Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-14 Business Meeting Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business’ Meeting Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 1 of 24 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2012 _____________________________ Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend __________________________ Present were Commissioners Alan Unger and Tammy Baney; Commissioner Anthony DeBone was out of the office. Also present was Interim County Administrator Erik Kropp; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack, Paul Blikstad and Will Groves, Community Development; Capt. Tim Edwards, Darryl Nakahira and Roger Dosier, Sheriff’s Office; and approximately forty other citizens. Vice Chair Unger opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. Before the Board was Citizen Input. Bill Rainey, a volunteer with Red Cross and Sisters Community Action Team, said their goal is for Sisters country to have the highest individual preparedness level in Oregon. They are planning their preparedness fair, which is free. (A copy of his statement is attached for reference.) Since funding from some sources is no longer available, he requested funding of $5,000 from the County to be able to have this event. Commissioner Baney thanked him for bringing this to the Board’s attention. Preparation and prevention are the way to go before there is actually a disaster. She advised Mr. Rainey to make application for economic development discretionary grant funds through County Administration. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business’ Meeting Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 2 of 24 Pages 3. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2012- 015, Declaring a Sole Source Procurement for the Sheriff’s Office Video Surveillance System Upgrade. Darryl Nakahira and Roger Dosier explained the item. The sole source procurement makes financial sense because there is only one vendor to service and provide upgrades for the current system. It is already budgeted. A new system would be at least twice as costly, per inquiries with other vendors. BANEY: Move signature of Resolution No. 2012-015. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Vice Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of First and Second Readings, by Title Only, and Adoption by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2012-003, Clarifying the Geographic Area for Representatives of the Historic Preservation and Historical Landmarks Commission. Vice Chair Unger read the opening statement. In regard to conflicts of interest, neither Commissioner had any to disclose. Nick Lelack explained that a new Landmarks Commission has been established, since the cities of Bend and Redmond have formed their own. The County’s group would cover areas outside of the city limits of most of the cities. Eleven applications have been received. The City of Sisters is not required to appoint a member but can do so; otherwise the County can appoint that member. The name will be changed to Historic (rather than Historical) Landmarks Commission. The request is for this to be an emergency adoption, to make it effective at the same time as the ordinance adopted earlier on the same issue, so that membership can be consistent. Citizen William Kuhn testified that about a mile from his property is the historic dam. He would like to see the old control tower added to the list. He said that the control tower has been the subject of significant vandalism, and he wants to raise it to a level of being included as having historical significance. Commissioner Baney said the Juvenile Justice detention group may be able to take care of graffiti in these types of instances. Mr. Kuhn stated that it now has graffiti on it, and any help would be appreciated. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business’ Meeting Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 3 of 24 Pages Being no further testimony, Vice Chair Unger closed the public hearing. BANEY: Move first and second readings of Ordinance No. 2012-003, by title only. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Vice Chair votes yes. Vice Chair conducted the first and second readings of the Ordinance, by title only. BANEY: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2012-003, by emergency. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Vice Chair votes yes. 5. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of First and Second Readings, by Title Only, and Adoption by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2012-004, Establishing Provisions for Agri-Tourism and Other Commercial Events and Activities, to Amend the Winery Standards in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone. Vice Chair Unger read the opening statement on this item. Regard ing conflicts of interest, Commissioner Baney said that they have had a number of work sessions and business meetings at which this issue was discussed, but all are on the record. Vice Chair Unger indicated the same. No challenges were offered from the public. Mr. Lelack provided a staff report, and indicated Chair DeBone said he would be watching this hearing either live or from the recording. Mr. Lelack indicated there are documents available to the public; and then gave a PowerPoint presentation on the history of this issue. (A copy of handouts and the presentation are attached for reference.) Another consideration is, if the ordinance is felt to be appropriate, whether it should be adopted by emergency so that it would be effective immediately. Mr. Lelack explained how the Senate Bill 960 has affected what the County can and cannot do. However, some issues were still not clearly explained, so the County will have to define certain things, such as direct access, and how these situations fit with the outdoor mass gathering ordinance. