UMATILLA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Meeting of June 16, 2008

10:00 a.m., Room 114, County Courthouse, 216 SE 4th St.

Pendleton, Oregon

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:                

Bill Hansell (Chair), Dennis Doherty, Larry Givens

 

PLANNING STAFF PRESENT:                 

Tamra Mabbott, Richard Jennings, Heather Haueter

 

COUNTY COUNSEL:                                  

Doug Olsen

 

GUESTS PRESENT: 

Kalvin Garton, Scott Hendricks, Jim Burns, Pat Sullivan, Charles, Doty, Robert Klein, Norm Kralman

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

CALL TO ORDER:

 

Commissioner Hansell called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.

 

 

CONTINUED HEARING:

 

  • Update of Umatilla County Development Code and Comprehensive Plan #P-096. The proposed changes modify portions of the Umatilla County Development Code and Comprehensive Plan to implement recent changes in Oregon State Statutes, requests from the County Planning Commission, and Staff observations.

 

The main parts of the updates include:

 

Part 1: Modify Certain County Development Code Regulations.

Part 2: HB 2210, Bio-fuels

Part 3: Farm Exempt Permit Approvals

Part 4: Type IV Land Divisions

                        Part 5: Comprehensive Plan Update

 

County Counsel Doug Olsen explained that, in response to the May 29, 2008 letter from Stoel Reeves, staff went through the requested changes.  There were a few minor changes that are proposed.  Mr. Olsen listed the changes, which were mostly typographical corrections.  He noted that Stoel Reeves had concurred with the changes and sent a letter dated June 13, 2008 to that effect. 

 

Staff’s response to Stoel Reeves with changes to the Bio-fuels section would be Exhibit #8 and the June 13, 2008 letter from Stoel Reeves would be Exhibit #9. 

 

Motion: Commissioner Givens moved to add Exhibits #8 and #9 to the record.  Commissioner Doherty seconded.  Motion carried unanimously. 

 

Commissioner Hansell asked Scott Hendricks if Friends of Umatilla County had any new information to enter into the record.  Mr. Hendricks apologized to the Board for comments made at the previous hearing, and explained that their concern remained with the elimination of restrictions for partitioning from 160 to 80 acres. 

 

He also referred to discussion at the previous hearing about agriculture, noting economic development in Umatilla County is in jeopardy due to lack of water. 

 

Mr. Hendricks noted that the LUBA decision that was cited as one of the reasons for the proposed changes did not say existing criteria needed to be changed.  The Planning Commission and Board have asked for clarification of the process, but Friends believes the current language is adequate, although it may need to be fine tuned.  They had the opportunity in a recent case to use circular area review (CAR) and feel it works well, allowing for proper growth away from urban areas into farm zones, without blanket elimination of criteria. 

 

Mr. Hendricks explained that the future is uncertain and tourism may be eliminated in the immediate future due to gas prices, but there is tremendous economy in agriculture and growth will likely come from capitalizing on agriculture in the county. 

 

Commissioner Doherty asked about the status of the EFU 10, 20, and 40 designations.  Planning Director, Tamra Mabbott explained that there is a draft proposal, and staff will work on a Go-Below.  They hope to launch soon. 

 

Commissioner Doherty clarified that Friends wants to keep the EFU 160 acre minimum and rely on the CAR process for applications to go below that.  Mr. Hendricks agreed, stating that the infrastructure for agriculture and growth is already in place.  He referred to the Orchard District (EFU-10), which has been in existence since the 1800s.  He did not speak for Friends, but felt he shared the group’s opinion.

 

Commissioner Hansell pointed out that in another instance Friends argued that CAR had not been adequate.  Mr. Hendricks replied that the problem is that language in the current CAR criteria does not specify median or average.  The other application used median and Friends felt that the average should be used.  Also, when Friends made calculations based on the parcels they felt should be used they came up with different numbers than the applicant.  They believe it was the intention of the Comprehensive Plan is to use an average.  If clarified it would serve the purpose of allowing tolerable growth.  Right now there is a gray area because the numbers can be manipulated. 

 

Commissioner Doherty commented that he was opposed to a blanket elimination of the 160 acre minimum, but understood that what is being proposed is a new set of criteria for going below 160 acres, down to 80, or the minimum in an approved Go-Below area.  Ms. Mabbott added that the change would provide guidance for staff when dealing with partitions in an area that has already received approval for a Go-Below. 

