Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-05-04 Business Meeting MinutesDeschutes 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 MONDAY, MAY 4, 2009 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; George Read, Kevin Harrison, Will Groves, Tom Anderson and Paul Blikstad, Community Development; Scot Langton, Assessor; and approximately thirty other citizens including representatives of the media.. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. Commissioner Luke said that he recently attended the Chaplains' Dinner for the Sheriff's Office held at the Senior Center. He also attended the mobilization ceremony held in Portland for the large upcoming National Guard deployment. He stated that both were great functions and were well attended. 2. Before the Board was Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2009 -010, Amending Title 18, the Deschutes County Zoning Map, to Change the Zone Destination for Certain Property From Forest Use Zone — F -1 to Forest Use Zone — F -2. (File No. ZC -08, Vandevert Road, LLC). Will Groves briefly presented the item. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 4, 2009 Page 1 of 10 Pages Commissioner Unger asked how he could be sure that there have been no changes to the Ordinance since the first reading. Laurie Craghead said that it is good to point out for the record that there have been none. Sometimes there can be small changes in the wording. If there are substantial changes, those changes have to be read into the record; at that point, the motion can't be made simply by reading by title only. LUKE: Move second reading by title only. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Commissioner Baney then did the second reading by title only. LUKE: Move adoption. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 3. Before the Board was Discussion of Text Amendment TA -08 -9, to Add Event Venues as Private Parks in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone. Chair Baney pointed out that this is a work session and not a public hearing, so there would be no public testimony allowed. Nick Lelack gave a brief overview of the item and conducted a PowerPoint presentation detailing the purpose of the meeting, a summary of the work sessions and hearings conducted, and what the proposed new and revised definitions of the item in question. In regard to the private park aspect, the DLCD has submitted comments in this regard. However, it contradicts comments recently made by another DLCD representative. The legislature is addressing this question, as the various jurisdictions have been trying to handle this issue in different ways. Mr. Lelack then detailed the information found in his staff report (a copy of which is attached). Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 4, 2009 Page 2 of 10 Pages Commissioner Luke asked if a previously established agricultural building can be used for these events. A discussion ensued and comments made that the building would have to go through an approval process. Commissioner Luke asked if the building has to be on the same tax lot as the residence; it was determined that this would be required. Kevin Harrison thought this question needed further refinement. There is a distinction between a legal lot of record and a tax lot. They do not necessarily correspond. For instance, the Assessor's Office has to assign a different tax lot if a property is on two different map sections although it could be the same property. Commissioner Luke said that the concern is if a person owns several properties, the proposed use needs to be clear. Mr. Harrison stated that someone could own multiple legal lots that are contiguous. The refinement needs to address legal lots, tax lots and tracts. Mr. Lelack stated that there is a question about a temporary use not setting aside the farm use. Mr. Harrison said in terms of farm tax deferral, the land use Code and the Department of Revenue Code come together. If a property is zoned EFU and has some kind of qualifying farm use, the Assessor will put it into farm use deferral. If there are 100 acres and 50 acres are irrigated, but 50 acres are left dry, the property can also be in deferral. Commissioner Luke stated this is in error. If there is property that is not being used for farm use, there can be areas set aside for wildlife habitat or other uses. Mr. Harrison stated that the Planning Division's authority to require land not be in farm deferral has to do with the residence. There can be a management agreement for wildlife habitat with the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, and this land would not be in farm deferral. Commissioner Luke said that the Board has some authority to decide what can be in farm deferral and what cannot. Commissioner Baney said that there is obviously a question here, and perhaps the Assessor can clarify this further. Mr. Lelack said that there could be a template similar to forest dwellings, but not that many applications are anticipated for event venues and there will be requirements and ongoing monitoring required. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 4, 2009 Page 3 of 10 Pages Ms. Craghead said this could be similar to what has been done for forest dwellings, including a template for the amount of acreage and where the use would be allowed based on how many dwellings are in the area and other criteria. Mr. Lelack stated that the issue of amplified music impacts is one of the most difficult to address. Decibel meters are not reliable and the impact of the sound can vary based on weather, distance and so on. Assessor Scot Langton addressed the question of farm deferral. He said there are some variances based on zoning If there is a 100 -acre parcel with 80 acres being farmed, only the 80 acres qualifies as long as it is kept in use for farming purposes. It could be dry or irrigated land, and could be used for grazing alone. If there are multiple uses, it depends on the predominate use during the tax year. Commissioner Luke asked what would happen if someone has a farm deferral but want to use a portion of the property for venues. Mr. Langton said that an audit of the property could find that some is not being used at all for farming, and it would come out of deferral. However, if the property is used for a planting or cutting, it is being used for farm use part of the time. Income questionnaires are sent out as well that the property owners complete to show what is being used for farming purposes. Commissioner Baney asked if something is not being used for farming, whether they would have to go back a number of years to clarify whether the property has not been used for farming and cannot go back into that use. Mr. Langton said that just stopping a use does not trigger a back tax. If the property becomes a subdivision or a building is placed on part of it, that portion cannot go back into farm use and would be taxed at a normal level. Commissioner Unger asked about where the house and yard would come into the equation. Mr. Langton said that it depends on whether the house is being used to maintain the farm operation. Typically one acre for a residence and associated structures would come out of farm use. Commissioner Luke said that he feels that in Central Oregon a farm is much better off if the owner lives on the property, but the legislature has not seen it that way. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 4, 2009 Page 4 of 10 Pages Mr. Langton said that market value is used for non -farm use. There can be a significant difference in the amount. In regard to the house adjacent to the farm deferral, there is typically a special assessed value assigned to the improvements, but the land is assessed and taxed at a fair market value amount. Commissioner Luke said that no matter what the situation, this proposal would allow the venue to be within 300 feet of the adjacent property. Therefore, it makes little difference if the property is 20 acres or 200 acres. Mr. Lelack stated that the Planning Commission also noted this concern. Mr. Lelack said that in regard to an annual renewal of a conditional use permit or license, there is no authority to allow staff to revoke a land use permit as long as the owner is complying. Otherwise a Code action would be required. Ms. Craghead said that she is not sure at this time whether requiring an annual renewal could legally be required. Mr. Lelack pointed out that it will be difficult to monitor the number of events. The Sheriff's Office and Code Enforcement would not know if a particular event is beyond the number allowed. It would also be difficult to monitor the number of vehicles. There could be a reporting requirement listing the number of dates of events being planned. Commissioner Unger asked if a mass gathering of another type could also be allowed. Ms. Craghead said that she does not think these events would be allowed in conjunction with separate mass gatherings. These gatherings are also date specific and only one can be allowed every ninety days. All of these have to come before the Board as required by statute. Commissioner Luke said the Planning Commission talked about having some of the activities held inside of buildings, and also not allowing additional buildings to be erected. He asked how this applies to ADA requirements. Mr. Lelack said that with a commercial use, generally it depends on the nature of the improvements and whether existing facilities are being used. The site plan may require ADA improvements of some kind. Paul Blikstad stated that there is criterion in the site plan section that says that a building has to be ADA compliant. Ms. Craghead said that an outdoor mass gathering does not allow permanent structures for those gatherings, and ADA does not apply in those situations. ADA requirements would apply for a permanent type of use, however. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 4, 2009 Page 5 of 10 Pages Tom Anderson explained that this was discussed previously. Commissioner Unger said that there are uses other than just weddings; however, all would be commercial. Mr. Lelack stated that the Planning Commission did limit it to weddings, reunions, graduation parties and similar events. Ms. Craghead said that she is concerned about potential violations of federal law, so that the intent has to be clear to not create a problem, for instance, in regard to the types of religion. It should be limited to exclude a lot of commercial uses but care must be taken in deciding how to word the allowed events. For instance, commercial sales of products could be excluded. Commissioner Luke asked how the issue of drainfields should be handled. Although portable toilets are allowed for outdoor mass gatherings, they have to be removed after the event. Mr. Anderson said there are two main issues. One is volume; if there is food preparation, this is a whole new area of concern. Amounts under a certain volume, 2500 gallons a day, does not move it into a commercial septic permit requirement. The second issue is permanent versus temporary. If someone is creating a permanent event venue with additional restrooms, that may require additional septic system development. In terms of these events, they would be a permanent use whether it is once a week or once a month. He feels that there should be some kind of permanent improvement to handle the effluent in this case. Outdoor mass gatherings are generally approved just one at a time. Commissioner Unger asked about farm equipment and garage sale type activities on farm ground. Some of these events attract a lot of people and could be similar in nature. He asked if this would fit into that type of use. Mr. Anderson stated that these are typically a temporary use, as long as there is not an ongoing use such as selling farm equipment all the time. In regard to garage sales, there is a limit as to how many can be held in a year. Ms. Craghead said that usually a permit is required for this type of outdoor mass gathering. Commissioner Baney asked if a flea market or garage sale type of activity could be held at an event venue. Ms. Craghead stated that they are trying to develop limitations and there are a lot of considerations. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 4, 2009 Page 6 of 10 Pages In regard to screening for noise and view, Commissioner Luke asked who decides what is acceptable. Some people might prefer the noise over screening that might block their view. Commissioner Unger said that the legislature is now addressing several bills on this issue, with work sessions and perhaps public hearings. Since it is unclear how this will end up, he asked how that will affect what the County does. Commissioner Baney stated that she would like to see this type of issue decided on a local level, and input should be given to the legislature on potential impacts. Commissioner Unger added that this has been approached in several different ways, and even if the County finds what is most comfortable, the legislature may decide something different. He asked if what the County decides would remain in place. Mr. Lelack said that a conditional use permit and site plan review would be required, but some operators may be allowed to continue a use that has occurred for years. The County can be more, but not less, restrictive than State law. Ms. Craghead said that applications before the change in Statute may remain in place, but those after that date would not be allowed. Commissioner Luke said there could be determinations made if someone comes in during that time period and makes application, they are trying to circumvent the change in law. This was seen in regard to Measure 47 claims. Mr. Lelack said that if the County does not move forward and waits for the State to resolve, or not resolve, this issue, a lot of time could pass for the Ordinance to come into effect, applications to be processed, and possible appeals. It would take at least a year for all of this to happen, which makes it problematic for the applicants who wish to schedule events. Commissioner Unger stated that these types of events happen all over the State. He is not sure whether a public parks designation is the right path to take and has concerns whether the Planning Commission can come to a firm decision. He would like to see this approached from the comprehensive plan point of view. He is concerned about the legislature and its potential decisions. He would like to wait until the legislature addresses the issue even though it may take a while. However, they County has an application awaiting a decision now. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 4, 2009 Page 7 of 10 Pages Commissioner Luke said that he also would like to wait until the legislature makes some kind of decision. At this point it is unknown how it will handle this issue. He does not want to see potential conflicts. He feels that farming should be protected and believes in farm deferral. It is difficult for him to approve a non -farm, commercial use on farm ground. However, there is a lot of EFU ground in the area that should not be classified as EFU. He wants to see the legislature finish its work and allow staff some time to address some of the questions. Commissioner Baney said she feels that the legislature needs to know what the County feels about this issue and this should not wait. She does not want the State making decisions that affect local citizens without input from the County. This also puts those who provide these services in a holding pattern. She wants to see the County be proactive and not be left to deal with situations simply at the will of the State. Commissioner Luke stated that there are a lot of concerns at the Planning Commission level. He also does not want to give the State an opinion based on an application. There needs to be a public hearing on EFU uses. Commissioner Baney said that although the applications are different in some regard, there are a lot of similarities. She asked if the legislature does not come to a conclusion, should the County wait for them to get around to it. Commissioner Luke wants the session to be over before proceeding. Commissioner Unger said that when he was asked, he said that it is a complicated issue and there is no agreement on some aspects. Ms. Craghead stated that this can be delayed as there is no set deadline for this application. Commissioner Baney said that after all the time, money and effort being put into this, she would like to see it come to a conclusion. There is also an economic impact to be considered. Commissioner Luke said he would not object to a public hearing. Commissioner Baney stated that she would not want to have people put more time and effort into this if it appears that it is going to go nowhere. Ms. Craghead stated that the hearing has to be made based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission, which had a 4 -2 vote on the application. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 4, 2009 Page 8 of 10 Pages Commissioner Unger said he does not feel what the Planning Commission brought forward will solve anything, and still feels that they should wait for the decision of the legislature to move forward. At that point the options can be more seriously considered. It boils down to how people can use their land beneficially without negatively impacting their neighbors. Ms. Craghead stated that zoning code cannot be adopted that does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Baney said that it would be helpful to know what the options might be on a matrix, based on the individual concerns. Commissioner Luke is not opposed to holding a hearing and continuing it as needed until it is clear what the legislature might decide. This would be an evening hearing to begin at 5:30, with the date to be determined. Mr. Anderson said that an applicant has asked if there could be a waiver of Code enforcement for some of the summer events. Commissioner Baney stated that they should be required to pay the related fine, as this is a risk they took in booking events, but not do an injunction. There is enough information showing that the County has not taken a hard -line on this in the past. She would also like to know what are booked now, and whether an injunction can be required if they add further events. Commissioner Luke said that the County has taken steps and one applicant was fined by the Court already. If one vendor is allowed to do this, others would want to do the same. Ms. Craghead said that the County cannot do what Commissioner Baney asked. The Court is involved and the County decided not to go forward on MUA land. Anything booked after the September letter would not have been done in good faith, as the County said that it would not hold off in 2009. The Court would be the one who decides whether the operators will be fined. Commissioner Baney stated that the letter makes it clear that the operators would book venues at their own risk, even though there is an application now before the Board. Therefore, this is at the will of the Court. Ms. Craghead said she prefers further discussion on this issue to be held in executive session regarding pending or threatened litigation. (It was decided that an executive session would take place at 12:20 p.m. today in the Allen Room.) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 4, 2009 Page 9 of 10 Pages Commissioner Unger feels that the letter makes it clear as well. Commissioner Luke said that if the laws are not going to be enforced, they should be taken off the books. If they are to remain laws, they should be enforced and they should apply to everyone. Mr. Anderson said that the County will not seek out violations, but will have to respond to complaints and decide whether there is enough evidence to issue a citation. If one is issued, there will be a Court date set and a plea given. The Judge has considerable discretion on whether to delay a decision and how they interpret the information provided. Ms. Craghead said this is a legislative matter and ex parte contact is allowed. However, this should be entered into the record. Information and correspondence should be provided to Mr. Lelack. 4. Before the Board were Additions to the Agenda. Commissioner Unger said he wanted to briefly discuss cell towers. Mr. Anderson stated that there is a hearing before the Hearings Officer this week to address one application. He explained that the Board could call these decisions up for discussion later if desired. Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m.. DATED this 4th Day of May 2009 for the D chutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: (wack.. 181,10, Recording Secretary Tammy Baney, Chair Dennis R. Luke, Vice Chair Alan Unger, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Page 10 of 10 Pages Monday, May 4, 2009 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701 -1960 (541) 388 -6570 - Fax (541) 385 -3202 - www.deschutes.org BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., MONDAY, MAY 4, 2009 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend 1. CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Citizens who wish to speak should sign up prior to the beginning of the meeting on the sign -up cards provided. Please use the microphone and also state your name and address at the time the Board calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing will NOT be included in the record of that hearing. 2. CONSIDERATION of Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2009 -010, Amending Title 18, the Deschutes County Zoning Map, to Change the Zone Destination for Certain Property From Forest Use Zone — F -1 to Forest Use Zone — F -2. (File No. ZC -08, Vandevert Road, LLC) — Will Groves, Community Development Department 3. DISCUSSION of Text Amendment TA -08 -9, to Add Event Venues as Private Parks in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone — Paul Blikstad, Community Development Department 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7 -1 -1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388 -6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. r Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, May 4, 2009 Page 1 of 5 Pages FUTURE MEETINGS: (Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388 - 6572.) Monday, May 4, 2009 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council) Wednesday, May 6, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Tuesday, May 12, 2009 12 noon Regular Commissioners /Department Directors Update Wednesday, May 13, 2009 7:30 a.m. Conference Call with Public Affairs Council (State Lobbyist) regarding Legislation 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, May 14, 2009 7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Redmond Council, in Redmond Monday, May 18, 2009 9:00 a.m. Budget Deliberations Tuesday, May 19, 2009 9:00 a.m. Budget Deliberations 1:00 p.m. Departmental Budget Presentations Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:00 a.m. Budget Deliberations Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, May 4, 2009 Page 2 of 5 Pages Thursday, May 21, 2009 9:00 a.m. Budget Deliberations Monday, May 25, 2009 Most County Offices will be closed to observe Memorial Day. Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Monday, June 1, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council) Wednesday, June 3, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, June 4, 2009 10:00 a.m. Regular Update with the District Attorney 11:00 a.m. Regular Update with Community Development Department 1:30 p.m. Regular Update with Road Department 2:30 p.m. Regular Update with Solid Waste Department Wednesday, June 10, 2009 7:30 a.m. Conference Call with Public Affairs Council (State Lobbyist) regarding Legislation 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, May 4, 2009 Page 3 of 5 Pages Thursday, June 11, 2009 11:00 a.m. Regular Update with Health & Human Services Department Monday, June 15, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:00 a.m. Regular Update with Community Justice Department Monday, June 22 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, June 24, 2009 7:30 a.m. Conference Call with Public Affairs Council (State Lobbyist) regarding Legislation 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting — includes public hearings on proposed budgets, and consideration of adoption of the budgets 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with Fair & Expo Department 11:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with Commission on Children & Families 2:00 p.m. Regular Meeting with the Sheriff Wednesday, June 24, 2009 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, June 24, 2009 Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, May 4, 2009 Page 4 of 5 Pages 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, July 2 8:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Sisters Council, Sisters City Hall Friday, July 3 Most County Offices will be closed to observe Independence Day. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7 -1 -1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388 -6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, May 4, 2009 Page 5 of 5 Pages To: Deschutes County Commissioners Subject: TA 08 -9 Fm: James Gindlesperger Date: 28 April 2009 First I would like to say that I am OPPOSED to TA 08 -9. I therefore am presenting evidence that this TA is not appropriate in this county or in fact anywhere in the state. I will address three separate lines of reasoning for this opinion. 1. It is not allowed under current or pending state statutes and is contrary to the direction being set by state legislatures. 2. It provides no service that is not already available and provides no additional financial stimulus to the county or state. 3. The amount or residents harmed far exceeds those that benefit. 1. STATE STATUES ORS 215 does provide for "Private Parks" but in cases brought before the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has defined a park as "a tract of land set aside for public recreation" (TENNANT v. Polk County, this case record is on file in the TA 08 -9 testimony) The venues proposed in TA 08 -9 are neither recreational or for public use. There are three bills currently before the state legislature. SB325: which would allow weddings to occur in an EFU zone on property noted in the National Register of Historic places. In public hearings before the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee the following testified in opposition to this bill. DLCD, Farm Bureau, Association of Oregon Counties, 1000 Friends of Oregon, as well as many state residents. Only a few people testified in favor of the bill and those were people who would get financial gain if the bill were approved. A land use attorney who testified in favor of this bill stated that this bill was necessary because these activities are not allowed under current statutes. This bill is still in committee and there are no planned working groups scheduled at this time. In a newspaper interview the Chairman of the Committee stated that she did not foresee this bill going anywhere. HB 2882: Proposed by Rep Whisnant under the request of Keith Cyrus. This bill would add wedding venues to ORS 215 under private parks. In public hearings before the House Land Use Committee basically the same individuals testified in opposition to the bill with the exception of DLCD. I ask Katherine Daniels (DLCD) why they did not send someone to testify and she said this bill is not going anywhere and we did not see a need. (It is important to note that Rep Clem sits on the Land Use Committee and submitted another bill HB 3099 which I will discuss next). Other than the Deschutes County residents that testified in favor of this bill there was no other supportive testimony. Tuesday the 28th of April was the last day of consideration of new legislation. Since it did not come up on Tuesdays working group I assume that this bill is dead. HB 3099: Rep Clem on behalf of the Farm Bureau submitted this bill. This bill would restrict uses on EFU and even remove some uses already allowed. In public testimony before the Land Use Committee the main people that testified in favor were 1000 Friends of Oregon, The League of Women Voters, Association of Oregon Counties, of course the Farm Bureau and private citizens (mostly farmers). The opposition was mainly people from the aggregate business. The Land Use Committee unanimously approved HB 3099 and is sending it to the floor with a recommendation for approval. It is clear that the Oregon State Legislature is attempting to lessen the activities on EFU land. The two bills that would have allowed event venues received only the cursory treatment. After a public hearing on each they were stuck in a drawer never to be seen again but HB -3099, which reduces impacts on EFU land, was approved unanimously. This action is exactly the view expressed by Governor Kulongoski in his letter of April 26 2007 where he requested the Legislature not to pass legislation that would allow further uses on farmland. (A copy of this letter is in the TA —08 -9 documents). The fact that SB -325 and HB -2882 were not even sent to the floor for a vote shows that the legislature committees do not feel that these venues are appropriate. Having attended these public hearings in Salem and hearing the testimony, it is clear that the trend is to try to save farmland and reduce any further impact to the land and the industry. 2. Where is the need for TA 08 -9? In testimony on TA 08 -3 and TA 08 -9 county residents have provided lists of hundreds of locations to hold weddings in the county. Dr Ed Whitelaw, a noted economist, has testified both before the State Senate Committee on SB 325 and at Deschutes County Planning Commission that there is NO financial gain to be achieved by allowing these venues and in fact the overall impact on the county and state is negative. (This testimony is on file in the Deschutes County Planning Commission records). Weddings will occur with or without these venues. The money spent to hold the weddings will be the same the only difference is who will reap the rewards. Caters, florists, hotels will still get the same amount of business. The only people to not make money will be to venue property owners. 3. Effect on the County: For every venue that might be approved four to six adjacent neighbors as well as many close neighbors will be harmed. Traffic, noise, alcohol related incidents, determent to wildlife, overuse of septic systems, adverse impact on the sheriffs department, and creating a negative impact to neighborhoods and a known way of life. The only up side to this bill is that a few venue landowners will make some money. My neighbor holds these weddings. He is not a farmer. He doesn't even live on the land. He is a businessman who can't stand the thought that he has a piece of property that does not make money. This is the epitome of what is wrong with this TA. People will be able to speculate on FARMLAND to turn it into something that is not intended. Summary: Testimony by Dr. Ed Whitelaw showed there is no economic benefit. There are hundreds of places to hold these events. The State Legislature has shown the direction that the state wants to go with respect to EFU land. The costs to the county residents far exceed the benefits. These event venues do not comply with ORS 215 per LUBA definition. Please allow central Oregon to remain as it is, and not become the Las Vegas of the north. If you are unable to