service Center" by the
County, its TuC District shares many similarities. The Comprehensive Plan defines Rural
Service Centers as "an unincorporated community consisting primarily of commercial or
industrial uses providing goods and services to the surrounding rural area or persons
traveling through the area, but which also includes some permanent residential dwellings."
While Tumalo is more broadly defined as a "Rural Community," its TuC District is in essence
a concentrated Rural Service Center with its purpose (as proposed to be amended) being to
provide commercial uses providing goods and services to the surrounding rural area or
persons traveling through the area. The Comprehensive Plan explicitly mandates that RV
Parks cateringto travelers shall be permitted in Rural Service Centers and naturallythey shall
247-25-000106-TA Page 15 of 27
also be in the TuC District due to the aligned purposes of the two rural districts.
This is why the proposed Text Amendment seeks to amend the TuC District's purpose
statement. The County Commissioners past actions and comments align with allowing uses
in the TuC District that further this policy goal as set forth in state rules. OAR 660.022.0010(7)
(defining Rural Community as "an unincorporated community which consists primarily of
permanent residential dwellings but also has at least two other land uses that provide
commercial, industrial, or public uses (including but not limited to schools, churches, grange
halls, post offices) to the community, the surrounding rural area, or to persons traveling
through the area.")
In reality, there are hundreds of thousands of people that travel through Tumalo each year
and the numbers will likely keep increasing. Hwy 20 is the major highway travelers use when
travelling to Tumalo State Park, between Sisters and Bend, and to other attractions in this
portion of Deschutes County. Being adjacent to Hwy 20, the TuC is the zoning district within
Tumalo that most practically should include the purpose of serving the travel needs of
people passing through the area.
Arguably more than any other use, an RV Park clearly "serves the travel needs of people
passing through the area" by providing lodging and access to other recreational and
commercial opportunities in the Tumalo area. The proposed Text Amendment finally brings
the TuC District into consistency with this policy.
FINDING: Staff requests the Hearings Officer amend these findings as they see fit, and determine
whether the Applicant has demonstrated compliance with applicable Comprehensive Plan
provisions.
Appendix B-Tumalo Community Plan
RV Parks in the Tumalo Community Plan
FINDING: As detailed in the record, there are several public comments which point out that the
Tumalo Community Plan does not appear to contemplate an RV park. Consequently, members of
the public argue the proposed text amendment does not conform to the Tumalo Community Plan.
Staff asks the Hearings Officer to determine whether these objections are relevant.
Economic Development Goal
Retain the economic vibrancy of Tumalo's historic core and industrial areas while providing
economic development opportunities that are compatible with the small town rural
character of the community.
Economic Development Policies
Policy 4: Support economic development initiatives and tourism in the Tumalo area.
247-25-000106-TA Page 16 of 27
FINDING: Staff finds the proposed use is consistent with this policy of the Tumalo Community Plan.
As detailed in the application materials, allowing an RV park as a conditional use in the TUC Zone
would provide economic opportunities within the unincorporated community and would support
tourism by expanding lodging options.
Policy 5: Allow for existing and future uses without producing adverse effects upon
water resources or wastewater disposal. Coordinate with relevant agencies to
ensure industrial uses meet requirements for water availability and wastewater
disposal.
FINDING: As described herein, the proposed amendments would create new wastewater standards
that only apply to RV parks within the TUC Zone. Specifically, the amendments would not require a
property owner to provide laundry facilities or a sewer connection to each RV space until a sewer
district is willing and able to provide service. In the interim, it appears to staff that the proposed
amendments would allow an RV park to commence operations before sewer connections are
established. Staff asks the Hearings Officer to make findings regarding the proposed amendments
regarding wastewater disposal within RV parks in the TUC Zone, and whether this future use would
have an adverse impact upon water resources or wastewater disposal.
Staff notes that an RV park is not an industrial use, and the proposed amendments are therefore
not subject to the second part of this policy.
OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 660, LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Division 22, Unincorporated Communities
OAR 660-022-0030 Planning and Zoning of Unincorporated Communities
(4) County plans and land use regulations may authorize only the following new
commercial uses in unincorporated communities:
(c) Uses intended to serve the community and surrounding rural area or the
travel needs of people passing through the area.
FINDING: The proposed amendments would create a new use within the unincorporated
community of Tumalo, and is therefore subject to these provisions. The application materials state
that an RV park would serve the travel needs of people passing through the area. Staff finds the
proposed commercial use may be authorized within an unincorporated community.
(8) Zoning applied to lands within unincorporated communities shall ensure that the
cumulative development:
(A) Will not result in public health hazards or adverse environmental impacts
that violate state or federal water quality regulations; and
247-25-000106-TA Page 17 of 27
(8) Will not exceed the carrying capacity of the soil or of existing water supply
resources and sewer services.
FINDING: Any future development of an RV park within the TUC Zone would be subject to review
by the Deschutes County Onsite Wastewater Division and/or the Department of Environmental
Quality to ensure that wastewater disposal complies with applicable state standards. As described
above, comments from the Deschutes County Onsite Wastewater Division indicate concerns
regarding the ability of the Applicant's property to obtain an onsite wastewater (septic) permit. The
proposed amendments would allow a property owner to establish an RV park and wait to install
sewage disposal until a sewer district is able to serve the property. Staff notes the capacity of the
sewer district would be addressed at the time a development proposal is submitted for a specific
property. However, staff finds it may also be relevant in addressing these criteria and determining
whether the proposed use would have a cumulative impact that exceeds the capacity of the sewer
system or the carrying capacity of the soil. Staff asks the Hearings Officer to make specific findings
for this section.
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
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,
(8) 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
247-25-000106-TA Page 18 of 27
(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
a land use regulation, specifically the permitted uses within the TUC Zone. The proposed
amendment would allow an RV park as a conditional use on properties that are two -to -fives acres
in size and contiguous to Highway 20. While the Applicant is not proposing any land use
development of a specific property at this time, the application materials indicate the intent is follow
the Text Amendment with a subsequent Conditional Use Permit application to establish an RV park.
The submitted application materials include a traffic memorandum dated January 8, 2025, prepared
by Joe Bessman of Transight Consulting LLC. The traffic memo analyzes a vacant parcel owned by
the Applicant, which consists of 19 adjacent tax lots in the TUC Zone, and would potentially be
eligible for development of an RV park under the amendments. The memo compares the uses that
are currently permitted in the TUC Zone to an RV park to determine whether there would be a
significant increase in trip generation with the new use category. As the memo notes, the TUC Zone
currently allows for a range of commercial uses such as eating and drinking establishments, retail,
and small office buildings.
Based on comparison of current allowable uses within the TuC zoning, the addition of RV
park reflects a lower -intensity use. Accordingly, the proposed text amendment does not have
the potential to create a significant impact on the transportation system...
Key findings of this Transportation Planning Rule analysis that would allow RV parks as a
conditional use within the Tumalo Commercial (TuC) zoning includes the following:
• The proposed text amendment would conditionally allow an RV Park on 19
contiguous lots currently zoned TuC within the unincorporated Tumalo community.
• With a reduction in trips compared to allowable uses, a comparative analysis would
show that all surrounding intersections and corridors will operate better with the text
amendment, and a significant impact does not occur.
• While the siting of the RV Park complies with the comparative analysis required to
satisfy the Transportation Planning Rule, future entitlements will need to assess the
net system impacts as required by DCC 18.116.310. This analysis will need to
demonstrate that adequate system capacity is available to serve these uses.