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business’ Meeting Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 4 of 24 Pages State laws regarding farm use means that the land’s primarily purpose would be to obtain obtaining a profit in money from farm-related uses. HB 3280 has to do with wineries. Those provisions expire in January 2014. Local jurisdictions must assure public health and safety. Anyone can apply for a winery even if the County has not yet adopted this; and those applicants would not be subject to health and safety requirements until such time the County adopts the ordinance. So for that reason, it is important to move forward. DLCD notified the County that the prohibition regarding combining events was not clear; so a single permit, stand-alone section was added. DLCD feels that the County is more restrictive than the DLCD thinks is necessary. Mr. Lelack stated that letters and other testimony have been received from various entities and individuals, and these documents are now a part of the record. If the ordinance is adopted by emergency, it would allow those who wish to schedule some events the time to do so this year. It will still take time for permitting and inspections. In regard to the process, an Administrative Determination is proposed. It is not a conditional use permit issue. The fee is $785 at this time. If the criteria is not met in the application or it is contentious, a hearing before a Hearings Officer may be required, at a cost of up to $3,000. If it is then appealed, it would go to the State. There is a renewal requirement every two to four years, and that fee has not yet been determined. The Board can keep the public hearing open to a date and time certain, close the oral record and keep the written open for a specific period of time, or close the hearing and do first reading only, or conduct the first and second readings and move adoption by emergency. Commissioner Unger asked how the potential cost of services will be conveyed to the public. Mr. Lelack stated that they hope to put a brochure together detailing what farm use actually is, how a use qualifies, the process and the cost. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business’ Meeting Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 5 of 24 Pages Commissioner Baney asked if there is a way to link growing hay with a wedding event; in effect, what the minimum standards are. If someone raises cattle and intends to serve those steaks at a wedding, are there also health issues to consider. Mr. Lelack said agri-tourism has to have a direct link. They have to have a farm use on the property. One thing in the application, based on State law, is a written description of the proposal, duration, structures, etc., but the y are not going to require paved parking or ADA access, and similar things. State law did not require these to be addressed. Commissioner Baney asked about farm tax deferral and what happens if they intend to use an acre or two for other things. Mr. Lelack said this was not discussed because the uses are temporary and of limited duration, unlike a home occupation that may be more permanent. It depends whether the use affects the overall use of the land. Commissioner Unger asked about the DLCD notification. Mr. Lelack feels the County’s prohibition was greater, but the two Bills cancel each other out regarding the number of events. Laurie Craghead said she is not clear on what DLCD wants. She thought if these events were approved, you could not combine others with them. But DLCD feels this is more restrictive than they meant. What she thinks they mean is that you can’t have another outdoor mass gathering if it is agricultural - related, but this is not clear either. It seems that you’d either need to prohibit other kinds of gatherings or you don’t have to, but it is hard to interpret and lacks clarity. Mr. Lelack provided a copy of staff’s suggestions and the DLCD response. Vice Chair Unger opened the meeting for testimony. Capt. Tim Edwards of the Sheriff’s Office said that the Sheriff’s Office is opposed to any ordinance that requires a certain decibel level determination. Also, a 100-foot setback seems silly to them. It is too minimal to be effective in many cases, and they oppose this wording. Mr. Lelack stated the winery provisions are for 100 feet. There were no setbacks established in the other Bill, so they made it consistent. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business’ Meeting Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 6 of 24 Pages Capt. Edwards asked about access to the property. Mr. Lelack said that law enforcement would be the only ones allowed to do so. Capt. Edwards would like other agencies to also have access when appropriate and not have the burden fall totally on the Sheriff’s Office. John Shepherd of Sisters said he is concerned about non-agricultural use of land. His land is very private, but he has no irrigation and no way to make a profit from his land. He is also a pastor and has had weddings there before. He does not have true agricultural or winery land due to the lack of irrigation, and wondered if there is a way to continue this type of use. He could have chickens but the predators would make short work of them. He feels his land is perfect for weddings because it is private, that type of activity would not displace farm land, and is about the only viable use of his land. Gretchen Pederson of Tumalo testified she lives on ten acres. She has a lot to lose if neighbors have events, but she knows they want to make extra money in this economic climate. She is concerned about noise and lighting. She loves the night sky and would want to see lights directed down ward and not onto adjacent properties. She agrees with the Sheriff that setbacks should be greater. Robert Pederson of Tumalo is mostly concerned about the noise issue. Determining decibel levels is not that accurate. Some noises vary according to terrain or the type of music, and a loud noise can occur off and on. A much better way to deal with the noise is to have a setback of one-quarter of a mile or more. Otherwise there would need to be acoustic noise onl y. He is speaking only of music; other farm uses would not apply. It is easy to determine one- quarter mile, making enforcement much easier. Kerry Downs of Dodds Road, said they have been dealing with this issue for five years, involving a lot of time, effort and money. His biggest concern is that the State saw fit to pass a law that gave the County discretion whether to use the law. The Planning Commission has done its work and now it is back to the Board again. It is time to let this go through. They are talking about up to six events. He feels no one will qualify for anything more than that. He also urged, as an applicant under SB 960, the hurdle is not that he has to relate the hay he grows with a wedding; he merely has to prove that he has a farm activity going on. That direct connection is not needed, but only that he has a farming activity there. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business’ Meeting Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 7 of 24 Pages Regarding noise, the Sheriff’s testimony and decibel levels, that decibel level gives the Sheriff’s Office more authority rather than less. The nuisance law is much more subjective, and the decibel level gives them more power. The same meter could be used as it is in the outdoor mass gathering ordinance. The decibel level option gives them more rather than less control. The nuisance noise law does not work well. He said that the State did its due diligence regarding the 100-foot setback. One hundred feet is a minimum level to the property line, not necessarily from a house. People say they moved to the country for a peaceful, rural lifestyle. But they had to get a conditional use permit to have a house there. They are subject to all of the noises, smells and activities that go along with farming. There is no guarantee of quiet in a farming area. He wants this to pass and move on. Commissioner Baney said that it is good that the State finally took action, but the County is tasked with having to figure out the details. Harry Ketrenos of Powell Butte, read a statement (a copy of which is attached). He the Board to slow down, as he feels it is already too late for this season, so it is not an emergency. The Planning Commission felt the vendors would police themselves, but they do not follow regulations or consideration of neighbors. They use inappropriate parking and toilet facilities. Wineries may be different but they had events before paying permit fees. He added that if this is approved, funding needs to be there for enforcement. The event operators need to provide funding for code enforcement. All health, safety and other agencies should have full access. He feels the acreage requirement is too small unless someone is holding small dinner parties. Otherwise there needs to be a lot of land. He added that the neighbors have rights to not have property values decrease, and deal with noise, pollution, obstructions to views, unsafe roads, etc. Gigi (Janet) Meyer of Sunflower Farms in Alfalfa said she grows vegetables, eggs and dairy goats, to sell to a local resort and others. She had a question regarding whether these uses require the payment of the $750 fee. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business’ Meeting Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 8 of 24 Pages As a small scale farmer, she would benefit from hosting small dinners using local produce and products, at her property. Many farmers like her can’t make it. Local food farms are protective of the community and should be fostered and encouraged. Small scale agriculture and ag-related uses should be able to waive the fee. She could not make $750 doing this work to pay the fee. She moved to the country for quality of life, and she appreciates farming and the natural surroundings. If a mass gathering and amplified music was next door, she’d be chased back into her house. However, she is a small scale farmer. The County should encourage small farmers to continue farming by removing barriers for them to supplement their income. They do need to be careful, however, of other large, intrusive events in the countryside. Commissioner Baney noted that she does not think they are trying to police small dinner parties. Ms. Meyer said hers would be chef dinners. Brasada Ranch would like to do a few small events there. The ideas behind pumpkin patches, farm stands, etc. are supportive of this kind of thing. Commissioner Baney suggested that she work with staff on this. John Blanchard of Bend stated that they live in a cluster of MUA zoned homes, on about two- acre lots, and their personal experience was a desire for peace and quiet. These lots were fully developed over the years, with a stable level of sanctuary. The Christian Life Center built nearby. They live about 3700 feet behind the stage. They get a lot of residual noise from the Center’s events. Another bed & breakfast lies to the northeast and has mass gatherings occasionally, and can be heard. In addition to the noise, the traffic at Hamby and Ward Road, driveways and other roads is a landing spot for car accidents. The State proposed closing their ingress to Highway 20 because of this. Nothing was really done, partly because it was their only northern egress. There are no turn lanes, so turns are a big problem. Susan Blanchard added that when people live where there is farming, they should be used to noise. However, it is minimal and they knew this was to be expected. Other things are creeping up that are not farming. (A copy of their statement is attached for reference.) Paul Dewey, Central Oregon Landwatch, submitted six letters , each addressing a separate issue such as road access, the number of events, sanitation, etc. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business’ Meeting Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 9 of 24 Pages Landwatch has supported the efforts of small farmers like Ms. Meyers, who provide a real service to the community. They deserve more flexibility. He is not sure this ordinance gets to that. She and others like her need this support. What is driving this is not the needs of small farmers, but people who want commercial events on their land. There might need to be another effort to specifically address situations like the one she is in. He is not sure this ordinance as written will help her and others, as it is a little too open-ended. People anticipate weddings, but what other things can go on for 72 hours. He feels they are opening the door a bit too widely at the beginning and this may result in unintended consequences. He also wanted to echo the problem regarding the Christian Life Center’s events. He represented some of the neighbors. This was supposed to be a maximum of 70 db for 3 hours, four times a year max. The fact that this can be heard 7/10 of a mile away was not contemplated. 