find any of the documents referenced in the above please contact me and I can provide copies. L. James Gindlesperger 22985 Someday Way Bend OR 97701 (D)ECEArUE Agri 2 9 2009 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ADMINISTRATION 1. s Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Healti Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 977( 1 -1925 (541)388 -6575 FAX (541)31 5 -1764 http: / /www.co.deschutes.or us /cdd/ MEMORANDUM DATE: May 4, 2009 TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners FROM Nick Lelack, Planning Director Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Work Session on TA -08 -9, a Text Amendment to add "Event Venue" in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone PURPOSE & BACKGROUND This is a citizen - initiated text amendment to Chapter 18.16 of Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, to add an "event venue" to the private park listing in the EFU zone. The applicant has also proposed additions to the definitions section of Title 18 (18.04.030), and criteria for event venues under section 18.128, Conditional Uses. As proposed, conditional use approval and site plan review would be required for each event venue application. Following a work session and four public hearings on this application, the Planning Commission amended the proposed text amendment and approved a motion to forward the revised amendment to the Board by a 4 -2 vote on April 9, 2009. Kelly Brown of Country Gatherings Associates, the applicant, has informed staff that she supports the revised TA -08 -9 and will not provide any additional revisions or materials. However, Ms. Brown explained to staff that she and other event venue operators understand that the Planning Commission's recommended version may not be supported by the Board in its current form. Therefore, the applicant is open to working with the Board on further revisions to gain approval of TA -08 -9. TEXT AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA & ANALYSIS The proposed amendment revises Deschutes County Code Title 18 to permit Event Venue as a conditional use in the EFU Zone. Deschutes County lacks specific criteria in DCC Titles 18, 22, or 23 for reviewing a legislative zoning text amendment. Therefore, the county must determine that the proposed Title 18 text amendments are consistent with state statute, the Statewide Planning Goals, the County's Comprehensive Plan, and the County's Zoning Ordinance. The parameters for evaluating these text amendments are based on whether there are adequate factual findings that demonstrate this consistency. TA -08 -9, BOCC Memo Page 1 Quality Services Performed with Pride It is important to note that the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) staff have participated in this process. On April 9, 2009, Jon Jinings, DLCD Field Representative, stated in an email to County staff, "...we continue to believe that weddings can legitimately occur in private parks... I think the county is free to decide whether or not they want weddings to occur in private parks and, if so, under what conditions. The other legal provisions for non -farm uses in EFU zones must also be satisfied." PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission held a work session on December 11, 2008, and public hearings on January 8, February 12, March 12, and April 9, 2009. In a 4 -2 vote, the Planning Commission recommended to forward the proposed text amendment to the Board "recognizing splits on some issues." During the Commission's deliberations, Commissioners agreed by a margin of 4 -2 that event venues are an appropriate use in private parks. In addition, Commissioners approved a few minor amendments to the text amendment. However, the majority of amendments were denied on 3 -3 or 4 -2 votes. Commissioners disagreed on whether or how to change the property size requirements for event venues, the separation between the "activity area" and neighboring residences, and the number and frequency of events. ISSUES RAISED BY THE PUBLIC During the public hearing and in written comments submitted into the record. A summary of some of the most often -cited issues raised includes the following: 1. Event venues contribute to the Deschutes County economy by providing income to event venue operators who cannot make living farming, event - related businesses and the tourism industry. 2. Events negatively affect the quality of life enjoyed by residents in the rural county and are not consistent with the rural character of the EFU Zone by allowing significant noise, dust and traffic impacts. 3. There are a sufficient number of legal venues in Deschutes County to accommodate events. 4. The text amendment does /does not meet the definition of private park. 5. Allowing event venues would depreciate land values. 6. If Deschutes County does not allow the event venues, then they will be held in other Central Oregon counties on EFU and other lands. ATTACHMENTS Text Amendment (TA) 08 -9 Planning Commission's Adopted Meeting Minutes (April 9, 2009) Applicant's Burden of Proof TA -08 -3, BOCC Memo Page 2 Jr liff al Purpose • Work session (not a public hearing) to discuss the citizen - initiated text amendment to allow event venues in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone, and the Planning Commission's recommendation. • Discussion is limited to the Board and staff, unless the Board seeks applicant / public comment(s). • Staff seeks direction on the next steps (Le., work sessions, public hearings, issues). Summary Application Submitted October 15 Planning Commission • Work Session: • Public Hearings: • Recommendation: December 11 January 8, February 12, March 12, April 9 Approval with "splits on many issues" Board of Commissioners • Work Session: May 4 New / Revised Definitions • Commercial Event • Event Venue • Activity Areas • Permanent Structure • Temporary Structure • EFU Zones — Private Parks: "...includes event venues" 0 J vv 1I _r" `V I J r I' Private Park • DLCD Comments "...we continue to believe that weddings can legitimately occur in private parks... I think the county is free to decide whether or not they want weddings to occur in private parks and, if so, under what conditions. The other legal provisions for non -farm uses in EFU zones must also be satisfied." • Legislature • Counties • Benton County allowed event venues in Forest Use Zone Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Criteria 1. Shall not displace any farming activity already existing on the property 2. Located on property with: a. Min. lot size: 10 acres b. Min. setback from activity area from neighboring dwellings of 300 feet OR a min. setback from closest property line to activity areas of the event venue: 100 feet c. Property must contain an owner occupied single - family dwelling, and be operated by the owners of the property, exclusive of other contracted services. CUP Criteria 2. Located on parcels or lots with... d....only those non -farm structures existing on the date of the adoption of the event venue provision, shall be used for the event venue operation. Temporary structures... may be allowed. e. The number of events shall be limited to 1 event per week. f. Sound amplification for events shall only be allowed: indoors for properties with a min. lot size of 10 acres outdoors for properties with a min. lot size of 20 acres. CUP Criteria 2. Located on parcels or lots with... g. Traffic management plans shall be submitted with the application. Traffic control shall comply with the Manual on Traffic Control Devices standards if required. h. Sight distance and driveway widths shall be adequate for the proposed use based on the amount of traffic produced for any particular event... i. Hours of operation: 8:00 am — 9:00 pm; takedown activities shall occur between 8:00 am — 12:00 pm r CUP Criteria 2. Located on parcels or lots with... j. ... materials used for events