The traffic memo was reviewed by the County Senior Transportation Planner, who agreed with the
report's conclusions. Staff finds that the proposed Text Amendment will be consistent with the
identified function, capacity, and performance standards of the County's transportation facilities in
the area. The proposed amendments will not change the functional classification of any existing or
planned transportation facility or change the standards implementing a functional classification
system. The County Transportation Planner provided the following comments in an email dated
April 14, 2025:
247-25-000106-TA Page 19 of 27
I have reviewed the application materials for potential Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)
OAR 660-012 effects, including the applicant's transportation memorandum produced by
Transight Consulting, LLC, (dated January 8, 2025) and I agree with its assumptions,
methodology, and conclusions. The memorandum adequately addresses reasonable worst
case scenario analysis through a comparison of the existing outright allowed uses (utilizing
ITE category 822 for Strip Retail Plaza as an aggregate category encompassing
eating/drinking establishments, small retail, and offices each totaling less than 10,000
square -feet) to the proposed Campground/RV Park (ITE 416) use and ultimately concludes
that no significant impacts will be anticipated with the proposed text amendment. Staff notes
that, should the proposed text amendment receive approval, further traffic analysis may be
required at the time of future development depending on the future development's vehicle
trip generation potential. While the current text amendment does not absorb County road
capacity, any future proposal for the development of a Campground/RV Park under the
proposed use category must demonstrate compliance with the transportation analysis
requirements of DCC 18.116.310, including p.m. peak hour vehicle trips related to System
Development Charges (SDCs), mitigations, and adequacy of access.
Based on the County Senior Transportation Planner's comments and the traffic memo prepared by
Transight Consulting LLC, staff finds compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule has been
effectively demonstrated.
DIVISION 15, STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES
OAR 660-015, Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
FINDING: The Statewide Planning Goals and the Applicant's findings are quoted below:
Goal 1: Citizen Involvement
To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to
be involved in all phases of the planning process.
RESPONSE: The amendments do not propose to change the structure of the County's citizen
involvement program. Notice of the proposed amendments will be provided in accordance
with the requirements of the DCC. The public hearing on this application will provide the
opportunity for any resident to participate in the land use process. Goal 1 is met.
Goal 2: Land Use Planning
Part I - Planning. To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a
basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate
factual base for such decisions and actions.
247-25-000106-TA Page 20 of 27
RESPONSE: Goals policies, and processes related to this application are included in the
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Title 23, and Deschutes County Code, Title 18 and
Title 22. Compliance with these processes, policies, and regulations are documented within
the subject application. Goal 2 is met.
Goal 3: Agricultural Lands
To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
RESPONSE: No lands will be rezoned as part of this application, furthering the purpose of
Goal 3. The purpose of TuC District, as proposed to be amended, is to "allow a range of
limited commercial and industrial uses to serve the community and surrounding area or the
travel needs of people passing through the area." Tumalo does not contain any lands with
the Comprehensive Plan designation of Agriculture nor the zoning designation of Exclusive
Farm Use (EFU). Goal 3 is met.
Goal 4: Forest Lands
To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's
forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure
the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on
forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife
resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture.
RESPONSE: The amendments do not propose to rezone or alter forest lands. Further, there
are no lands designated Forest, either by Comprehensive Plan or DCC 18.67, within or
abutting Tumalo. Goal 4 is met.
Goal 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources
To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.
RESPONSE: The properties potentially affected by the proposed Text Amendment are not
located in the Landscape Management Overlay Zone for the Hwy 20 corridor as that zone
specifically does not overlay the TuC District. Several properties in the TuC District, however,
are within 660 feet of the ordinary high-water mark of the Deschutes River such that those
properties are then within that Landscape Management Overlay Zone. Nevertheless, the
subject Text Amendment does not introduce a new conflicting use to the Landscape
Management Overlay Zone thereby requiring an economic, social, environmental, and
energy ("ESEE") analysis. As noted above, historic RV Parks have always been allowed within
the TuC District. Importantly, the proposed Text Amendment does not alter or change that
any proposed RV Park on properties within the Landscape Management Overlay Zone will
still be required to fully comply with DCC Chapter 18.84. Goal 5 is met.
Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality
247-25-000106-TA Page 21 of 27
To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.
RESPONSE: The proposed text amendment will not impact the quality of the air, water, or
land resources. Goal 6 is met.
Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
To protect people and property from natural hazards.
