HomeMy WebLinkAbout92-06292-41789
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES
An Ordinance Amending PL -20, The Deschutes
County Year 2000 Plan, to Adopt Text and
Goals and Policies Concerning Agricultural
Lands and Declaring an Emergency.
atiEVILLWLi'l s
COUNTY, OREGON
10119-1891
1
ORDINANCE NO, 92-062
WHEREAS, Deschutes County has an acknowledged Cogiiesive
Plan; and
r"o
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the Oregon-Vapartment
of Land Conservation and Development (LCDC) the CountJ2%as been
required to review and update its County Comprehensive La�Jse-Plan
and implementing ordinances, including for agricultural an, to
assure continuing compliance with Statewide Land Use Plann.if� als;
and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend certain portions of Ordinance
No. PL -20, the Deschutes County Year 2000 Plan in order to complete
periodic review; and
WHEREAS, public hearings have been held in furtherance of this
objective in conformance with state law before the Deschutes County
Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for
Deschutes County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has considered the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and the public; now
therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO AGRICULTURAL LANDS GOALS
AND POLICIES. Ordinance No. PL -20, the Deschutes County Year 2000
Comprehensive Plan, as amended (Plan), is further amended to change
the Agricultural Lands discussion and Goals and Policies, found on
pages 114 through 120 therein, to read as set forth in Exhibit "A,"
attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.
Section 2. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO RURAL DEVELOPMENT GOALS
AND POLICIES. Ordinance No. PL -20, the Deschutes County Year 2000
Comprehensive Plan, as amended (Plan), is further amended to insert
as Policy No. 7A in the Residential/Recreational Development Goals
and Policies the policy set forth in Exhibit "B, " attached hereto and
by this reference incorporated herein. This policy was formerly
included as Policy No. 9 in the Agricultural Lands Goals and
Policies.
1 - ORDINANCE NO 92-062 (11/25/92)
0119-1892
Section 3. FINDINGS. The Board of County Commissioners adopts
as its findings and conclusions in support of these amendments the
text of the amended language, the comprehensive plan text adopted by
Ordinance 92-063, and the findings set forth as Exhibit "C" to this
ordinance and by this reference incorporated herein.
Section 4. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this ordinance are
severable. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
ordinance or any exhibit thereto is adjudged to be invalid by a court
of competent jurisdiction, that decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or any exhibit
thereto.
Section 5. EMERGENCY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance being
necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health
and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance
takes effect on December 7, 1992.
DATED this 25th day of November, 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DWH TES COUNTY, OREGON
2 - ORDINANCE NO 92-062 (11/25/92)
HROOP,1/Cpmmiss4oner
N,
N, Copmis4ioner
4
NOTE: Deleted wording is in brackets [ ]; added wording is
underlined bold.
EXHIBIT A O11J �8a7V
AGRICULTURAL LANDS
[Agriculture played an important role in the growth and
development of Deschutes County. While agriculture continues
to be important, its early dominance of the economy is gone.
Production has remained relatively stable (see Oregon
Extension Service crop and livestock reports) but the total
income from agricultural products has been declining in
recent years.]
The protection of farmland is a public policy goal of the
federal government (USDA. Secretary's Memo 11828, Revised,
Oct. 30. 1978). most states in the United States and many
other countries. In Oregon, the 1975 Planning Goals set
statewide standards which must be met by local governments.
For farmlands, ORS 215 and 197 and OAR 660, Division 5 set
forth the criteria for compliance. The principal concept is
that standards in the EFU zones must provide protection for
the continuation of commercial -scale agriculture in the
county. including farm operations, marketing outlets and the
agricultural support system. [The State of Oregon, like many
other states, has identified the protection of agricultural
land as an important objective. For that reason State Land
Use Planning Goal 3 is of major importance.] In Deschutes
County, where some lands have severe limitations for the
commercial production of agricultural products, this has
resulted in considerable debate and occasional hostility.
The County has found itself between angry landowners who do
not wish to protect what they see as marginal agricultural
land, other County residents who are adamant that
agricultural land is a non-renewable resource that must be
preserved and a State law mandating specific actions that
must be taken to protect the land defined as agricultural
land. [The issue is further complicated by a lack of
detailed soils data for most of the County.]
[The proximity to the Cascades, higher altitudes and
semi -arid climate have resulted in a short growing season and
a need for irrigation water locally. Without irrigation,
little soil may be classified better than SCS Agricultural
Capability Class IV. Combined with a shallow rooting zone in
some areas and a long distance to many of the markets for
local produce, the result is an often discouraging and
frustrating experience for many farmers, although some
farmers do seem to manage to be successful.]
[Another problem is the growing demand for farmland by many
Comprehensive Plan
November 25, 1992
Page 1
0119-4894
people seeking a rural home. The result has been an increase
in land prices which often makes it difficult for people to
enter into or stay in full-time farming. On the other hand,
smaller part-time operations appear to be somewhat successful
in maintaining some agricultural production due to a heavy
committment of nonfarm income. Smaller farms have also
resulted in smaller losses in some areas, since a $100 per
acre loss is more easily born by a 10 -acre owner than a
100 -acre owner.]
[The possibility of additional farm land in the County
appears to be small, except for the development of wells (as
in Lower Bridge and Cloverdale) or if the lining of
irrigation canals should become more economically feasible,
because no additional adjudicated water may be expected from
the Deschutes River.]
Commercial agriculture in Deschutes County consists primarily
of field crops (alfalfa other hay some peppermint. potatoes
and seed crops) and livestock operations. The high elevation
(2700-3500 feet) and low rainfall make difficult conditions
for crop farming A short growing season and the risk of
crop damage from frost or mid -summer hail storms must be
factored into agriculture investment planning. Irrigation is
better than SCS Soil Capability Class IV. These factors.
along with limited marketing alternatives. often produce a
frustrating and discouraging experience for local farmers,
although some do manage to be successful. [However, the
grazing of livestock is, and will likely continue to be, an
important farm product in all portions of the County. And,
much of the crop land production locally is tied to the
production of hay for local and Willamette Valley livestock.
Particularly in the area of land east of Horse Ridge
livestock production is a highly viable agricultural
endeavor. Most of Deschutes County's future agricultural
production may be associated with the great diversity of
livestock presently grown in the County.]
However,[Certainly] agriculture still is an important
economic element [in] of the County, [directly] contributing
significantly [an estimated $10,316,000.00 in 1978, which
resulted in a $25,800,000.00 direct and indirect contribution
1 to the local economy. Agriculture also provides [Also
important are such] secondary benefits such as [the] open
space and scenic appearances [agriculture lends to the
County,] benefits which may also pay economic returns in the
form of tourist dollars.
[Because of the controversial nature of agriculture land
protection and the marginal character of some farm land a
certain amount of flexibility in zoning regulations and
Comprehensive Plan
November 25, 1992
Page 2
0119-1895
programs designed to foster local family farms may be
required. The use of incentives, rather than negative
regulations, may in the long run be more effective in
preserving agricultural lands.]