shall be stored indoors on non -event days... Set -up and take -down activities for the event can occur one day prior to [and] one business day after an event. k. Event venue activity areas... Shall be sited and designed to effectively screen neighboring uses, primarily dwellings, from noise, glare, odor, traffic and other adverse impacts. The Planning Director or Hearings Body may require landscaping, berming, or other noise or sight obscuring mechanism to ensure effective screening. CUP Criteria 2. Located on parcels or lots with... I. Prior to commencement of the use, a property owner shall sign and record the farm and forest easement required... m. Prior to commencement..., a property owner /event operator shall sign and record... Conditions of Approval Agreement. Title 18 1 parking space per 2.5 attendees (use maximum possible attendance plus 1 space per employee). Key Issues 1. Compliance with the definition of "Private Park" 2. Economic impacts 3. Compatibility with farm and rural land uses 4. Sound, noise & dust impacts / mitigation 5. Property size, separation from neighboring properties or dwellings 6. Hours of operation Questions 1. Does event / activity area have to be on the same tax lot as the owner - occupied home? Staff interpretation: Yes 2. Storage in farm buildings for event venue equipment? Not likely in Ag Exempt structure per 455.315(2)(a)(A). Room for interpretation? Questions 3. Areas associated with event venues disqualified from farm tax deferral? Assessor's Office has indicated the activity areas could be disqualified. Applicants argue the use is temporary and does not remove the farm use. 4. Template similar to forest dwellings? Staff does not expect to many applications. The application, improvement, and ongoing monitoring costs will not likely lead to a large number of events. Questions 5. Amplified music impacts? Monitoring decibel levels? Sound remains the most difficult / contentious issue. Decibel meters are unreliable. 6. Annual renewal of conditional use permit / license? Staff is not aware of any authority in code or law that would allow staff to revoke a land use permit out of hand. If an operator is not operating within the scope of an approved land use permit, the County has the authority to initiate a revocation proceeding — requires a hearing before the Hearings Officer. PPf e `if f " fJ f 1 Questions 7. Limitations on the number of events. • Difficult to monitor and enforce for the Sherriffs Office and Code Enforcement. • CUP could require annual reports of planned events by a date certain, hours of operation, etc. f ef1Ff/fjefl Questions / Next Steps 1. Additional Work Sessions or Public Hearings 2. Timing of next meetings 3. Issues to be addressed 4. Other Paul Blikstad From: Dave Pedersen Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 11:37 AM To: Paul Blikstad Cc: Dennis Perkins Subject: RE: Staff memo for TA -08 -9, Event Venues Paul, Storing tables and chairs and all things related is not a problem in a permitted accssory structure. Things are a little different in an Ag. Exempt structures. While the intent of 455.:,15 is reasonably clear, there is some room for interpretation in applying the actual use o' farm to the type of material and equipment that can be stored there. If the "farm" .s used for weddings,would the tables and chairs be considered equipment as in 455.315(2)(a)(A)? In a broader sense, if the "farm" is approved for events in gener,il, then is storage of equipment relating to those events considered compliant with the ().R.S. 0 Good questions. The cold - blooded, drop dead answer would be that those items would not be allowed in an Ag. Exempt structure but the obvious response to that restriction is as I have noted Also, what type of equipment would be allowed in an Ag. Exempt barn on a wind farm? Hope this helps Dave Original Message From: Paul Blikstad Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 10:34 AM To: Dave Pedersen Subject: FW: Staff memo for TA -08 -9, Event Venues Dave, Can you answer (for us) Dennis's question on storing chairs, tables, etc in certain buildings. I'm not sure if he is referencing ag exempt buildings or not, but just i:L case he is, can you answer it for both permitted and exempt buildings. Thanks. Paul P.S. I need an answer prior to our 10:00 a.m. work session on Monday, May 4th. Sor :y for such a late notice. Original Message From: Nick Lelack Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 2:38 PM To: Paul Blikstad Subject: FW: Staff memo for TA -08 -9, Event Venues Paul, Can you prepare and /or think about responses to his questions? I would like to addre3s them each briefly in the PPT that I am happy to give at the work session - with your color commentary. Thanks. Nick Lelack, AICP 1 Paul Blikstad From: Paul Blikstad Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 10:40 AM To: Nick Lelack Subject: RE: Staff memo for TA -08 -9, Event Venues Nick, Here are my thoughts on Dennis' questions /comments to us. * I don't think that we want to establish any kind of a "template" for these uses. I don't believe that we will see that many requests for the event venues, and if there is more than one proposed in a given area, the scrutiny for the second one would be much more pronounced (in my opinion) because of the possible noise and traffic impacts from a second venue. We will send all of these requests to a hearing, so there will be ample opportunity for neighbors to participate in the process. And given the "word of mouti" manner of public awareness, none of these in my opinion will "slip through." * It has always been my opinion that an event venue must be on the same parcel as the owner- occupied dwelling. I didn't agree with Commissioner Brown on the ownership iss)ie. I think if this text amendment passes, and an owner applies, it is the parcel /lot on .which the dwelling is located that has to be the location for the venue. I don't see the nr!ed for allowing more than one lot /parcel to be included, just so an applicant can claim ':hat they own the home where the event venue is proposed. * I still believe that our original position that no outdoor sound amplification be allowed is the right one. Otherwise, there will always be conflicts with some neighbors, no matter the location. Parcel size doesn't seem to matter. * I am asking Dave Pedersen to answer Dennis's question on storing tables, chairs, etc. Hopefully I'll get an answer prior to Monday's work session. * Our contact with the Assessor's Office indicated that the areas associated with the event venue could be disqualified from farm tax deferral. But ultimately that is the Assessor's call as to exactly what areas end up getting disqualified. * I agree with Dennis that we may want to hold off making any decision on this to t amendment, pending the outcome of whatever the Legislature passes and the Governor sicns into law. We probably need to mention to the Board also that we haven't made all the necessary findings yet with respect to the Comprehensive Plan. I don't personally see these event venues as going against anything in the Plan, but we will still have to make the appropriate findings if this text amendment makes it through. Original Message From: Nick Lelack Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 2:38 PM To: Paul Blikstad Subject: FW: Staff memo for TA -08 -9, Event Venues Paul, Can you prepare and /or think about responses to his questions? I would like to address them each briefly in the PPT that I am happy to give at the work session - with your cplor commentary. Thanks. Nick Lelack, AICP Deschutes County Planning Director 117 NW Lafayette 1 Bend, OR 97701 Tel. (541) 385 -1708 www.deschutes.org /cdd Original Message From: Dennis Luke Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:29 PM To: Paul Blikstad; Dave Kanner; Nick Lelack; Anthony Raguine; Laurie Craghead Cc: Tom Anderson Subject: RE: Staff memo for TA -08 -9, Event Venues Below are questions I will be asking at the work session. I reserve the right to ask a lot more These question are some of the same concerns that are contained in the minutes of the. Planning Commission meeting. If we are concerned that there could be event venues on many sides of a neighbor, shculd we use a template like we do for forest dwellings to make sure they are spaced far erough apart? If the property must contain an owner occupied home, does the event have to be on the same tax lot as the home. A case in point is property in Sisters that has a owner occupies: home on one piece of their property and the event venue is on another piece of their property. If the property can be a different tax lot and be separated by a road, then what is the difference if they are separated by a few hundred feet or a few miles. Even if the minimum lot size is 20 acres for amplified music, they can still be 300 feet from a home. And they can play until 10 pm. An since they have to be in a building, znd you cannot build new buildings, that means the music has to be in the house. Many farm building (except houses) are built without permits. You are not supposed tc store your pickup, motor home, boat or any other non farm equipment in them. If they got a permit, of course this storage is allowed. Since the chairs, tables, etc are to be stored inside when not in use, can they store them in un permitted buildings under our code. Since this land will be taken out of farm use, will farm deferral be removed from all. lands associated with the wedding venue. Dennis R. Luke Deschutes County Commissioner 1300 NW Wall St. Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97701 541 - 388 -6568 dennisl @co.deschutes.or.us Original Message From: Paul Blikstad Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 11:50 AM To: Dave Kanner; Nick Lelack; Anthony Raguine; Dennis Luke; Tammy Baney; Alan Unger; Laurie Craghead Subject: Staff memo for TA -08 -9, Event Venues Attached to this email is the staff memo on the proposed event venue text amendment Nick graciously prepared this in my absence), and the Planning Commission meeting minutes from the April 9th deliberations. We have scheduled a work session with the Board on the text amendment for Monday, Ma; 4th. 2 Paul Blikstad From: Sent: To: Subject: Dennis Luke Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:10 PM Paul Blikstad; Dave Kanner; Nick Lelack; Anthony Raguine; Tammy Baney; Alan Unger Laurie Craghead RE: Staff memo for TA -08 -9, Event Venues We have been provided with that already, thank you. With HB 3099 moving through the House and with it's definition of Private Park, we might want to discuss at the work session the advisability of delaying further action until we see if the bill is going to get out of the session and in what form. I look forward to the discussion. I am going to send a seperate e -mail just to staff with some questions I would like tD discuss at the work session. Dennis R. Luke Deschutes County Commissioner 1300 NW Wall St. Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97701 541- 388 -6568 dennisl @co.deschutes.or.us Original Message From: Paul Blikstad Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 11:50 AM To: Dave Kanner; Nick Lelack; Anthony Raguine; Dennis Luke; Tammy Baney; Alan Unger; Laurie Craghead Subject: Staff memo for TA -08 -9, Event Venues Attached to this email is the staff memo on the proposed event venue graciously prepared this in my absence), and the Planning Commission the April 9th deliberations. We have scheduled a work session with the Board on the text amendment 1 text amendment (Flick meeting minutes from for Monday, May 4th. Page 1 of 2 Paul Blikstad From: David Jostad [davej @maytrucking.corn] Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 9:49 AM To: Paul Blikstad Subject: Request For Copy of Decision Attachments: BLIKSTAD LETTER 010809.pdf; OPPOSITION LETTER 010809.pdf 5/1/09 Paul, In accordance with my January 8th submission and request (document copies attached), please provide me with a copy of the decision in this matter, if one has been issued. If it has not, do you have any idea with a decision will be entered? Thanks. Dave Please contact Dave at: David R. Jostad General Counsel Juniper Financial Services, LLC P.O. Box 9039 (Street: 4185 Brooklake Road, NE) Salem, Oregon 97305 Direct Phone: 503 - 393 -7030, ext. 3014 Toll -Free Phone: 800 - 547 -9169, ext. 3014 Cell Phone: 503 -559 -5182 Fax: 503-390-3594 E -mail: davej @maytrucking.com From: David Jostad [mailto:davej @maytrucking.com] To: paulb @co.deschutes.or.us Sent: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:19:15 -0800 Subject: Memorandum in Opposition 1/8/09 RE: Memorandum in Opposition to Proposed Amendment File No.: TA -08 -9 Applicant: County Gathering Associates Subject: Wedding Event Venue in EFU Zone Dear Mr. Blikstad: Please see my attached cover letter and Memorandum in Opposition to the above cited proposal. PLEASE SUBMIT THE ATTACHED MEMORANDUM TO THE COMMISSIONERS FOR INCLUSION IN THE RECORD AND FOR THEIR REVIEW. Please provide me with a copy of the decision and contact me with any questions. Dave 5/1/2009 Page 2 of 2 Please contact Dave at: David R. Jostad General Counsel Juniper Financial Services, LLC P.O. Box 9039 (Street: 4185 Brooklake Road, NE) Salem, Oregon 97305 Direct Phone: 503 - 393 -7030, ext. 3014 Toll-Free Phone: 800 - 547 -9169, ext. 3014 CeII Phone: 503 - 559 -5182 Fax: 503 - 390 -3594 E -mail: davej@maWucking.com 5/1/2009 J uniper Financial Services, LLC Please contact Dave Jostad at: P.O. Box 9039 — 4185 Brooklake Rd NE Salem, Oregon 97305 Phone: 503- 393 -7030; Fax: 503- 390 -3594 E -mail: davej@maytrucking.com VIA E -MAIL paulb[a�co.deschutes.or.us January 8, 2009 Paul Blikstad Senior Planner Community Development Department Deschutes County Planning Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97701 -1925 RE: MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED AMENDMENT FILE No.: TA -08 -9 Applicant: County Gathering Associates Subject: Wedding Event Venue in EFU Zone Dear Mr. Blikstad: I understand that we may submit the attached opposition comments to the above cited proposed amendment to your attention. Please contact me immediately if my understanding is incorrect. Please submit the attached Memorandum in Opposition to the Commissioners for inclusion in the record and for their review. Please provide me with a copy of the decision. My contact information is listed in the letterhead. Please contact me with any questions. General Counsel Encl. T:IMTCFiles12009 FILES120090108113LIKSTAD LETTER 010809.doc juniper Financial Services, LLC Please contact Dave Jostad at: P.O. Box 9039 — 4185 Brooklake Rd NE Salem, Oregon 97305 Phone: 503 -393 -7030; Fax: 503- 390 -3594 E -mail: davej @maytrucking.com MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO AMENDMENT TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE TO ALLOW "WEDDING EVENT VENUE" UNDER THE PRIVATE PARK LISTING AS A CONDITION USE IN THE EXCLUSIVE FARM USE (EFU) ZONE DATE: January 8, 2009 FILE NO.: TA -08 -9 APPLICANT: County Gathering Associates SUBJECT: Wedding Event Venue in EFU Zone OPPONENT: Juniper Financial Services, LLC ( "Juniper") We thank the Deschutes County Planning Commission for this opportunity to submit testimony in opposition to the land use proposal cited above. COMMENTS SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSAL: Juniper, a Deschutes County EFU property owner, submits this memorandum in opposition to Applicant's above cited application to allow wedding events under the private park listing as a condition use on EFU zoned property.' REQUESTED COMMISSION DENIAL OF APPLICATION: Juniper respectfully requests that the Commission deny the Applicant's proposal. BASIS OF UNDERSTANDING: It is our understand that the cited proposal would allow