RESPONSE: To the extent that lands in the TuC District are in areas subject to natural
disasters and hazards, the subject application will serve to mitigate the risk of harm from
such disasters on the property of Deschutes County citizens via the conditional use permit
process and applicable codes and standards. Goal 7 is met.
Goal 8: Recreational Needs
To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where
appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including
destination resorts.
RESPONSE: While Goal 8 itself is most often discussed in relation to destination resorts, it
more broadly directs local jurisdictions to inventory their existing recreation areas, facilities,
and opportunities to determine the existing and future recreational needs of citizens and
visitors, and to plan for recreational opportunities in proportion to the demand for them.
Development of RV Parks helps satisfy this goal.
As aforementioned herein and as evidenced by the County's own feasibility study, there is a
lack of existing RV Parks in Tumalo and its surrounding areas where the existing zoning limits
the opportunities for their development despite the well documented and growing demand
for such uses. The County itself documented that its existing zoning directly limits where RV
Parks may be developed, and the County's existing conditional use requirements in Chapter
18.128 further make such developments not economically feasible. Requiring applicants to
provide full amenities such as showers, sewer, and laundry makes RV Parks practically and
economically infeasible in most locations throughout the County, and then requires all RV
Parks to cater to limited clientele actually seeking such high -end services. Several publicly
owned RV Parks, including Tumalo State Park, La Pine State Park, and the County -owned
Jefferson County RV Park do not include the full list of amenities that are required for new
privately -owned RV Parks in Deschutes County. It is telling that so few RV Parks have recently
been developed in Deschutes County, resulting in the County commissioning its own
feasibility study as discussed above. The proposed Text Amendment will loosen these
requirements to provide new opportunities for RV Parks on at least certain properties in the
TuC District. This better satisfies the recreational needs of Deschutes County citizens and
visitors by providing for siting of RV vehicles and promoting access to nearby recreational
247-25-000106-TA Page 22 of 27
sites including Tumalo State Park, which is estimated to be more than 200,000 visitors a year
according to the Tumalo Community Plan and is increasing annually. Goal 8 is met.
Goal 9: Economic Development
To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic
activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
RESPONSE: Although the applicability of Goal 9 is debatable in this context, the County's
current code provisions governing the TuC District nevertheless clearly do not provide the
same economic opportunity as would otherwise be allowed by state rules. Specifically, state
rules allow uses in the TuC District that are intended to serve the travel public. DCC
18.67.040's purpose statement notably omits similar language, instead only allowing uses
that serve the community and surrounding area. Considering the TuC District's location
adjacent to Hwy 20 within the Tumalo community and between Bend and Sisters, omitting
uses that also serve the traveling public undeniably then restricts economic development
within the district. One clear example of a uses that would otherwise be allowed by state
rules and that would otherwise further economic development within the TuC District is an
RV park.
Accordingly, the proposed text amendment complies with Goal 9 because it will permit a new
and varied economic activity i.e., RV Parks, within the TuC District that will allow property
owners within the TuC District an additional opportunity for prosperity. Economic
Development Policy 4 of the Tumalo Community Plan is specifically to "Support economic
development initiatives and tourism in the Tumalo area" which is exactly what this Text
Amendment will do. Goal 9 is met.
Goal 10: Housing
To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
RESPONSE: The subject application does not propose to change to housing. Goal 10 is met,
to the extent it is applicable. Further, because Tumalo is classified as a Rural Unincorporated
Community under OAR-660-022-0010(7) it is not obligated to fulfill certain housing
requirements.
Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services
To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and
services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development.
RESPONSE: The proposed text amendment will have no adverse effect on the provision of
public facilities and services. In fact, to the extent the Tumalo Basin Sewer District creation
moves forward, it can proceed in lockstep with the new opportunities presented by this Text
Amendment application. Unless and until a sewer district is installed and functioning,
247-25-000106-TA Page 23 of 27
applicants for RV Parks still should be allowed the opportunity as a business decision to
develop and maintain on -site septic systems that are capable of handling the demands of an
RV Park with on -site bathrooms and showers. Increased flexibility for RV Park proposals is
essential if more are ever to be developed in Deschutes County. Goal 11 is met.