Since detailed soils mapping [exists] existed for only a
portion of the County in 1979, it was necessary to develop a
more elaborate definition than that found in the State Goal.
The definition finally agreed to by the County [uses] used
the available information on agricultural lands and [lays]
laid a foundation for future additions or deletions as better
soils information [becomes] became available.
jAgricultural Lands Definitionl
Agricultural lands [are] were defined as those lands [which
are] identified as possessing Soil Conservation Service
Agricultural Capability class I -VI soils (S.C.S.Land
Capabilities Classification Map) or, where detailed soils
information [is] was not available, [agricultural] lands
[shall be] identified by [showing that it has] having been
listed as on Farm Tax Deferral within the five years
preceding the adoption of [this] the 1979 plan (as indicated
on the then Existing Land Use Map complied from County
Assessor's records) and/or by the fact that the land [is] was
indicated on the County Planning Department's Irrigated Lands
Map.
Having a definition was only the first step, as it was then
necessary to differentiate between the various types of
agriculture to be found locally and to identify the various
areas they characterized. [The following types of
agriculture and their characteristic areas were identified
by] Members of the Planning Staff, the Agricultural CAC and
the Overall CAC identified 7 types of agriculture and areas
characterized by such agriculture. These types included High
Desert Sagebrush and Juniper Land, located east of Horse
Ridge and characterized by extensive livestock grazing;
Riparian Meadows, located along the Upper Deschutes River,
the Little Deschutes River and in the Sisters area and
characterized by sub -irrigated pasture and meadow hay;
Irrigated Commercial Crop Land, located in Lower Bridge and
characterized by field crops; Irrigated Marginally Commercial
Land located in the Alfalfa Cloverdale and Terrebonne areas
and characterized by pasture and forage; Dry Rangeland,
located near Odin Falls and characterized by dryland grazing;
Marginal Farm Land - Undevelopgd, located east of Bend and
near Redmond, Tumalo and Sisters and characterized by pasture
and forage; and Marginal Farm Land - Developed, located in
the Bend, Plainview and Tumalo areas and characterized by
pasture and forage.
Comprehensive Plan
November 25, 1992
Page 3
[[Types of Agricultural Land:]
6119-1896
[A. High Desert Sagebrush and Juniper Land: This is dry
land with generally inferior soils (somewhat alkaline in
places) with rather severe climatic conditions. It is
suitable only for grazing of livestock and an occasional
planting of dryland rye. Predominant farm ownership
size, outside rural service centers, is several hundred
to several thousand acres. There are few
non-agricultural dwellings. Lands in the vicinity of
and east of Horse Ridge are characteristic of this
agricultural type.]
[B. Riparian Meadows: These meadows (mostly natural) border
waterways and are sub -surface irrigated. In spite of a
rather severe climate they are suited for the grazing of
livestock and the harvesting of a limited tonnage of
meadow hay. Lot sizes vary, but the most frequently
occurring are 40 and 80 acre lots with 80 acres the
median and the average of the parcels equaling 109
acres. Ownerships often combine lots to create areas
several hundred to several thousand acres in size. Due
to the groundwater and frequent flooding, there are few
residences. Typical lands are along the Upper Deschutes
river, the Little Deschutes river and in the Sisters
area.]
[C. Irrigated Commercial Crop Land: This land, because of
more favorable soil characteristics, climate and
topography,is suitable for raising diversified row
crops, grain, etc., with a yield sufficiently high to
make farm operation generally self-sustaining and
profitable. The predominant lot size is 80 acres with
some large ownerships, causing the average to be 170
acres. The pattern is a mixture of larger and smaller.
Few non-farm dwellings exist in this area. Lower Bridge
is characteristic of this description.]
[D. Irrigated Marginally Commercial Land: This type of
land, because of less favorable soil and climatic
conditions, is not able to raise as wide a variety of
crops as Type C above, nor is the potential yield as
high. However, it can produce occasional row crops,
grain, hay and pasture, as well as livestock, on a
generally self-sustaining basis, although somewhat
marginal at times. A mixture of lot sizes can be found
throughout these areas and while there are some large
farm ownerships the predominant ownership and tax lot
size is 40 acres. Lands around Alfalfa, Cloverdale and
Terrebonne are characteristic of this agricultural
Comprehensive Plan
November 25, 1992
Page 4
type.]
0119001897
[E. Dry Rangeland: This land has little water and is
without irrigation. Suited only for livestock
production presently, it often lies in areas where the
introduction of irrigation water would make marginal
crop production possible, and therefore is a resource
for the future. Predominant ownership characteristic of
the type are found near Odin Falls.]
[F. Marginal Farm Land - Undeveloped: This land will
support agricultural production only if subsidized to
some extent. The lands are suitable for hay and pasture
and, more particularly, the raising of livestock,
particularly if access to public grazing is available.
Ownership sizes cover a broad range but the most
frequently occurring tax lot size is 40 acres; however,
the mixture of sizes results in mean and median lot
sizes of 20 acres or only slightly larger. These areas
are particularly susceptible to increasing non-farm
development. Areas characteristic of this type of land
are some parts of Arnold (east of Bend), Redmond,
Sisters and Tumalo.]
[G. Marginal Farm Land - Developed: This land is much the
same as Type F, but existing residential development and
hobby farming activities have reduced the predominant
ownership and tax lot size to less than 20 acres. The
land is suitable for raising and grazing livestock on a
small scale. Because people are able to subsidize the
farm operation, productivity is believed to be higher
than might otherwise be the case. Lands typical of
these characteristics generally lie close in to urban
areas, such as Bend, Plainview, Swalley and to some
extent Tumalo.]
As Dart of Deriodic review in 1992, the county conducted a
study of commercial agriculture in Deschutes County. The
purpose of the study was to ensure that EFU zone boundaries
and standards for farm divisions and dwellings were
consistent with Goal 3 and relevant administrative rules.
The results of the study are detailed in the completion
report dated June 1992, and are incorporated into the
Resource Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The study
identified 7 agricultural subzones: Lower Bridge,
Sisters/Cloverdale, TumalofRedmond/Bend. Terrebonne, Alfalfa.
LaPine and Horse Ridge East. For each subzone. standards
were determined for minimum parcel size for both farm
divisions and farm -related dwellings. The standards are
designed to protect the commercial agriculture land base
while providing for flexibility. A tiered administrative
process administers the standards.
Comprehensive Plan
November 25, 1992
Page 5
Oil
acres is the controlling variable for defining commercial
agriculture. Therefore, the standard for definincr what
constitutes a farm parcel is keyed to the number of irrigated
acres typically found on commercial farms in each subzone.
The study also found that farms in Deschutes County usually
contain a mix of irrigated and nonirrigated land, as well as
a mix of soils of different classes. Since the assessed farm
use value is linked to the productive capability of property,
it provides a surrogate for irrigated acres by acknowledginct
the presence and role of unirrigated soils in farm
operations. The assessed farm use value can be used in place
of the irrigated agreagefigmre where the land value is set
to ecival that of the irrigated land (i.e., median irrigated
acres in subzone x farm use value of best irrigated land in
subzone = threshold assessed land value).