70 db is loud and carries a long way. What they are looking at here is up to 18 times a year over 72 hours each time. He understands the Sheriff’s issue, not wanting to have to police this kind of thing. Just because the outdoor mass gathering ordinance allow this, it is not appropriate for dozens of other events. He asked that the record be kept open for at least additional written comments. Brenda Pace, Bend, knows this has been going on for a long time, as she was previously on the Planning Commission . She said there still apparently needs some tweaking to be done. The Central Oregon Food Council deserves respect. A few were for the events ordinance and most of them were concerned about it. The decibel level being the same as a mass gathering, 72 hours, on ten acres is too much. The State set no limits on the size, but ten acres still seems too small. The element of agri-tourism linking into allowing an event is a concern. If these are agriculturally related operations, why does someone have to get a permit if they have someone else come in to help. She did not assume this definition needs a permit. Agri-tourism does not allow commercial events such as weddings. She thought they were trying to permit the things that are truly agri-tourism with a strong connection. If they have to get a permit, it is entirely different than she thought it was. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business’ Meeting Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 10 of 24 Pages Some events will do better in some locations, and some neighbors will get along okay, so this seems to be a trial balloon. To do this, there needs to be a clear understanding of what a violation is, so a permit can be terminated or not renewed. This part needs to be very clear. In terms of violations, if there is a $720 per day fee for a violation, they can pay the fee; but do they have to keep paying this as a cost of doing business. Lisa McDonald, Neff Road, said she held a wedding event but got shut down by the County. She thinks this has been talked to death, since the State has opened the door for decisions. She has personally submitted fourteen letters for the public record from various entities and businesses. These are people who are looking at this as a broad brush for the County, not just considering farm or non-farm. She has a stack of 350 letters not yet submitted. They do not have a text amendment reference on them, but provide support for broad use of the land. (The letters are attached for reference.) She said all of the letters are pro-wedding. She wants these to be heard. They have worked hard to fine-tune this situation, from music, traffic, lighting, safety and health. They can talk these issues to death but it has taken five years to get to this amendment. They are not trying to replace farmland or destroy the rural feel. They want to give farmers on this side of the mountains a chance to make a living. The State realized this and have given the locals an opportunity to address this. It is clean, but has become way too complicated. In any economic place, if there is a void that needs to be filled, someone will fill it. This gives the County control. Otherwise the six or seven places now doing this that are not being controlled will continue. Or this can be addressed and everyone follows the rules. Best case, this opens the County to economic benefit and allows people access to beautiful places without taking farm ground away. Since they are li mited to six events, neighbors might have to listen to life’s joy and music six nights a year. As citizens and Commissioners, she asked that they put this into effect as required through the State law. Too much time, money and effort has already been spent. She encouraged the Board to get this thing done. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business’ Meeting Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 11 of 24 Pages Cerstin Cheatham of Moonlight Catering agreed. She supports having weddings on farmland. This would advance her business but also an entirely local wedding industry, as well as the community economy. Open spaces connect people to the natural setting that make Central Oregon unique. She was here to comment five years ago to look for a logical recommendation. She urges that they seize this opportunity to allow weddings to take place on farmland. James Gindlespearth of Bend stated that he is not opposed to real farmers making money to support their farms. What is lacking is that no one put out a clear definition of a farmer. A doctor who has a hobby farm is not a farmer. A farmer’s primary occupation should be farming or making most of his or her income from farming. They deserve support. He feels the noise restriction is way out of line. In regard to mass gatherings, he feels County Counsel made it up. Oregon has OAR’s, including a list of 340 tables for industry and commercial use, 60 db for six minutes out of every hour. They say they will abide by this. He asked if this number if real, or if there is a reason that it is not used. He bought rural farm land expecting some noise from farming. He did not choose this lifestyle to listen to music. People can’t have a rooster in the city, so it is also inappropriate to have loud music in the country. He added that 26 db is a standard number for rural areas; 30 to 40 is twice as loud. 70 db is 16 times louder than normal rural noises. He bought a db meter to find out what normal noise levels are. If he is in the country, he expects 30 db. Awbrey Butte is 40 db. Condos downtown are 50 db. Someone who lives in the country sees a remarkable difference. He offered to demonstrate how invasive different levels of noises are. The 100-foot setback or 70 db is not reasonable. Ed (James) Criss of La Pine and a Planning Commission member, stated he is a rural person. He has had lots of experience dealing with music and db. He feels the noise limit for all those areas is conservative. It is much higher in urban settings. This is a starting point , a compromise. The bottom line is that in the comprehensive plan, it is clear that it is intended to address expectations and the rights of property owners. They try to reach a place where all can live with it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business’ Meeting Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 12 of 24 Pages It is important that he did not see a lot of tolerance. As a sound engineer, people are subjective about noise; much depends on the type of music or noise and whether you like it. There needs to be some tolerance of others. 70 db at a property line is not that bad. His speaking today is at 78 db. If you are on ten acres instead of 100 acres, obviously you will reach 70 faster. It is very hard to regulate, and there is responsibility on both sides. They need to start somewhere and go from there. 