Goal 12: Transportation
To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment will not impact transportation facilities within the
County. The Applicant engaged a traffic engineer, Joe Bessman of Transight Consulting, LLC,
who prepared a TPR Analysis (attached as Exhibit 4) and will provide a further Traffic Impact
Analysis when future Conditional Use Permit applications for an RV Park are submitted by
the Applicant. Among the findings of the TPR is that an "RV park is a much less intense use
than what is currently permitted within [the TuC District] and therefore does not create a
significant transportation impact. The listing of this use as Conditional will require additional
analysis to ensure that the use is consistent with County and State requirements."
Further, allowing properties in the TuC District to be utilized for RV Parks even if accessed off
something other than an arterial or collector street clearly provides more development
opportunities for RV Parks. Applicants who are capable of meeting all applicable road
standards except for being off an arterial or collector road ought to be provided the same
development opportunity and RV Parks should not be arbitrarily prohibited in such
circumstances. Stated simply, in its current form DCC 18.128.170(0) is blatantly over
regulatory because it prohibits RV Parks on properties that could otherwise meet all
applicable road standards. Rather than instead requiring compliance with those applicable
road standards, DCC 18.128,170(0) elevates access off of an arterial or collector street as a
proxy for those road standards. A property not having access off an arterial or collector is an
arbitrary requirement that has directly contributed to the lack RV Parks being developed
throughout the County.
The County's current policy stance was clarified in a written response received by the
Applicant from County staff after requesting a meeting to discuss DCC 18.128.170(0). The
email communication is included as Exhibit 6. Rather than meeting to discuss the issue,
County staff more directly defended in that written response that DCC 18.128.170(0) in its
current form "aligns with transportation planning principles by balancing accessibility, safety,
and minimal disruption to surrounding communities." However, County staff also noted that
"RV park access and traffic circulation on local roads is not desirable in many situations"
(emphasis added). But something not being desirable in many situations is not the same
thing as not being desirable in all situations, confirming then that DCC 18.128.170(0) it its
current form is over regulatory. Further, County staff assumed that the only other option
would be RV Park access off of local access roads, and failed to address that DCC
18.128.170(0) mandates access off of only arterial or collector streets therefore also
prohibiting access off a state highway, for example. More importantly, County staffs written
response suggested that although they would be "opposed to eliminating [DCC
247-25-000106-TA Page 24 of 27
18.128.170(0)] outright," County staff suggested that they would not then be opposed to
modifying that provision so long as the following listed factors were instead addressed: (1)
traffic capacity and flow; (2) geometric design; (3) pavement design; (4) livability impacts on
local residents; and (5) accessibility and convenience to amenities and state highways.
Although the Applicant questions if the last two aforementioned factors are best addressed
as part of traffic and road issues, to honor County staffs recommendation the Applicant, as
part of the subject Text Amendment, proposes replacing the currently over regulatory DCC
18.128.170(0)—at least within the TuC District —with the same listed factors recommend by
County staff. The intended outcome would be that RV Parks within the TuC District could be
approved off of something other than arterial and collector streets after consideration of
these factors. The proposed text amendment does not eliminate the purposes of DCC
18.128.170(0) outright as County staff cautioned, rather it provides more flexibility and
opportunity for development of RV Parks when the County itself has determined that such
uses are severely lacking throughout our community. Stated simply, when the County
Commissioners themselves have expressed they want to foster RV Park development
throughout the County, any blatantly over regulatory code provision that unnecessarily
prohibits RV Parks on otherwise qualifying properties should be re-examined.
As a final comment, the impact of DCC 18.128.170(0) on RV Park development should not be
lost on the County. The County's very own feasibility study discussed above identified three
properties where the County itself may consider developing an RV Park. Two out of three
sites identified by that feasibility study would not meet DCC 18.128.170(0), yet those two
sites were not then immediately excluded from further consideration. Specifically, the
Crooked River Ranch Site's only means of access is via NW 8th Court, a "Rural Local" road.