Notwithstandina the vrecedinq, the LaPine Subzoneis_somewhat
different from the other subzones in that farm sales are less
than farm use values. In Qeneral, this is due to
agricultural practices that depend to a much greater degree
than in the other subzones on livestock grazing on
nonirrigated pasture. To address this situation, median
irrigated acreage and median assessed farm use value are used
to set the basic commercial standards with the income test
for dwellings derived by the county farmland appraiser from
the sum of the sales potentials that the median commercial
farm could realize considering typical irrigated acreage, wet
meadowland and dry grazing land in the subzone.
Recognizing the importance of protecting agricultural land
the following was chosen to meet State requirements and local
needs:
GOAL:
To preserve and maintain agricultural land_ [in Deschutes
County for the production of farm and forestry products, as
well as the public need for open space.]
POLICIES:
[It has been the policies which have generated the greatest
debate. Controversial even before the process began, the
identification of appropriate mechanisms to protect local
agricultural lands has been characterized by heated
discussion, polarization of attitudes and occasionally open
hostility.]
[Much of the early debate focused on the Interim Agriculture
Ordinance meant to protect agricultural lands until the
final plan was prepared. The Agricultural CAC split into two
factions with the predominant group (8 of the 15) agreeing
Comprehensive Plan
November 25, 1992
Page 6
0119-1899
upon an ordinance calling for 40 -acre minimums in Lower
Bridge and east of Horse Ridge, while the rest of the county
was 10 acres. This plan was accepted by the County but
rejected by the State Land Conservation and Development
Commission. LCDC then placed an enforcement order on the
County mandating all lands with Farm Tax Deferral status
should be protected as agricultural land until a final plan
was prepared.]
[In preparation of this plan the Agricultural CAC again
proposed a 40 -acre minimum for the northern and eastern
portions of the County with the rest 10 acres. The Overall
CAC, recognizing LCDC's reasoning and the testimony of other
farmers and County residents, accepted most of the
Agricultural CAC's recommendations but rejected the proposed
agricultural definitions and zoning because of:
1. Conflicts with other committees' recommendations for
rural areas (particularly energy, transportation and
public facilities);
2. Failure to adequately address rangelands and large farm
ownerships; and,
3. Conflicts between the proposal and the intent of LCDC
Goal 3.]
[The Overall CAC, with the assistance of a member of the
Agricultural CAC, then prepared a new set of policies for
definitions and zoning. These policies are basically those
contained in this plan, although they have been modified to
bring them even more into line with the requirements of the
State Land Conservation and Development Commission because of
review by the County's Planning Commission, Planning Staff,
Board of County Commissioners and a team of consultants hired
to check for such issues.]
ZONING
1. All lands meeting the definition of agricultural lands
shall be zoned Exclusive Farm use, unless an exception
to State goal 3 is obtained so that the zoning may be
Multiple Use Agriculture or Rural Residential.
2. Lands not meeting the agricultural lands definition but
having potential for irrigation according to the Bureau
of Reclamation Special Report - Deschutes Project,
Central Division, Oregon, although not presently without
Comprehensive Plan
November 25, 1992
Page 7
0119-1900
water, shall receive exclusive farm use zoning.
[consistent with Agricultural Type E..]
3. Public lands meeting the criteria for EFU zoning shall
be so zoned unless some other resource (i.e., forest) or
public use exists on the land.
4. No more than 25 percent of a given agricultural
[district] subzone shall be composed of lands not of the
same agricultural type. Any agricultural lands not
zoned EFU agriculture shall be identified in the County
Exception Statement. Zoning districts shall be at least
40 acres in size.
[3. A change from an EFU zone to a non-EFU zone (except SM
or SMR) shall require a plan amendment (see Exception
Maps).]
5. Zones and [lot] minimum[s] parcel sizes shall be
established to assure the preservation of the existing
commercial agricultural [character] enterprises of the
area.
[ (Agricultural Land Type Zone
A - High Desert EFU-320 acres
B - Riparian Meadows EFU-80 acres
C - Irrigated Commercial Crop Land EFU-80 acres
D - Irrigated Marginally Commercial
Crop Land EFU-40 acres
E - Dry Rangeland EFU-40 acres
F - Marginal Farmland, Undeveloped EFU-20 acres
G - Marginal Farmland, Developed MUA-10 acres)
6. For purposes of profiling the existing commercial
agricultural enterprises of the County. the County shall
consider as one land unit all tracts in contiguous
ownership (including those parcels separated only by a
road) zoned EFU.
7. The County will consider as its pool for profiling the
nature of the existing agricultural enterprises of the
area those farms that make the highest 90% contribution
to the local agricultural economy.
8. In recognition that irrigated acres per farm unit is the
key variable identifying commercial agricultural
enterprises in the County. the County shall use the
median number of irrigated acres per farm unit in the
area or subzone as its principal standard for defining
what size of tract constitutes a farm parcel. As an
alternative to median irrigated acres as a standard, an
Comprehensive Plan
November 25, 1992
Page 8
0119-1901
assessed farm value equal to that of the median
irrigated acres shall be used as a standard for
establishing farm parcel size. The formula for the
assessed farm value determination shall be as follows:
the median number of irriciated acres per farm unit for
the area or subzone x per acre farm use value of best
irrigated land in subzone = dollar threshold for
assessed land value alternative.
9. Following from the June 1992 OSU Extension Service
completion report detailed in the resource element, the
County has identified 7 subzones representing distinct
groupings of agricultural tynes The County's EFU
zoning shall reflect those identified subzones,
generally described as follows and as more particularly
detailed in the resource element of the comprehensive
plan:
Subzone Profile
Lower Bridge Irrigated field
crops, hay and
pasture
Sisters/Cloverdale Irrigated
alfalfa, hay and
pasture, wooded
grazing and some
field crops
Terrebonne Irrigated hay
and pasture
Tumalo/Redmond/Bend
Irrigated
pasture and some
hay
Alfalfa
Irrigated hay
and pasture
LaPine
Riparian
meadows, grazing
and meadow hay
Horse Ridge East
Rangeland
grazing
10. For the purposes'of determining relevant characteristics
(i.e., farm use values, multipliers, irrigated acres and
assessed farm use values) of commercial farms, the
County will rely on those farms and those statistics
identified in the completion report prepared by the OSU
Extension Service dated June 1992 and set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan
November 25, 1992
Page 9
resource element of the comprehensive plan. 0119-1902
11. To allow for flexibility, local variations and
innovative farming proposals, a tiered administrative
approach, as described in the resource element of the
plan, shall be used to determine, based upon the data
Profile of each subzone, appropriate parcel sizes for
purposes of decision-making on individual farm land
division and farm dwelling applications. In Tier 1,
decisions on parcel size shall be based upon the median
irrigated acres or farm assessed values in the
identified subzones. In Tier 2 decisions shall be
based upon the median irrigated acres or farm assessed
values in a more localized radius. In Tier 3. decisions
shall be based upon whether under a proposed farm
management plan the subject parcel can generate the
median annual gross sales for the subzone, as determined
by a local technical advisory committee. Tiers 1, 2 and
3 shall apply to farm dwelling decisions; only Tiers 1
and 2 shall apply to farm divisions.