70 db is consistent with the mass gathering law , so there should be no confusion. They tried to reach compromise, and it can work. One economic thing not discussed is the effect on the art community. Most venues have gone away. This offers work to artists and others. The Planning Commission did agonize over these decisions. It was not easy, and they considered all opinions. Commissioner Unger noted that the recommendation was a vote of 4 to 3; he asked that Mr. Criss speak to this split. Mr. Criss indicated that they all wavered at some point. They went through a lot of deliberations regarding activities supplemental to agriculture. It does not deal with just a product you can sell or use at an event. It is whether you can keep your agricultural land in use. He does not want to see marginal agricultural lands go to waste. These owners need to be able to keep their land. He was in the middle of the issue, since involved all have property rights. Leslie Ketrenos of Powell Butte asked that the Board please not adopt this as written. She feels it is bad policy for agricultural lands, and they would not gain any financial benefit. Local businesses already in this business will lose. Most vendors offering an outdoor setting do not require you to use their vendors and caterers. Neighbors will have property values decrease, livestock will be stressed, and there will be negative impacts on rural roads and traffic. She indicated she feels that ten acres is too small except for small dinner parties. Perhaps they should allow one person per acre. This would help with a number of things, and is a good alternative for smaller acreages. 70 db is too loud for small parcels and the timeframe. In a rural setting, they expect neighbors to accept the standards of a rural setting. If they want rural tranquility, sound amplification is not appropriate. There are the issues of road maintenance and litter. They should be required to spend more towards road costs. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business’ Meeting Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 13 of 24 Pages There is no provision for children being injured if they wander off the event property onto a farm. The vendor insures the party, but what about the neighbors. Easements are not built for traffic, so they should have direct access. They have had no consideration towards the neighbors, who could hear events every weekend. There are also potential environmental issues. Deschutes County’s EFU lands were never intended to make a profit. Some do, but the people work to do so, instead of opening the doors to events at the expense of neighbors and others. Becky Wilkins of Sunriver is the owner/operator of two wedding related companies, and she publishes a weddings and events resource guide; 72 businesses belong to this group. She has testified at every meeting for the past five years. She has statistics from across the country relating to weddings during the summer and fall. People spend about $44,000 per wedding. In Central Oregon it is about $14,000 directly related to the wedding event. This includes equipment rental, catering, food, music and entertainment for the wedding and reception. Lots of businesses have already struggled and had to close their doors. She urged adoption by emergency. Ten facilities have been shut down; at $14,000 per wedding, this is a lot of lost revenue, in the millions over five years. Businesses need this support. The cost of resort weddings is out of reach for the average person. There is a market for that, but others can’t afford it. They need to get people back to work. A wedding does not last for 72 hours; it would be usually four hours or less. The 72 hour factor is not relevant. This allows for the tent company to set up, deliver chairs, etc. There would be only four or five hours of actual sound, maybe six times a year. (She brought a letter signed by many business owners.) Commissioner Baney indicated they don’t want to shut down events, but are looking for ways to make this work. There are a myriad number of things that are not allowed. How important is that music in the evening? Does every event need this? What is the level of responsibility of those providing the music? The property owner? Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business’ Meeting Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 14 of 24 Pages Ms. Wilkins stated that they have a db meter and monitor their events. They know how to contain the sound. Different types of music have a different impact. No one complains if they like the music. Some is softer; but other people want to dance. It comes back to using responsible vendors. Some do this under the radar, but she wants to do it all up front. Clear definitions are needed so people can comply. They need to move forward with this. Matt Cyrus of Sisters said that regarding the db meters, the Sheriff does not want to do this. Smart phones have this application included for free. Testimony here has been around 60-70 db. Setbacks, noise and light can be mitigated. It is not so much the distance as the impact. If everyone had been neighborly, they would not be here today. EFU zones are the issue. They are commercial agricultural zones, and residents in that zone are guests. Agriculture is anything but quiet. This involves tractors, cattle and other animals, and is not peaceful. It is messy, smelly and goes on all the time. This is not MUA. Most of the opposition does not live in EFU zones. This involves a limited licensed permit. He encouraged the Board to approve this and move forward. It can be readdressed and modified if necessary. He would like to see this adopted sooner rather than later. He noted that the one section includes assurances that a traffic control person be there for 250 people. He suggested they use the number of vehicles instead. There could be a bus full of people and not many cars. In regard to setback notifications, he suggested that all residents within 500 feet of the event site be notified. A property could be a thousand acres with no nearby residents. Pam Hardy of 1,000 Friends of Oregon, indicated that staff and the Planning Commission did a good job following what was written into state law. However, she has a few recommendations. There should be provisions for very small scale events. Small farmers want to be sure they can have a farm dinner. There should be a new section that is very specific on this. This would cover small dinners, agricultural tours (like school children touring a farm), and those kinds of things. There is a new face of farming, and this issue is a big problem here. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business’ Meeting Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 15 of 24 Pages Also, there seems to be a loophole in the notice requirements. They are to notify the County of all planned events by April 1, but amendments can be made up to 72 hours ahead. That is basically no notice. It seems that they will end up with a lot of last-minute amendments. She recommends finding a way to clarify this. She asked that they look carefully at enforcement. When an application is made, the exact enforcement mechanism is presented to the resident. She hears from neighbors that they are helpless to do anything. One idea is that if an event is not appropriate, there has to be a phone number of someone of authority on site. Penalties need to be significant enough to truly deter a lack of future compliance. Regarding noise and setbacks, she recommended a standard that allows larger setbacks in most cases. The County has to regulate the bad apples. A variance can be allowed if all the neighbors agree. This is not a veto, but if they play well together, they get special privileges. Tony Aceti thanked all for their work. Farm use is a privilege, but people want to have their cake and eat it too. The issues are how to compromise. This has been going on for years. Some people are not happy with that or with restrictions. Retaining personal property farm land as open space is an issue. His land has turned into that because it is not profitable for him to farm it. He agrees this should be adopted. There has been talk at State level about what constitutes a building or farm structure; and whether someone has to meet commercial health and safety regulations. For instance, would a gazebo be allowed. He is in a different situation. He owns a piece of farmland surrounded by highways and commercial uses. He is at a disconnect between agri-tourism and commercial. He had questions about the potential $3,000 cost for a hearings officer. He wants to have a BMX event, but is not sure if it would be allowed. It is almost like you spend your money and take your chances. He would rather have something decided administratively. Something needs to be established to allow for this; it now lacks clarity. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business’ Meeting Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 16 of 24 Pages Perhaps they are trying to put too many issues into one bag. Some issues might have a lower bar. For amplified sound, the bar is higher. But for a weekend farmers’ market with no amplified sound, there should be some logical method of allowing it. Nick Lelack said that in the Green vs. Douglas County case, which was remanded back to the county, dealt with the definition of a building. Laurie Craghead added that a decision was made that a gazebo could be an agricultural building if it was a normal accessory use in the zone. Tony Oliver indicated he would submit written testimony. William Kuhn of Tumalo thanked all for the quality of the discussion. He said he is a member of the Soil and Water Conservation District, but is not speaking for that group. He wants to improve political discourse at all levels, and tries to be frank and fair. Both sides need to be heard and listened to. He wondered if it is possible to promote neighborhoodl iness. Regarding the concept of distance from an event, he concurs that a homeowners' agreement would be helpful. He is bringing this concept up because he respects the length of time people have owned their properties. He was opposed to Measure 37 but had great sympathy for people who have owned land for many years. He stated that the County would be changing the rights of people through this legislation, and are taking away the rights of people who have enjoyed not having to deal with events next to them in the past. He feels this is a taking. The concept of being a good neighbor, courtesy and sensitivity need to be a part of this. Maybe there should be an overlay zone so people will know what to expect. Requiring a homeowners’ association would encourage conversation. He speaks from experience due to a neighbor who has caused problems over the years. He feels that everyone would win if this is in place. He has communicated with people who have individual needs and desires. Every event is different. Some event planners will do a good job while others won’t. Those things need to be considered. He asked about the legality of what is going on. The text amendment number is 11-3 but it has been around for five years. There have been other things talked about for five years. He is wondering if the proper process has been followed. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business’ Meeting Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 17 of 24 Pages He asked why the County would permit a farm event within the wildlife area overlay. Nothing in the document talks about this. In the past, Steven George of the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife submitted letters regarding the overlay area. He is also concerned about the impact on wildlife. These kinds of things are too urban and he opposes any action that allows these events within or adjacent to wildlife overlay zones. Commissioner Baney explained that it is not the same text amendment today that it was years ago. The new one was appropriately noticed. They have talked about the general issue for years, but there was no final text amendment until now. These wide issues have been the subject of discussion for a long time. The earlier one dealt with MUA-10 land, so is quite different. Ms. Craghead said the overlay issue is a good one to address. The previous issue was about a private park provision, which is not the same thing. That is not addressed under the new State statute. The one for MUA-10 was proposed and declined. Regarding the one for EFU, the applicant withdrew. Mr. Kuhn suggested that there be a set beginning and ending time for events, with a maximum of 12 hours; perhaps a sliding 12-hour period. Start early and end early. It seems inappropriate for them to need 15 hours. He also asked how the $750 fee was determined, as well as where it goes and how it is used. Commissioner Unger suggested that Mr. Kuhn discuss this with Mr. Lelack of Community Development. Matthew Lisignoli of Sisters said that a recurrent theme is property rights and personal rights. The opposition should remember that there is farmland because someone dedicated themselves to that. The cost of doing so cannot be ignored, Years ago in this area there were potatoes and mint, all there is now is a little wheat and hay. Agri-tainment and other things should be considered a new crop. Grass does not care about the view. It is a great asset. Neighbors are impacted by an event, so the size of acreage should be considered. 