The Fort Thompson Site's only means of access is off Oregon State Highway 97 which also is
not an "arterial or collector street." If pursued further, both aforementioned sites would likely
require zone changes and/or text amendments before RV Parks would be viable options.
Assuming the County would then pursue legislative amendments allowing RV Parks as
conditional uses on those two aforementioned properties, then the County would be in the
very same position as the Applicant when it comes to the addressing DCC 18.128.170(0). If
the County's intention is to staunchly defend that RV Parks should only be developed on
properties with direct access from arterial or collector streets, then presumably the County's
own feasibility study would not have wasted resources analyzing two properties that do not
meet that overly stringent standard.
Goal 12 is met.
Goal 13: Energy Conservation
To conserve energy.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment will have a de minimis effect on the provision of
public facilities and services. To the extent Goal 13 is applicable, new RV Parks developed in
the TuC District will be designed and constructed with best practices for the modern-day
construction industry, including energy efficient design standards, as well as the ability to
247-25-000106-TA Page 25 of 27
accommodate vehicles that are of the "van -life" variety and less consumptive than larger
traditional RVs of both the motorized and trailer variety.
Goal 14: Urbanization
To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to
accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth
boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities.
RESPONSE: Goal 14 concerns the provision of urban and rural land uses to ensure efficient
use of land and livable communities. The proposed amendment does not amend an urban
growth boundary, and RV Parks are permitted as a conditional use in several other rural
zones throughout the County. Like the TuC District, these other zones serve rural
communities. RV Parks are not exclusively an "urban use" and RV Parks significantly
contribute to rural recreational opportunities. The subject application proposes to limit RV
Parks to lands in the TuC District that are located in close proximity to the adjacent State Hwy
20, thereby promoting an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use to the
extent applicable. Goal 14 is met.
Goals 15-19
RESPONSE: Goals 15 through 19 do not apply (Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway; Goal 16
Estuarine Resources; Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands; Goal 18 Beaches and Dunes; and Goal 19
Ocean Resources).
Staff generally accepts the Applicant's responses and finds compliance with the applicable
Statewide Planning Goals has been effectively demonstrated.
IV. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests the Hearings Officer determine if the Applicant has met the burden of proof
necessary to justify the proposed Text Amendment through effectively demonstrating
compliance with the applicable criteria of DCC Title 18 (the Deschutes County Zoning
Ordinance), the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, and applicable sections of OAR and
ORS.
DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION
Written by: Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner
247-25-000106-TA Page 26 of 27
1 (Kjz—
Reviewed by: Anthony Raguine, Principal Planner
Attachments: 1) Proposed Text Amendments
247-25-000106-TA Page 27 of 27
Attachment A: Proposed Text Amendments
18.67.040 Commercial (TuQ District
The Tumalo Commercial District is intended to allow a range of limited commercial and industrial uses to
serve the community and surrounding area or the travel needs of people passing through the area.
A. Permitted Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright and do not
require site plan review under DCC 18.124.
1. A single -unit dwelling or duplex.
2. A manufactured dwelling subject to DCC 18.116.070.
3. Type 1 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280.
4. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition,
subdivision, or subject to the standards of DCC 18.67.060 and 18.116.230.
5. Class III road or street project.
6. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an
Irrigation District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050.
7. Residential home.
B. Uses Permitted, Subject to Site Plan Review. The following uses and their accessory uses are
permitted subject to the applicable provisions of DCC 18.67, 18.116, and 18.124:
1. A building or buildings, none of which exceeds 4,000 square feet of floor area to be used
by any combination of the following uses:
a. Retail or service business.
b. Eating and/or drinking establishment.
c. Offices.
d. A dwelling unit permitted outright or conditionally, in the same building as a use
permitted in DCC 18.67.040.
e. Marijuana wholesaling, office only. There shall be no storage of marijuana items
or products at the same location.
2. Any of the uses listed under DCC 18.67.040 proposing to occupy more than 4,000 square
feet of floor area in a building subject to the provisions of DCC 18.67.040(E).