12. Farm divisions reviewed under Tier 2 shall contain, at
a minimum, the amount of irrigated land found in the
lower quartile of commercial farms in the subzone.
13. In order to provide some flexibility in the zoning and
to assist farmers who may need to sell an isolated
unproductive piece of land in order to assure continued
operation of the farm, individual isolated partitions
(creation of one or two new lots) establishing lots less
than the EFU minimum lot size in EFU areas shall be
permitted [consistent with ORS 215.213] to the maximum
extent allowed by state law. The remaining farm parcel
must be at least the minimum established by the EFU
zone. [This shall not be interpreted to permit the
creation of non-agricultural subdivisions in EFU areas.]
In order to provide some flexibility in the zonin
while still maintaining the rural character of the area
and limiting the costs of providing services to rural
residents, the county shall allow non-farm residential
divisions with a minimum lot size of 20 acres and limit
to three the number of new non-farm parcels that can be
created from any one parent parcel. This prohibition
shall apply to all parcels created after the effective
date of Ordinance 92-065.
14. So that a farmer who has lived on his land for 10 years
or more may retire and sell his property while retaining
the use of his existing home, a homestead exception may
be permitted which allows the homesteader to retain a
life estate lease on the home and some of the
surrounding land. The lease will end with the death(s)
Comprehensive Plan
November 25, 1992
Page 10
0119=1903
of the homesteader and spouse. This exception shall not
permit the creation of another residence on the property
in question.
15. A division of land for non-farm uses, except dwellings,
may be approved as long as the parcel for the non-farm
use is no larger than the minimum size necessary for the
use. The parcel shall be at least one acre in size.
[9. The Multiple Use Agricultural Zone shall allow planned
developments, destination resorts, planned communities
and cluster development as conditional uses where it can
be shown these uses would be consistent with or
beneficial to the maintenance of agricultural uses in
that area. Except for Destination Resorts no overall
densities in excess of the underlying minimum lot size
will be permitted.]
[10. Conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses
shall be based on the following:
(a) Acceptable environmental, energy, social and
economic consequences;
(b) Demonstrated need consistent with Land Conservation
and Development Commission goals and ORS 215.213.]
16. Parcel size exceptions may be granted because of survey
errors when original section lines were established, so
that standard section divisions may be achieved (i.e.,
160, 80, 40, 10, etc., acres). Man-made barriers such as
roads or canals, over which the applicant has no control,
may serve as adequate justification for granting a parcel
(lot) size variance.
17. Normal agricultural practices (i.e., aerial pesticide
applications, machinery dust and noise, etc.) should not
be restricted by non-agricultural interests in
agricultural districts. The County shall consider
requiring noise, dust, fly, etc., easements to be granted
to adjoining farmers where non-agricultural uses are
permitted.
18. Coordination between public and private landowners to
encourage farm use shall be encouraged. And projects to
increase productivity and to bring new land into
agricultural production shall be fostered.
19. Control of noxious weeds through educational programs
should be continued.
20. Farm and non-farm uses in rural areas shall be consistent
with the conservation of soil and water.
Comprehensive Plan
November 25, 1992
Page 11
0119-1904
21. Prior to the next periodic review of its comprehensive
plan" the County Planning Department shall initiate a[n
on-going] study of EFU-zoned [marginal farm] lands to
develop a recon endation as to whether marginal lands or
secondary lands would be appropriate. [information on how
and when these lands should be converted to other uses,
and to consider alternative methods of compensating
landowners for loss of development potential.]
[17. The County Planning Department shall seek detailed soils
information for all areas of the County through
cooperation with the Soil Conservation Service, U.S.
Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Mid -State
Soil and Water Conservation District.)
[18. Because of the possible adverse effects of
local taxing districts, the Board of County
shall take such action as is necessary to
impacts after one year of experience with
upon sufficient and specific information
of the zoning.]
/mj z
Comprehensive Plan
November 25, 1992
Page 12
EFU zoning to
Commissioners
mitigate undue
EFU zoning or
on the effects
0119-1905
EXHIBIT B
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Residential/Recreational Development
NOTE: Deleted wording is in brackets [ ]; added wording is
underlined bold.
8. The Multiple Use Agricultural Zone shall allow Manned
developments, destination resorts, planned communities and
cluster developments as conditional uses where it can be
shown these uses would be consistent with, or beneficial to,
the maintenance of agricultural uses in that area. Except
for destination resorts no overall densities in excess of
the underlying minimum lot size shall be permitted.
EXHIBIT C
0119-1906
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF EFU ZONE AMENDMENTS
1. Deschutes County initiated a review of its Exclusive Farm Use
(EFU) zones as part of periodic review, as specified in ORS
Chapter 197.628. The purpose of the review is to assure that
the county's comprehensive plan and land use regulations
comply with Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agricultural Land.
2. Deschutes County Commissioners contracted with OSU Extension
Service on January 1, 1992, to provide assistance to the
county in documentation of the standards for the EFU zones.
The principal investigator in the project was Dr. James R.
Pease. Dr. Pease has worked with the Oregon land use program
since its inception in 1973. He has completed several funded
projects, for the Oregon Land Conservation and Development
Commission (LCDC) and other funding sources, on Oregon's land
use program, as well as numerous technical assistance
projects for county governments and LCDC which were performed
without funding. His specialty is rural resources planning,
particularly agricultural and forest land use planning. He
prepared databases for agricultural land use policy (Profiles
of Commercial Agriculture and Special Tabulations of the
Census of Agriculture) under contract with LCDC which are
used by most county governments as well as LCDC.
In 1986, he worked with Polk County planners to develop a new
zoning ordinance to address Goal 3. The new ordinance was
adopted in 1986. The project received the Professional
Achievement in Planning Award from the Oregon Chapter,
American Planning Association, in 1990. In 1990, he
completed an agricultural resources planning project for
Yamhill County and a primary/secondary lands study for
Jackson County and the LCDC. Dr. Pease has also published
various papers on the agricultural land use program,
including papers on the Polk County project and the
primary/secondary lands project. The Board finds Dr. Pease
to be highly qualified to perform the required analysis and
considers him to be an expert witness in the field of
protection of agricultural lands under Oregon's statewide
planning program.
3. Four principal steps are involved in the documentation
process:
A. Identify the types and sizes of farm operations
comprising the county's commercial agricultural
enterprise (OAR 660-05-015(1); 660-05-015(6)(a)).
Along with the contract with OSU, County Commissioners
also appointed a 24 -member advisory committee to assist
Findings in Support of EFU Zone Amendments
November 25, 1992
Page 1
0119=190'7
in the documentation of standards for the EFU zones.
The results of this project are detailed in the
completion report dated June 1992.
To supplement the report prepared by OSU, the county
contracted with the Bureau of the Census for a special
tabulation of the 1987 Census of Agriculture and with
Western Attitudes to conduct two surveys. The first
consisted of a public opinion survey on rural land
issues; the second targeted agricultural operators in
the county. While other relevant data sources were
used, such as the Census of Agriculture (1978, 1982 and
1987), Extension reports and aerial photographs, the
primary component of the county's database is Assessor's
records for EFU-zoned properties. These sources,
considered together, provide a picture of the county's
commercial agricultural enterprise, and are documented
in the completion report.