10 acres is very small for this. He doesn’t think most people living in Bend who go to an event cares about the impacts on the land, which is a concern of the landowner. Complaints by residents outside of that immediate area, however, should be considered harassment. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business’ Meeting Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 18 of 24 Pages He said that traditional farming is on life support. There is nothing viable here that allows someone to purchase farmland and take care of a family with that land. There are not many full-time farmers who can make it; it is necessary to do other things to make a basic living. Some of this can work together well. Richard Klyce, NW Chinook, said he is on the Planning Commission, but his views today are his own. He has EFU land across the street from his home. After five years this may come to a close. Event venues are now explicitly allowed by State law. He is a proponent of this as an acceptable compromise that provides clarity. He added that the best thing about it is that permission is revocable. He personally feels the issue of noise will be proven to be overblown. However, the County process could cause this to fail. (He provided a handout at this time.) Most complaints have been filed by one person who had to travel for miles to another location to complain; in one case, twenty miles away. Access to the complaint process needs to be limited to the neighbors; otherwise it should be considered harassment. During Planning Commission deliberations, some said that noise is an issue. But these complaints should be minimal and are far outweighed by the economic benefits to the area. Deschutes County has already lost millions in economic activity in the past five years due to this ongoing issue. State law now allows it. Deschutes County needs every job and every nickel. We have 12% unemployment. Out of 160,000 people, approximately 31,000 received food stamp assistance last month. The County’s decision can make these numbers better or worse. According to the same statistics, many children live in poverty. That is what should keep people awake at night, not music on a summer breeze. Keith Cyrus of Sisters said that there has been some great testimony. The noise issue can be real, and people need to be good neighbors. Some noise is more tolerable than others. He would rather listen to music than hear someone baling hay. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business’ Meeting Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 19 of 24 Pages They need to keep in mind that agriculture is an international market with lots of competition. Some has gone from here forever; and others survive only by having huge operations. The lumber mills went away, farms and packing plants went away, and equipment dealers left because there was not enough business for them. This is the core of the problem. Everyone here should be looking at what they can do to help agriculture, and how to keep farming healthy, in order to preserve the open areas the public now enjoys. Some farmers may also get assessed more for irrigated land to pay for a local project that went bad. Most farmers want to continue farming, but it is getting more difficult for them all the time. Debbie Downs of Dodds Road said she has been following this issue for five years. She takes offense to claims of not being good neighbors. They have tried to do so as part of a wedding association. They have rules such as no bass sound, no music after 9:30, with guests gone by 10. They are diligent about monitoring sound. The 72-hour piece is not for the sound part. People have to come to set up equipment and get ready for the event. Most leave to do other work. Noise is a small impact. Also, regarding potential stress on animals, she knows her own horses look forward to these events. It is no more stressful than a noisy farm activity. Nunzie Gould of Tumalo said she lives on EFU land. She feels it is important to notify adjacent landowners of what is coming, regardless of the size of the parcel. She thinks an overlay zone is appropriate. Events are already allowed in destination resorts, and they are set up for them. Delaying the passage of this ordinance this year would not hurt anyone. She wants to find out if the wording of the text amendment has been submitted for agency comments. In Deschutes County there is monitoring for golden eagle nesting sites, since they are sensitive to sound and human encroachment. Some areas are off limits to recreation or human access due to this. The BLM should be consulted, as well as the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife. The concept is that this should be done as a secondary farm use. She asked how this will be quantified; on an income level, or just as an additional revenue stream. If the concept is for this to be a lesser revenue stream, the current revenue stream needs to be analyzed. They need to show what the farm makes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business’ Meeting Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 20 of 24 Pages Regarding the fee, she asked if the cost for the permit is associated with the cost of the service. She asked what it costs the Sheriff’s Office for their services. If sanitation has to come out, what about that cost. In regard to enforcement, the music event people need to be toned down. As a landowner, it is the landowner’s responsibility to see that this happens. They can’t blame it on the musician or the guests. There needs to be accountability and responsibility to the neighbors. The County can