 

Mr. Hendricks argued that the proposed criteria would allow basically anyone to break up their farm land.  He felt that too much division creates multiple landlords and makes large scale farming difficult.  He would like to see growth focused around the smaller communities where small ag historically exists. 

 

Mr. Hendricks continued that more partitions open the door for even more divisions and the potential for more dwellings.  He cited problems in Walla Walla County related to excess division of the land.  He felt CAR better defines the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 

 

Jim Burns testified that he had spent many years on the Planning Commission and dealing with land use issues.  He was concerned that the state laws were based on farm ground in the I-5 corridor and didn’t consider preservation of Umatilla County’s agriculture and forest lands.  He also noted that we have inadequate water.  He strongly disagreed with the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan. 

 

Mr. Burns did note that the Milton-Freewater area was a historical area where 160 acres didn’t fit so the Comprehensive Plan accounted for that with the Orchards District. 

 

Mr. Burns talked about spraying related to the Seven Hills Vineyards and the effects on other agriculture in the area.  He felt their partition was a mistake and cited other examples of “mistakes” he felt the county had made.

 

Mr. Burns also disagreed with CAR, stating that farm zoned land should not be allowed to be partitioned at all.    

 

Commissioner Doherty asked if Mr. Burns felt that there was no place for small farming in Umatilla County.  Mr. Burns replied that small farms aren’t making it and partitioning is breaking up and eliminating large family farms.  He also felt public input was lacking, and the county should hold more meetings and put forth more effort to make sure citizens attend meetings. 

 

Robert Klein testified on behalf and Friends of Umatilla County and himself.  Mr. Klein stated that a meeting of the Friends group the night before reflected that people want planned growth and they don’t feel the proposed criteria will stop anyone from dividing. 

 

Mr. Klein stated that he understand that some feel smaller acreage can help the economy, but he didn’t think that made economic sense.  If people want smaller crops, they should plant small portions of large acreages.  The land doesn’t need to be broken up and he felt LUBA agreed with that.  He felt the proposed new criteria do nothing to protect ag land, so Friends wants the county to at least keep CAR. 

 

Mr. Klein stated that the law asks us to protect commercial farming operations and small operations won’t do that.  He agreed with Mr. Burns that the minimum acreage size should be even larger than 160 acres.  Allowing partition to 80 acres or smaller would be “suicide” for large scale agricultural. 

 

Mr. Klein also noted that the water situation in Umatilla County can’t be overlooked. 

 

Commissioner Hansell referred to a previous suggestion that the county should conduct a survey of county landowners, noting that the results might surprise the Friends group.  He pointed out that although the average farm is around 800 acres, it is made up of multiple parcels, and people want the flexibility to divide their land if they wish. 

 

Commissioner Hansell also noted that in previous hearings Friends stated that land values would be decreased from lack of water, but they’re now saying that values have gone up by the real estate driven market.  Mr. Klein replied that the short term effect has been an increase in value, but he expects it will drop long term.    

 

Norm Kralman passed out letters of testimony from property owners who were unable to attend. 

 

Motion:  Commissioner Givens moved to add the letter from John and Debbie Lee to the record as Exhibit #10.  Commissioner Doherty seconded. Motion carried unanimously. 

 

Mr. Kralman submitted his own letter of testimony. 

 

Motion:  Commissioner Givens moved to add the letter from Mr. Kralman to the record as Exhibit #11.  Commissioner Doherty seconded. Motion carried unanimously. 

 

Mr. Kralman agreed with the testimony of others in opposition.  He believed the county needs to get more citizen involvement, and supported maintaining the 160 acre minimum.  He also agreed that CAR needs to stay for checks and balance.

 

Kal Garton testified that he felt the requirement for a zoning permit for farm exempt structures needed to be thought out more. 

 

Mr. Garton disagreed with Mr. Burns’ comments about the I-5 corridor, noting that the minimum needed to be smaller to accommodate nurseries in that area, which is the largest ag industry in the state.  He felt smaller farms were doing fine, and wondered if limiting the ability to partition ag land protected farming or restricted it. 

 

Mr. Garton also disagreed that the Walla Walla Valley has a water shortage. 