Goal 3 also requires the county to inventory and
preserve agricultural land by adopting EFU zones
pursuant to ORS 215. Minimum lot sizes adopted in EFU
zones must be appropriate for the continuation of the
existing commercial agricultural enterprise within the
area. The rule defines "commercial agricultural
enterprise" as those farms which will:
(a) Contribute in a substantial way to the area's
existing agricultural economy; and
(b) Help maintain agricultural processors and
established farm markets.
The farm operations that contribute in a substantial way
to an area's agricultural economy can be identified by
income category. The Goal 3 rule does not provide an
objective measure of what constitutes a "substantial"
contribution to an area's existing agricultural economy,
and the county is not aware of any case law shedding
light on the meaning of the term. The Board finds that,
for the purpose of creating a "pool" of commercial farms
for calculating averages, the county will use those
farms that make a substantial contribution to the
overall productivity of the county. The Board concludes
that it is reasonable to include in the "pool" of
commercial operators those farms which contribute more
than 10% to the local agricultural economy, and
determine commercial characteristics based on analysis
of that "pool."
Since assessed land value is a function of parcel size,
soil quality, climate and irrigation, it is a reasonably
good measure of the relative agricultural productivity
of a parcel, and can be used to estimate potential gross
Findings in Support of EFU Zone Amendments
November 25, 1992
Page 2
0119-1908
sales. The Assessor calculates farm use values by using
a formula provided by the Sate Department of Revenue
which is based on review of cash rents of farm land
within the county. The farm use value represents the
amount of money a farmer would pay to rent farm land for
farm use. The farm use value excludes homesite values,
on-site improvements and other values unrelated to farm
use. The farm use values are reviewed by a local
advisory committee and published each year by the
Assessor's Office. Farm use values for soils of
different characteristics are multiplied by the acreage
in each class of soil to determine the assessed land
value for a property.
The ratio between the per acre return to the land
through sales of farm products (rotation averages) to
the farm use value is called the "multiplier." Since
land rent value is adjusted for each parcel by soil
type, gross sales derived by a multiplier of land rent
is automatically adjusted by soil quality. In other
words, the best soils would have higher gross sales
estimates than poorer soils. Rotation averages, farm
use values and multipliers for each subzone are as
follows:
Lower Bridge: 4.5 tons/acre of hay @ $90/ton; $245/acre
of best irrigated soils; multiplier = 1.65.
Sisters/Cloverdale: 4.0 tons/acre of hay @ $90/ton;
$237/acre of best irrigated soils; multiplier = 1.52.
Tumalo/Redmond/Bend: 4.0 tons/acre of hay @ $90/ton;
$237/acre of best irrigated soils; multiplier = 1.51.
Alfalfa: 4.0 tons/acre of hay @ $90/ton; $240/acre of
best irrigated soils; multiplier = 1.50.
LaPine: 2.5 tons/acre of hay @ $70/ton; $187/acre of
best irrigated soils; multiplier = .94.
Terrebonne: 4.0 tons/acre of hay @ $90/ton; $239/acre of
best irrigated soils; multiplier = 1.51.
Assessor's records have been extremely useful in this
project because they contain information that can be
disaggregated on a geographic basis and because they
contain information on assessed farm land values, number
of irrigated and nonirrigated acres on a property,
number of acres of soils of different groups, tax status
and ownership. Assessor's information was used
extensively to generate statistics on commercial
agriculture in the county; the database is built on
commercial farms as shown on Assessor's records as
consisting of contiguous ownership tracts (including
Findings in Support of EFU Zone Amendments
November 25, 1992
Page 3
0119-1909
those parcels separated only by a road) with the same
name, zoned EFU, receiving special assessment for farm
use and in the top 90% of assessed farm use values
(arranged in ascending order). Using this methodology,
a total of 1,576 contiguous ownership tracts were
identified with 801 (51% of the total) responsible for
the top 90% of the contribution to the local
agricultural economy. Statistics on commercial
agriculture were derived from this group.
The completion report contains a profile of the county's
commercial agricultural enterprise as a whole, as well
as profiles of the commercial agricultural enterprise
within each identified subzone. Estimates of gross
sales based on the use of Assessor data, number of
farms, number of total and irrigated acres and average
value of products sold were compared with those in the
1982 and 1987 Census of Agriculture. While the two data
sources are not directly comparable because of differing
data sets, the overall impression of the comparison was
favorable.
The Board finds that the inventory of farms obtained
from Assessor records meets the requirements of OAR
660-05-015(7). The Board finds that the farm use value,
and, by inference, assessed farm land value, is linked
to the productive capability of a property in a very
real way and can be used as an estimator of potential
gross sales of agricultural commodities. The Board
finds that those farms with the upper 90% of assessed
farm land value can be used to estimate the upper 90% of
total market sales. The Board concludes that those
farms responsible for 90% of total market sales are
those which contribute in a substantial way to the
county's existing agricultural economy, satisfying OAR
660-05-005(2)(a).
As a supplement to the final report prepared by OSU, the
county contracted with the Bureau of the Census for a
special tabulation of the 1987 Census of Agriculture for
selected data items in Deschutes County. The special
tabulations show that 27% of farm supplies, 45% of
contract labor, 24% of custom work, 38% of livestock
purchases and 49% of the farm equipment and machinery
was purchased by farms grossing less than $10,000. The
Board finds that these data show that small farms (in
terms of gross sales) are a significant part of the
local farm economy because they support farm supply
businesses and concludes that they are necessary to
maintain the existing commercial enterprise in the
county. The Board therefore concludes that this
information shall be used in conjunction with other data
to define "commercial agricultural enterprise."
Findings in Support of EFU Zone Amendments
November 25, 1992
Page 4
0119=1910
Deschutes County Commissioners also contracted with
Western Attitudes to conduct a survey of agricultural
operators in the county. The survey was conducted in
May of 1992; the results of the survey were presented to
the county in June 1992.
The Board finds that the results of the survey are
instructive in identifying established farm markets (OAR
660-05-005(2)(b)). The survey reveals that the primary
marketing outlets are direct sales (65%) and auction
(42%). Over 66% of respondents said their products are
processed in Deschutes County. For those who sell their
products directly to consumers, 88% of sales occur
within 25 miles of the home farm. For those who sell
their products via auction, 77% of sales occur within 50
miles of the home farm. Based on these data, the Board
finds that the infrastructure for commercial agriculture
is limited and that farm markets are typically located
within central Oregon.
B. Determine whether there are areas or subareas of the
county with a distinct agricultural enterprise in terms
of types and/or sizes (OAR 660-05-015(4);
660-05-015(6)(a)).
The research team from OSU compared current zone
boundaries with an agricultural land use map prepared
from ASCS aerial photography and data on commercial
farms as defined above. With few exceptions, current
zone boundaries reflect significant similarities within
the zone and significant differences between zones to
merit keeping them in place. For this reason the new
subzones are closely tied to existing zone boundaries.