3. Child care facility and/or preschool.
C. Conditional Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted subject to the
applicable provisions of DCC 18.116, 18.124, and 18.128:
1. Religious institutions or assemblies.
2. Bed and breakfast inn.
3. Type 2 or Type 3 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280.
4. Park.
5. Public or semi-public building.
6. Utility facility.
7. Water supply or treatment facility.
8. Manufactured dwelling/RV aF!( on a lot or parcel in use as a manufactured dwelling park
^¢;^n park prior to the adoption of PL-15 in 1979 and being operated as
of June 12, 1996, as a manufactured dwelling park or recreational including
any expansion of such uses on the same lot or parcel as configured on June 12, 1996.
9. The following uses and their accessory uses may be conducted in a building or buildings
not to exceed 4,000 square feet of floor area.
a. Farm equipment, sales, service, or repair.
b. Trailer sales, service, or repair.
c. Vehicle service or repair.
d. Veterinary clinic.
10. The following uses may be conducted in a building or buildings not to exceed 10,000
square feet of floor area:
a. Manufacturing or production.
b. Wholesale sales.
c. Marijuana retailing, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330.
11. Wireless telecommunications facilities, except those facilities meeting the requirements
of DCC 18.116.250(A) or (B).
12. Surface mining of mineral and aggregate resources in conjunction with the operation and
maintenance of irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District, including the
excavation and mining for facilities, ponds, reservoirs, and the off -site use, storage, and
sale of excavated material.
13. Psilocybin service centers, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.380.
14. Recreational Vehicle Parks.
D. Use Limitations. The following use limitations shall apply to the uses listed in DCC
18.67.040(C)(10).
1. Compatibility.
a. Any use expected to generate more than 50 truck -trailer and/or heavy equipment
trips per day to and from the subject property shall not be permitted to locate on
a lot or parcel abutting or across a local or collector street from a lot or parcel in
a residential district.
2. Traffic and Parking.
a. A use that generates more than 20 auto or truck trips during the peak hour of the
day to and from the premises shall document with facts that the affected
transportation facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use, considering the
functional classification, capacity, and level of service of the affected
transportation facility.
b. All parking demand generated by uses permitted by DCC 18.67 shall be
accommodated entirely on the premises.
E. Requirements for Large Scale Uses.
1. All uses listed in DCC 18.67.040(B) may have a total floor area exceeding 4,000 square
feet but not greater than 10,000 square feet if the Planning Director or Hearings Body
finds:
a. The use is intended to serve the community and surrounding rural area, or the
traveling needs of people passing through the area;
b. The use will primarily employ a work force from the community and surrounding
rural area; and
c. It is not practical to contain the proposed use within 4,000 square feet of the floor
area.
2. This provision does not apply to uses listed in DCC 18.67.040(C)(10).
3. For the purposes of DCC 18.67.040, the surrounding rural area is described as the
following: extending north to the Township boundary between Townships 15 and 16;
extending west to the boundary of the public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service in
T16S-R11E; extending south to the south section lines of T17S-R12E sections 4,5,6 and
T17S-R11E sections 1,2,3; and extending east to Highway 97.
F. Design Standards. Ground Floor Windows. The following criteria for ground floor windows apply
to new buildings in the TuC district except those uses listed in DCC 18.67.040(C)(10) and any
residential use. The provisions of DCC 18.124 also apply.
1. The windows must be at least 50 percent of the length of the ground level wall area and
25 percent of height of the ground level wall area. Ground level wall area includes all
exterior wall area up to nine feet above the finished grade. The window requirement
applies to the ground level of exterior building walls which abut sidewalks or streets.
2. Required window areas shall be either windows that allow views into working areas,
lobbies, pedestrian entrances or display windows.
G. Lot Area Requirements. The minimum lot area is 10,000 square feet. In addition, lot area
requirements for this district shall be determined by spatial requirements for sewage disposal,
required landscaped areas, and off-street parking.
