Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Conservation and Development Letter Date Mr. Jim Rue, Director Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol St. NE, Suite 150 Salem, OR 97301 Re: HB 2229 / LCDC Rulemaking Dear Mr. Rue: House Bill 2229, Section 2(b)(B) directs the Land Conversation and Development Commission (LCDC) to adopt rules that, Consider the variation in conditions and needs in different regions of the state and encourage regional approaches to resolving land use problems. The Deschutes County Planning Commission [add BOCC if they concur] respectfully requests LCDC initiate rulemaking to implement the legislation and clarify processes for: 1. Updating farmlands and forestlands for land use planning; 2. Phasing; 3. Regional approaches to resolving land use problems; 4. Non-resource lands containing ecologically significant natural areas or resources; 5. Carrying capacity of the lands; and, 6. Significantly adverse effects. Since the law took effect, Deschutes County has continually expressed interest in implementing HB 2229, also known as the “Big Look Bill,” as evidenced by its participation in a 2010 Association of Counties panel discussion with state agency officials and subsequent conversations with the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Most recently, Deschutes County requested input on a phased approach and clarification of key issues relating to five pre-platted subdivisions with farm and forestland designations. Rob Hallyburton, DLCD Community Services Division Manager wrote in a letter on January 8, 2015, While we do not find that the county must review all land in the county, we would be most inclined to approve a work program that includes some major region defined by geographic characteristics rather than by property or subdivision boundaries. Additionally, the county may not pre-determine specific areas for review, as subsection 5(3) requires the county to provide an opportunity for all farm and forest land to be considered. If the county receives a request to review an area that is not included in the original proposal, the county must review it. As explained above, we believe that this -2- area must be a geographic area of the county and not individual properties or subdivisions. Considering other aspects of HB 2229 not related to your question, the department has been unable to determine the nature and scope of the mapping error the county intends to address. It is not apparent why the areas the county has shared with the department were incorrectly zoned at acknowledgment, and this is a fundamental aspect of the bill. If the county chooses to move forward with a work program, the county will need to demonstrate that the HB 2229 process is an appropriate vehicle for addressing the county’s needs. Based on Mr. Hallyburton’s letter, there remain differences of opinion whether HB 2229 is targeted exclusively to properties with mapping errors or if it also applies to updating farm and forestlands designations based on changed circumstances. Without administrative rules, undertaking a work plan is fraught with legal uncertainty. It is also extremely difficult to gauge staffing resources and timelines. Thank you for considering this request. Sincerely, TBD