However, the Planning Commission did identify three
large irrigated farms and adjacent properties located
north and west of the Squaw Creek irrigation canal in
the Tumalo/Redmond/Bend/Sisters Subzone that are not
representative of the area, considering tract size and
number of irrigated acres. The Board finds that these
properties are more characteristic of those in the
Cloverdale Subzone and, accordingly, concludes that the
following properties shall be incorporated into that
zone:
151000000100
1510040000103
1510040001109
1510080000709
1510100000401
1510120000301
1510140000200
1510140000700
1510000001101
1510040000500
1510080000400
1510100000400
1510110000100
1510120000302
1510140000600
Findings in Support of EFU Zone Amendments
November 25, 1992
Page 5
1510000001102
1510040001101
1510080000707
1510100000700
1510120000200
1510140000100
1510140000601
0119-1911
The Board also finds that, because of the small size of
the Sisters Subzone, the limited number of farms and the
similarity in operating characteristics with farms in
the Cloverdale Subzone, it also is appropriate to
incorporate these properties into the Cloverdale
Subzone. Because of these changes, the Board also
concludes that the Cloverdale Subzone be renamed
Sisters/Cloverdale and the Tumalo/Redmond/Bend/Sisters
Subzone be renamed Tumalo/Redmond/Bend.
Notwithstanding the preceding, the data indicate variety
in farm sizes within each subzone. Similarly, each
subzone contains farms capable of higher and lower
potential gross sales. Mapping of concentrations of
commercial farms did not reveal clear patterns (i.e.,
the distribution of commercial farms appears to be
random). Thus, while the data indicate variability in
the sizes of farms within the subzones, no clear pattern
was identified on which to further refine the zone
boundaries or to locate anomalous areas within a
subzone.
The county's periodic review notice did not require the
county to reinventory its agricultural lands. The Board
notes that the definition of agricultural land has not
changed form the time the original plan was
acknowledged. For these reasons, the Board finds that
no further analysis of agricultural land is required for
the purpose of determining whether lands are
appropriately zoned for exclusive farm use. The Board
further finds that the proposed subzones, as mapped,
represent regional differences in commercial
agricultural and concludes they be adopted as shown.
C. Determine the farm unit size(s) appropriate to maintain
each area's commercial agricultural enterprise (OAR
660-05-015(1); 660-05-015(6)(a); 660-05-020(3)).
Statistics were produced on total tract size, irrigated
acreage size and potential gross sales in each subzone.
Stable indicator crops are hay and forage, field crops
and cattle. Irrigation is found to be essential for
crop or hay production and is used extensively for
irrigated pastures. Thus, irrigated acres is identified
as the controlling variable for defining commercial
agriculture. Therefore, the standard for land divisions
and farm dwellings is keyed to the number of irrigated
acres typically found on commercial farms in each
subzone. The Board also recognizes that farms in
Deschutes County usually contain a mix of irrigated and
nonirrigated land, as well as a mix of soils of
different classes. It is the Board's desire to
acknowledge the presence and role of these lands by
using a surrogate for the irrigated acreage standard.
Findings in Support of EFU Zone Amendments
November 25, 1992
Page 6
0119-1912
To this end, the Board finds that the assessed farm use
value is linked to the productive capability of a
property in a very real way and provides a reliable test
of the commercial viability of a farm by acknowledging
the presence and role of unirrigated soils in farm
operations (See discussion of farm use values in
finding# 3A, above). The Board finds that the assessed
farm land value can be used in place of the irrigated
acreage figure where the land value is set to equal that
of the irrigated land (i.e., median irrigated acres in
subzone x farm use value of best irrigated land in
subzone = threshold for assessed land value). The Board
concludes that these two variables be used to identify
commercial scale farms in the review of applications for
land divisions to determine whether the proposed parcels
are capable of maintaining the existing commercial
agricultural enterprise.
Notwithstanding the preceding, the Board recognizes that
the LaPine Subzone is somewhat different from the other
subzones in that farm sales are less than farm use
values, resulting in a multiplier less than one. In
general, this is due to agricultural practices that
depend to a much greater degree than in other subzones
on livestock grazing on nonirrigated pasture. To
address this situation, median irrigated acreage and
median assessed land value are used to set the basic
commercial standards, with the income test for dwellings
derived by the county farmland appraiser from the sum of
sales potentials that the median commercial farm could
realize considering typical irrigated acreage, wet
meadowland and dry grazing land in the subzone.
Statistics on commercial scale farms were derived from
Assessor records as described in finding# 3A, above.
The use of the median was selected to identify the
typical farm unit because it represents an actual county
farm and is the "middle -most" number (i.e., half the
farms are larger, half are smaller). The mean is
another measure of the average but was rejected because
it does not represent any actual farm unit and it may be
skewed by observations found at the extremes of the
array of data. For these reasons, the Board finds that
the median is an appropriate statistic for these land
use purposes and concludes that the criteria used in the
general zoning model use the median irrigated acreage
and median assessed farm use value.
With respect to the question of whether the minimum lot
sizes identified in the subzones are capable of
maintaining the commercial enterprise as a whole (OAR
660-05-015(1) and (4), the Board notes that in the Lower
Bridge Subzone there are 30 commercial farms, of which 2
may qualify for partition under Tier 1. In the
Findings in Support of EFU Zone Amendments
November 25, 1992
Page 7
0119-1913
Terrebonne Subzone there are 229 commercial farms, of
which 27 may qualify for partition under Tier 1. In the
Alfalfa Subzone there are 140 commercial farms,of which
19 may qualify for partition. Data to analyze the other
subzones are not available because of alterations to
zone boundaries. Based on the preceding, however, the
Board concludes that the minimum lot sizes identified
are appropriate for the continuation of the existing
commercial agricultural enterprise within the areas.
D. Balance the relevant information to determine the parcel
size appropriate to maintain the area's commercial
agricultural enterprise as a whole (OAR 660-05-020(6);
660-05-015(4); 660-05-015(6)(b); 660-05-015(8)).
Relevant to this discussion, and following the
recommendation of the advisory committee, the Board
adopts the following guiding principles:
* Recognize that high value agriculture can be
conducted on small parcels, but long-term policy
shall be based on indicator crops or livestock
activities with stable operating records or market
conditions.
* Provide for a full range of types and scales of
commercial agriculture.
The Board finds that livestock (cattle) and field crops
(alfalfa and other hay) are the dominant agricultural
types in terms of number of farms and number of acres.
They also are considered to be the stable indicator
crops. Figures for irrigated acreage and assessed value
reflect their dominance. For these reasons the Board
concludes that the key standards used in the general
zoning model will protect the land base for commercial
agriculture for those indicator crops or livestock
activities with stable operating records and market
conditions. At the same time, the use of Tier 2 allows
for flexibility to provide for local variations in the
scale of commercial agriculture consistent with OAR
660-05-015(3) and (4) and the guiding principles.