shut something down, but the question is whether they have the will, and whether the tools are in place to enforce it. She does not believe that enforcement works on the weekends. So, as a part of this, will a person be brought on board when needed. For example, the BLM has enforcement issues but a small team, Their highest priorities are health, safety and welfare. The reality is that they don’t always work on the weekends and no one is around to take stock when they are most needed. If the fee is associated with the cost of service, how does this fit in. What will the County do as a part of the fee, and will adequate staff be available when needed to do enforcement, if the County has the will to do so. She feels that gist of this new text is similar to what occurred in the overlay zones for destination resorts, and people don’t know the impacts. She encouraged the County to do a mailing in the next tax statement so the community can be aware of the potential impacts. She does not feel the County has done notice or due diligence on this issue, and does not think the broader community has been aware of this process. The impact of locating an event on farmland is irreparable. She sees the use of ATV’s, often utilized on farmland, being drawn into this. And where there are hunting preserves within Deschutes County, shooting for sport may also be brought into this. It is important that staff and the Commissioners consider the impacts. ATV’s are allowed for private use on farmland. Are they going to be allowed to bring in more ATV’s for an event? She asked that the County consider the ramifications of this action. At this point they are only allowed for personal use. An unidentified woman testified that she has no problem with weddings per se. But in regard to claims of lost revenue, were other venues then used instead. There should be some available. And she does not see the connection between poverty and this issue. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business’ Meeting Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 21 of 24 Pages Commissioner Unger said that is it the job of the Board to f ilter this information. They need to implement the State laws as required. Commissioner Baney stated that she knows there is a huge number of folks involved in this business, and they need the work. Mr. Lelack noted that there is a lot to address. The only thing he wanted to point out is that the purpose of the Senate Bill is that it is to cover any and all agri-tourism and related activities, with no definition. It has to be related to and/or supportive of agriculture, and incidental and subordinate t o farm use. The problem is that no one seems to know exactly what all that means. It will be a burden on the property owner to make his or her case, and at times it could end up at LUBA for them to interpret. No matter what the proposed activity is, the property owner will have to make the connections work. This is coming from State law, and there are no tests for income or the number of days per year, etc. Commissioner Baney asked if any agency comments were sought. Mr. Lelack replied that they sought comments from LCDC and the Farm Bureau, but did not seek others because they were not mentioned in the Senate Bill or House Bill, and the activities would be on land that is already in use. Commissioner Baney said there are a lot of questions, such as farm dinners, a wildlife overlay zone, and questions regarding the fee. Mr. Lelack responded that the Board approved the fee structure. Administrative determination fees were discussed with DLCD and were felt to be straightforward, part of the average for CDD time. This fee, like others, is not intended to cover Sheriff services or those of other departments. The fee covers the conditions of approval, but are not meant to cover all costs. BANEY: Move that oral testimony be closed, and that written testimony be allowed until 5:00 p.m., March 28, 2012. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Vice Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business’ Meeting Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 22 of 24 Pages Commissioner Unger thanked all for their testimony and input over the past five or so years. The Board will do its best to determine how to best implement State law. 6. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2012- 162, a Thirty-day Notice of Default for Tetherow Phase V for Failure to Complete Required Roads and Utilities Improvements by the Agreed-upon Deadline. Laurie Craghead explained the item, and added that the Tetherow party asked for a two-week delay. The letter has to be done before June, and two weeks keeps this barely within the limits. BANEY: Move that this item be delayed to the March 28, 2012 agenda. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Vice Chair votes yes. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. BANEY: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Vice Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items 7. Signature of Order No. 2012-013, regarding the Sale of Certain Properties Acquired by Deschutes County 8. Approval of Minutes: Board Meeting of March 7, 2012 Work Session of March 7, 2012 Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business’ Meeting Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 23 of 24 Pages CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District, in the Amount of $90,554.16. BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Vice Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 10. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District, in the Amount of $2,084.19. BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Vice Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 11. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County, in the Amount of $821,032.09. BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Vice Chair votes yes. 12. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA None were offered. The 1:30 work session was delayed until 1 :45 due to the length ofthe business meeting. The meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m. DATED this 2~ Dayof ~~ 2012 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners: drv2u~- Anthony DeBone, Chair Alan Unger, Vice Chair ATIEST: ~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business' Meeting Wednesday, March 14,2012 Page 24 of 24 Pages