H. Lot Coverage Standards.
1. Lot Coverage: No lot coverage requirements, provided spatial requirements for parking,
sewage disposal, and landscaping are satisfied.
2. No use listed in DCC 18.67.040(C)(10) that is abutting or across a local or collector from a
lot or parcel in a residential district shall exceed 70 percent lot coverage, including outside
storage, and off-street parking and loading areas.
I. Setback Standards.
1. Front Setback. The front setback shall be a maximum of 15 feet, except as otherwise
allowed by DCC 18.124.070 (D)(3). The front setback for structures may be reduced, but
not increased, to the average setback distance of existing structures on abutting lots or
parcels.
2. Side Setback. No requirement, subject to DCC 18.67.040(I)(4).
3. Rear Setback. No specific requirement, subject to DCC 18,67.040 (I)(4).
4. Exceptions to Setback Standards.
a. Lot line(s) abutting a residential zone. For all new structures or substantial
alterations of a structure requiring a building permit, on a lot or parcel abutting a
residential district, the setback shall be a minimum of 15 feet. The required
setback will be increased by one foot for each foot by which the structure height
exceeds 20 feet.
b. Lot line(s) abutting an EFU zone. Any structure requiring a building permit, on a
lot or parcel abutting EFU-zoned land receiving special assessment for farm use,
shall have a minimum setback of 100 feet from any shared lot line.
J. Additional Standards for Recreational Vehicle Parks
1. Recreational Vehicle Parks shall only be allowed on a single parcel or contiguous parcels
under common ownership that meet the following requirements:
a. The area of the parcel(s) proposed for development shall exceed 2 acres but no
more than 5 acres-
b. The parcel(s) shall all be located in a sewer district; and
c. The single parcel or at least one of the contiguous parcels under common
ownership shal0 be adjacent to State lii�hway 20.
2. Compliance with DCC 18.128.170.
a. For sewage disposal service and laundry facilities only, Recreational Vehicle
Parks in the Tumalo Commercial District shall not be required to comply with
DCC 18.128.170(0) and (J) until a sewer district is willing and able to provide
service to the proposed project. The County may include conditions of approval
requiring Recreational Vehicle Parks to provide sewer connection to each
recreational vehicle_ace and to provide laundry facilities as outlined in DCC
18.128.170(J) once sewer service is available from a sewer district
b. To ensure compliance with DCC 18.128.170(G), Recreational Vehicle Parks in the
Tumalo Commercial District shall only provide temporary lodging with no
recreational vehicles utilized as permanent "residential dwellings" as that term
is used in ORS 197.493.
c. Compliance with DCC 18.128.170(0) requiring that access to a Recreational
Vehicle Park shall be from an arterial or collector street shall not be applicable
in the Tumalo Commercial District so long as an applicant instead demonstrates
that the street providing direct access to the proposed Recreational Vehicle
Park shall not be unreasonably impacted. To demonstrate compliance with �thls
standard, an applicant shall address traffic capacity and flow, geometric design,
pavement design, livability impacts on local residents, and accessibility and
convenience to amenities and state highways.
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: April 1, 2026
SUBJECT: Second reading of Ordinance 2026-007 - Tumalo RV Park Text Amendments
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
1. Move approval of second reading of Ordinance No. 2026-007 by title only.
2. Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2026-007.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Board of Commissioners (Board) will hold second reading of an ordinance approving
applicant -initiated amendments (File No. 247-25-000106-TA) to Chapter 18.67 of Deschutes
County Code. The first reading of this ordinance was held on March 18, 2026.
The proposed amendments would allow a new recreational vehicle (RV) park as a
conditional use in the TUC Zone, and also approve siting standards for new RV parks in this
zone.
The Board held an initial public hearing on October 22nd . Following a continued public
hearing on February 111", the Board voted 2 - 1 to approve this application.
The full record can be viewed on the hearing webpage:
https://www deschutes.org/cd/page/247-25-000106-ta-tumalo-rv-park-text-amendment
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner
Anthony Raguine, Principal Planner
Will Groves, Planning Manager