4. As a supplement to the final report prepared by OSU, the
county contracted with the Bureau of the Census for a special
tabulation of the 1987 Census of Agriculture for selected
data items in Deschutes County. The special tabulation was
delivered to the county on August 15, 1992.
Particularly instructive are comparisons of income and
acreage for all county agricultural types which show the
following:
Findings in Support of EFU Zone Amendments
November 25, 1992
Page 8
0119-1914
* 73% of all field crop farms gross less than $10,000
and account for 46% of field crop acreage; 90% of
these farms gross less than $40,000. Three farms
(2%) in this group reported gross incomes of $80,000
or more.
* 88% of all general farms gross less than $10,000;
94% of these farms gross less than $40,000. One farm
(6%) in this group reported gross income of $80,000
or more.
* 76% of beef cattle ranches gross less than $10,000
and account for 16% of beef cattle acreage; 94% of
these ranches gross less than $40,000. Ten ranches
(3%) in this group reported gross incomes of $80,000
or more.
* 86% of other livestock operators (primarily sheep,
hogs, feedlots) gross less than $10,000; 94% of
these farms gross less than $40,000. One farm (less
than 1%) in this group reported gross income of
$80,000 or more.
* 86% of those farms involved in specialty animals
(horses, llamas, other exotics) gross less than
$10,000 and account for 68% of the acreage; 95% of
these farms gross less than $40,000. Three farms
(2%) of this group reported gross incomes of $80,000
or more.
These data indicate marked similarities in the actual
earnings profiles for all agricultural types, with no
discernible anomalies at either end of the income scale. The
data also show that farms with low gross sales are necessary
to support the overall commercial enterprise. Additionally,
the special tabulations (Table 1) reveal that, for the 198
county farms showing a positive net return, 70 (35%) gross
less than $10,000, 38 (19%) gross between $10,000 and
$19,999, 37 (19%) gross between $20,000 and $39,999, 31 (16%)
gross between $40,000 and $79,999 and 22 (11%) gross $80,000
or more. Based on these data, the Board finds that net
income is not a useful predictor of the ability of a farm to
generate a particular gross income, and does not ensure any
particular scale of agricultural activity (i.e., farms with
low gross sales are just as likely to realize a profit as
those with higher gross sales).
Table 2 of the special tabulations reveals that, for the 170
irrigated farms showing net gains, 48 (28%) have less than 20
irrigated acres, 37 (22%) have between 20 and 39 irrigated
acres and 52 (31%) have at least 100 irrigated acres. The
Board finds that these data show the variability in irrigated
acreage in commercial farms, and concludes that profitability
Findings in Support of EFU Zone Amendments
November 25, 1992
Page 9
0119-1915
is not directly correlated with any one particular irrigated
size.
Table 4 of the special tabulations shows net cash return from
agricultural sales by agricultural type. The data show:
* 56 (35%) of all field crop farms reported net gains;
36 (65%) reported net gains less than $10,000.
* None of the general farms reported net gains in 1987.
* 87 (21%) of all beef cattle ranches reported net
gains; 64 (74%) reported net gains less than $10,000.
* 30 (20%) of other livestock operators (primarily
sheep, hogs, feedlots) reported net gains; all
operators with net gains reported gains less than
$10,000.
* 13 (12%) of those farms classified as animal
specialties (horses, llamas, other exotics) reported
net gains; 11 (85%) reported net gains less than
$10,000.
For all other farms (orchards, berry and grapes, specialty
crops) with net gains not otherwise classified, 14 (67%)
reported net gains, with all 14 reporting net gains greater
than $40,000. The average acreage devoted to these products
is less than or equal to 5 acres. These data show that there
is no strong correlation between profitability and any one of
the dominant agricultural types.
The Board finds that the information contained in the special
tabulation is useful in refining the county's definition of a
"commercial agricultural enterprise" (OAR 660-05-005(2)(b)).
The Board also finds that the information contained in the
special tabulation is helpful in applying a minimum lot size
standard to requests for farm dwellings on pre-existing lots,
in that the contribution made to the county's existing
agricultural economy can be used to distinguish between farm
and non-farm parcels (OAR 660-05-025(1)). The Board
concludes that the information contained in the special
tabulation shall be incorporated into the resource element of
the comprehensive plan.
5. Deschutes County Commissioners also contracted with Western
Attitudes to conduct a survey of agricultural operators in
the county. The Board finds that the results of the survey
are particularly instructive in identifying owner
characteristics and the type and value of products produced
(OAR 660-05-015(8)). For example, the survey shows that two
thirds of respondents derive 75% or more of their annual
household income from non-farm sources. Half of the
respondents realized gross sales less than $5,000, averaged
Findings in Support of EFU Zone Amendments
November 25, 1992
Page 10
b(t9-1.916
over the last three years. Based on these data the Board
finds that the typical farm in the county is conducted on a
part time basis and is heavily subsidized by off -farm work.
The Board concludes that the survey results shall be
incorporated into the resource element of the comprehensive
plan.
6. The Planning Commission held work sessions to discuss the
data and the recommendations of the advisory committee on
July 8, August 5, August 12 and September 9, 1992. The
Planning Commission conducted public hearings on the issues
on July 22 and August 26, 1992. Notice of all hearings was
provided pursuant to ORS 215.060.
7. The Board of County Commissioners held work sessions to
discuss the recommendations of the Planning Commission on
September 15, 1992, and conducted a public hearing on
September 23, 1992. Notice of all hearings was provided
pursuant to ORS 215.060. The Board accepts the
recommendations of the Planning Commission with respect to
the methodology for defining commercial farm use, the general
administrative model detailing the tiered system, the use of
all three tiers for the review of farm dwellings on
pre-existing lots and the decision to not use Tier 3 in the
review of land divisions.
8. With respect to the Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone, the Board
accepts the recommendation of the Planning Commission to
treat the subzone as the other subzones in the county and
concludes that the criteria for land divisions and farm
dwellings shall be based on the commercial characteristics
detailed in the completion report prepared by OSU.
9. With respect to estimates of potential gross sales in each
subzone, the figures in the completion report were obtained
by multiplying deferred farmland value by a multiplier
between 1.1 and 2.4. The multipliers are derived from
estimates of rotation averages in each subzone. The study
used as a standard the most productive irrigated soils in the
Lower Bridge Subzone. Estimated gross sales of $600 per acre
are based on yield/price assumptions of 6.6 tons/acre of
alfalfa at a price of $90.00 per ton. The completion report
at page 4 notes that the rotation averages used to calculate
potential gross sales for each of the subzones needs review.
The figures used in the profiles and in the subzone standards
were estimated from the commodities table. The report notes
that the commodities table (Table 7) needs review and
refinement. The Planning Commission directed staff to review
these figures.
The county farmland appraiser reviewed these figures and
detailed his findings in a memo dated 18 August 1992. His
rotation average of 4.5 tons/acre is derived from average
production figures contained in the county's annual farm
Findings in Support of EFU Zone Amendments
November 25, 1992
Page 11
0119-1917
reports. The county's records confirm the price figure of
$90.00 per ton. The reduced rotation average results in
lower gross sales estimates, and multipliers, for each
subzone. The revised multipliers range from 1.65 to .94.