the County to approve venues for events, including but not limited to weddings as a type of "private park" on lands zoned for exclusive farm use. We further understand that any such proposal would be subject to the County's conditional use review process and a multitude of review criteria and standards. ' Applicant is proposing a text amendment to the Deschutes County Code to allow "wedding event venue" under the private park listing as a conditional use in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone. We note that this application is closely similar to applicant David M. Herman's 2002 proposal that events such as weddings, gatherings, and business conferences, be allowed under the "guest ranch" provision in an Exclusive Farm Use Zone. See File Nos. CU -01 -120; SP- 01 -56. Ultimately, after appeal, that decision limited activities to passive recreational activities (i.e, precluded gatherings such as the proposed wedding events). See DCC 18.16.037 Guest Ranch. This proposal before the Commission has the same goal of allowing continuous commercial wedding activities in rural areas. In essence, this is another shot at the same target, but from a different angle. Memorandum in Opposition File No.: TA -08 -9 Applicant: Country Gathering Associates January 8, 2009 Page 2 With this understanding, we make the following comments in opposition to the proposal: THE PROPOSAL IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH EFU /RURAL INTENDED USES: Exclusive Farm Use Zones are not intended to be used for commercial gathering purposes. The requested "wedding event venue" is not a proposal for an EFU zoned land owner to have a private family gathering on his /her property or to provide supplemental income to family farm operation as is the case with the "guest ranch" activities provisions. Rather, this is a request to conduct a continuous commercial venture (Le., conceivably almost every weekend of the summer for proposed "larger - sized properties ") in a rural setting. This is not compatible with the intent of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, the County Code, and Statewide Planning Goals. Guidance as to intended permitted uses for farm land, in addition to usual permitted EFU farm activities, is found in the "guest ranch" provisions specified at DCC 18.16.037, DCC 18.128.360(4) and (5), and ORS 215.203. Guest ranch supplemental passive recreational activities on farm land, in conjunction with legitimate existing farm uses include, "hunting, fishing, hiking, biking, horseback riding or swimming ".2 DCC 18.128.360. None of these permitted extra activities on rural EFU zoned land include the operation of urban commercial business activities such as wedding events. Additionally see DCC 18.16.040 (Limitations on conditional uses), subsection B, which states "A commercial activity allowed under DCC 18.16.030(H) shall be associated with a farm use occurring on the parcel where the commercial use is proposed (emphasis added). Repetitive wedding events are not activities associated with a farm use occurring on the parcel. NEW PRIVATE PARKS ARE NOT ALLOWED ON FARMLAND: New private parks are not allowed on farmland (Oregon Administrative Rules). It appears that applicant is attempting to use the "private park" listing in applicant's attempt to add wedding event venues as a conditional use in the EFU zones. We believe, based on OAR standards, that the OAR's prohibit private park/wedding events on farmland. 2 Specifically "A guest ranch may provide recreational activities in conjunction with the livestock operation's natural setting, including but not limited to hunting, fishing, hiking, biking, horseback riding or swinuning. Intensively developed recreational facilities...shall not be allowed in conjunction with a guest ranch." DCC 18.128360. Memorandum in Opposition File No.: TA -08 -9 Applicant: Country Gathering Associates January 8, 2009 Page 3 In the alternative, new private parks are not allowed on high value farmland (OAR 660, Division 033, Rule 0120, Table 1). Applicant is attempting to use the private park listing in order to add wedding vent venues as a conditional use in the EFU zone. The OAR's, however, specifically prohibits allowance on high value farmland (i.e., use may only be allowed, if at all, on non -high value farmland). Therefore, if the proposed wedding event venue is to be added to the EFU zone (i.e., "private park event venue "), it can only be added to DCC 18.16.031 which is applicable only to non -high value farmland. THE COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ADD EVENT VENUES TO THE PRIVATE PARK LISTING: The Oregon Revised Statutes and the Oregon Administrative Rules do not list "event venues" or "weddings" anywhere in their provisions. Private parks are not defined in the ORS or the OAR. A park is commonly defined a public area used for recreation. These commonly defined park uses on EFU zoned land are significantly different from proposed wedding events on EFU zoned land. EVENT PRODUCERS WILL BE UNABLE TO EFFECTIVELY CONTROL NOISE, TRAFFIC, AND TRESSPASS: These proposed events will dramatically increase traffic, noise, and the general human impact on the rural environment and area. These event activities are not similar to normal activities associated with rural areas and those customarily conducted on EFU zoned properties. In the hopes of limiting the impact of noise, traffic, and trespass on neighbors' peaceful enjoyment of their property and the rural setting, applicant has proposed a list of standards to be used to accomplish these goals. While the intent is commendable, the practicality is that the mixture of a large group gathering (up to the proposed 500 guests) collectively arriving for and departing the wedding event at the same time will result in concentrated traffic noise and congestion on rural roads not designed to accommodate event traffic, general noise, and trespass. Rural settings were simply not designed for these proposed large joyous gatherings, and certainly not on a repetitive basis. A rural property owner should not be put in the position of having to seek enforcement of these proposed standards on a single or repetitive basis in order to enforce his /her right to peacefully enjoy his property. Limiting the size of the wedding gathering in relationship to the size of the acreage does not solve the above mention practical issues. The impact on rural neighbors of such Memorandum in Opposition File No.: TA -08 -9 Applicant: Country Gathering Associates January 8, 2009 Page 4 items as traffic, event noise, and lighting for events continuing after sunset, is the same regardless of the size of the property on which the event is being held. If the parcels are smaller, it simply means that the neighbors are closer. Similarly, if the parcels are larger and gatherings are larger, it simply means that the adverse effects are multiplied. EFU ZONE "PRIVATE PARK" ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE LIMITED TO RECREATIONAL USES: "Private park" uses in the EFU zone should continue to be limited to existing recreational -type uses. There is no requirement that the County provide an event venue for a wedding or other similar event, on EFU zoned land. Use of EFU zoned and for a "wedding event venue" should continue to be prohibited. CONCLUDING COMMENTS: Again, thank you for this opportunity to comment. We request that this letter in opposition be entered into the record of these proceedings and that we receive a copy of the decision. If additional information is provided at the hearing, we ask that the hearing be continued, pursuant to ORS 197.763(4)(b), to allow us time to review the new information and respond if necessary. My contact information is listed in the letterhead if you have any questions. Respectfully submitted, avid R. as General Counsel T:IMTCFiles12009 FILES1200901081OPPOSITION LETTER 010809.doc