 

Mr. Garton felt CAR worked fine and didn’t need to be changed.    

 

Mr. Garton commented that it can’t really be argued that the EFU 10, 20, and 40 zones should fall under a Go-Below if landowners in those zones didn’t file Measure 37 claims.  If those zones should be exempt from the 160 acre minimum then everyone should be.  He noted that Milton-Freewater has one of the worst economies in Oregon, yet Walla Walla, which is highly developed, is named as one of the best places to live. 

 

Mr. Garton also pointed out that the original designation of farm lands in the Comprehensive Plan was 19 acres.  He wondered how we got to 160 acres.    

 

Commissioner Doherty asked about Mr. Garton’s concern related to zoning permits for farm exempt structures.  Mr. Jennings explained that Mr. Garton’s concern stemmed from a particular application.  In that case, the state’s decision had nothing to do with anything Planning had done.  In fact, Planning had not required a zoning permit.  The state’s decision was based on their limitations regarding the number of people who would be in the building.

 

Mr. Jennings further explained that the proposal to require a zoning permit for farm exempt structures is to help make sure setbacks are being met and eliminate confusion between the county and state.  The state would still review applications for ag exemption.  He also noted that the county already issues zoning permits in addition to signing the farm exempt form for structures on non-resource zoned property. 

 

Pat Sullivan represented Seven Hills Properties, testifying that they continue to support the Planning Commission recommendation supporting the proposed changes.  They recently went through the CAR process for their own application, and in reference to Mr. Klein’s comments, noted that the language doesn’t say parcels used in the review must be adjacent, and it uses the word predominant not average.  Selection of parcels is not piecemeal. 

 

Jim Burns added to his previous testimony, stated that the potential for additional dwellings opens the door for legal issues with farming.

 

He also noted that Milton-Freewater’s wells are static, but below 1000 feet.

 

Public Agency Testimony:  None.

 

Commissioner Hansell called for any requests to keep the record open or continue the hearing.  There were none. 

 

Hearing Closed; Deliberation and Decision:  Commissioner Doherty stated that his position had not changed, despite today’s testimony.  He talked about being proactive about finding ways to diversify the economy, and wondered if opponents were asking the county to establish a monopoly.  He further stated that the economy changes and moves around the world and we need to respond to forces working today. 

 

Commissioner Doherty noted that he himself was raised on a dry land wheat farm that still exists as such and supports some of his siblings, but he still supports the proposed changes to the ordinance.  It doesn’t have to be a one-size-fits-all.  It makes sense to have different sizes in different areas.  He also noted that the focus of opposition was on just one page of a 75 page ordinance, so there was a lot of good in the proposal. 

 

Commissioner Givens referred to Mr. Kralman’s letter and his concerns about the negative side of population grown associated with partitioning, and he agreed with those concerns.  He also noted that the county has heard concerns over water time and time again, but that issue exists regardless of parcel size.  There are water issues throughout the county and state and how we address that could affect the future economy. 

 

Commissioner Givens also didn’t think increased land values in the Milton-Freewater area were due to partitioning.  Many appraisals in that area are based on land values across the border in Washington. 

 

He was supportive of changing the ordinance, but noted that it will be important to continue to look at water issues. 

 

Commissioner Hansell commented that he’d been around nearly as long as Mr. Burns and also worked hard on the Comprehensive Plan.  His recollection was that the county originally tried to achieve a minimum acreage of 19 acres, but 1000 Friends of Oregon put pressure on the county for a minimum of 360 acres.  A deal was basically cut to settle on 160 acres. 

 

Commissioner Hansell stated that his personal goal is to protect ag production, whatever it may be.  The state has provided the option to go to an 80 acre minimum and if it will provide opportunity in different commodity groups then he’s supportive.  He also grew up on dry and irrigated ag land and felt that looking for ways to diversify is critical. 

He did not believe the possibility of 80 acre parcels would hurt the economy and was supportive of the Planning Commissions recommendations.

 

Motion:  In the matter of amending the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code to Update for legislative changes and local requirements, Commissioner Doherty moved adoption of Ordinance #2008-09.  Commissioner Givens seconded.  Motion carried unanimously.

 

 

ADJOURNMENT:

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 a.m.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Heather Haueter

Secretary