The Board finds that the revised yield figures more
accurately reflect typical farm practices in the county and
concludes that the revised multipliers produce more reliable
estimates of potential gross sales.
10. ORS 215.283(1)(f) authorizes dwellings customarily provided
in conjunction with farm use in EFU zones. The county has
incorporated this use in Sections 18.16.030(A) and
18.16.050(A) of the Deschutes County Code (DCC). The Board
interprets this to mean that the land would be used
principally for farm use, not residential purposes, and that
the day-to-day activities on the subject land are principally
directed to farm use of the land. The Board finds that the
following factors are relevant to this enquiry:
A. The size of the farm unit including all contiguous lands
in the same ownership;
B. The types of farm crops and acreage;
C. The operational requirements of the farm use, including
the number of employees;
D. The number of other permanent or temporary dwellings on
or servicing the farm unit;
E. The extent and nature of the work to be performed by the
occupants of the proposed dwelling, i.e., whether the
activities are principally directed to the farm use of
the land.
The Board recognizes that it is customary for commercial farm
operators to live on their farm. The Board also recognizes
that the database included in the completion report from OSU
defines commercial farm use in Deschutes County. The general
administrative model for reviewing applications for farm
dwellings is designed to identify commercial farm operations.
The standards to implement the criteria define commercial
operators, consistent with the database. For these reasons
the Board finds that, notwithstanding other statutory or
ordinance requirements, an application for a farm dwelling
which meets the requirements of Section 18.16.065 is,
presumptively, [capable of being] a commercial farm
operation.
11. A key concern to the county in the review of applications for
new farm dwellings is whether the principal use of the land
in question will be for farming or residential use. The
county has adopted criteria in Section 18.16.050(A)(d) of the
DCC to parallel requirements of Oregon Administrative Rules
Findings in Support of EFU Zone Amendments
November 25, 1992
Page 12
0119-1918
(OAR) 660-05-030(4), which are to be taken into account when
determining whether a proposed dwelling is customarily
provided in conjunction with farm use. See Newcomer v.
Clackamas County, 94 Or App 33, 764 Ptd 927 (1988).
In Miles v. Clackamas County, 18 Or LUBA 428, 439 (1989), the
Land Use Board of Appeals determined that it would be
consistent with OAR 660-05-030(4) for a county to approve a
farm dwelling, in conjunction with approval of a specific
farm management plan, even though the farm use proposed in
the management plan does not yet exist on the subject
property, "so long as the county (1) determines the level of
farm use proposed by the farm management plan satisfies OAR
660-05-030(4), and (2) ensures through conditions that the
farm dwelling cannot actually be built until after the county
determines that the farm management plan has been carried
out."
The Board finds that these decisions allow the county to
develop a process whereby a proposed farm use can be reviewed
for consistency with DCC 18.16.050(A)(d) and OAR
660-05-030(4) under a farm management plan. The Board
concludes that a farm dwelling under Tier 3 can be approved
if the farm use proposed in the management plan satisfies the
Code and the administrative rule, and if the county ensures
through conditions that the farm dwelling cannot be built
until the county determines the farm management plan has been
carried out.
12. Commercial agriculture in Deschutes County consists primarily
of field crops (alfalfa, other hay, some peppermint, potatoes
and seed crops) and livestock operations. The high elevation
(2700-3500 feet) and low rainfall make difficult conditions
for crop farming. A short growing season and the risk of
crop damage from frost or mid -summer hail storms must be
factored into agriculture investment planning. Irrigation is
essential for crops and is used extensively for irrigated
pastures. For these reasons irrigated acreage is identified
as a key component of commercial farm use and is used to
review farm divisions to ensure proposed parcels are suitable
for continued commercial agriculture.
13. With respect to the use of Tier 3 for review of farm
dwellings, the tier is designed to be a rigorous test of a
serious farm proposal which does not meet the norms
identified in the county. It is the final option for an
application for a farm -related dwelling. With the exception
of the LaPine Subzone, described in finding# 3C, the income
test described in each subzone is calculated by using the
formula: (yield of hay/acre) x (value/ton of hay) x (median
irrigated acreage in subzone) = potential gross sales. The
figure can also be estimated by the formulas: (median
assessed farm use value in subzone) x (multiplier) _
potential gross sales or by (median irrigated acreage) x
Findings in Support of EFU Zone Amendments
November 25, 1992
Page 13
(farm use value) x (multiplier) = potential gross sal
11'e1919
income figure incorporates actual production figures and
median irrigated acreage and reflects the two land division
standards identified in Tier 1 (median irrigated acreage and
farm use value in subzone). Thus, it represents a
performance standard based on the minimum lot size
established in the zone. The Board finds that this
methodology provides a standard capable of distinguishing
between farm and nonfarm parcels, satisfying OAR
660-05-015(3)(c) and 660-05-025(1).
14. With respect to policy# 3 of the comprehensive plan, the
Board finds that this policy is not needed because a decision
to exclude agricultural land from the requirements of one or
more provisions of Goal 3 must be made in accordance with the
process specified in Goal 2, Part II, Exceptions, and the
interpretation of the exception process detailed in OAR 660,
Division 4. For this reason the Board concludes that policy#
3 shall be deleted.
15. With respect to policy# 9 of the comprehensive plan, the
Board finds that the Multiple Use Agriculture Zone (MUA-10)
is not a qualifying EFU zone, but is a rural residential
zone. The Board concludes that the policy is misplaced in
the Agricultural Lands section of the comprehensive plan and
the proper location for this policy is in the Rural
Development section of the comprehensive plan.
16. With respect to policy# 10 of the comprehensive plan, the
Board finds that this policy is similar to policy# 3,
discussed in finding 15, above. The conversion of
agricultural land to nonagricultural uses requires an
exception as detailed in Goal 2, Part II, Exceptions, and as
interpreted by OAR 660, Division 4. The exceptions process
is triggered by state law regardless of policy statements in
the comprehensive plan. For these reasons the Board
concludes that policy# 10 is not needed and shall be deleted.
17. With respect to policy# 17 of the comprehensive plan, the
Board finds that this policy has been accomplished with the
recent completion of soils mapping by SCS. Since the policy
has been satisfied, the Board concludes the policy is no
longer needed and shall be deleted.
18. With respect to policy# 18 of the comprehensive plan, the
Board finds that the actions specified in the policy have not
been carried out. The Board is not aware of any adverse
taxing effects that can be mitigated through local means.
For these reasons, the Board concludes that the policy is not
needed and shall be deleted.
19. With respect to the Horse Ridge East Subzone, the Board finds
that almost no development activity has occurred in this area
since the plan was originally acknowledged. The Board
Findings in Support of EFU Zone Amendments
November 25, 1992
Page 14
further finds
land quality,
existing land
sufficient to
the area an
retained.
KMH/mjZ
that, because of location, minimum lot size,
or some combination of these faj
division and farm dwelling stan s are
maintain the existing commercial agriculture in
d concludes that the current standards be
Findings in support of EFU Zone Amendments
November 25, 1992
Page 15