UMATILLA
Meeting of
**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
** **
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
Bill
Hansell (Chair), Dennis Doherty, Larry Givens
PLANNING STAFF PRESENT:
Tamra Mabbott, Richard Jennings, Heather Haueter
Doug
Olsen
GUESTS PRESENT:
Scott
Hendricks, Jennifer Hudson, Robert Klein, Bob Buchanan, Dot Schroder,
Jerry Schroeder, Norm Kralman, Kal
Garton, Robert Plemons,
Martha Smith, Dona LeFore, Eric Sederburg,
Patricia Sullivan
**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
** **
CALL TO ORDER:
Commissioner Hansell called the meeting to order at
Commissioner Hansell called for abstentions or objections to the
jurisdiction of the Board. There were
none.
The
main parts of the updates include:
Part
1: Modify Certain
Part
2: HB 2210, Bio-fuels
Part
3: Farm Exempt Permit Approvals
Part
4: Type IV Land Divisions
Part 5: Comprehensive Plan Update
After brief discussion, it
was determined that the staff report would be heard for all the parts and then
public testimony would be specific to each part.
Planning Director, Tamra Mabbott noted receipt of
written testimony from representation of landowners this morning regarding Part
2.
Staff Report: Ms. Mabbott
explained that Senior Planner, Richard Jennings would be giving a PowerPoint
presentation outlining the proposed changes.
She noted that there were only minor changes to the original proposal to
incorporate the changes approved by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Mabbott
clarified that the Planning Commission recommended adopting the original
package presented by staff with the major exception of the changes to the
Ms. Mabbott
referred to written testimony received today from Stoel
Reeves regarding Part 2 on biofuels. She pointed out that the letter was very
lengthy and included much detail, so she recommended that the Board not make a decision
on that piece today.
Mr. Jennings displayed the PowerPoint
presentation, first noting what prompted the proposed changes:
Part 1: Modify
Certain
This part includes clarification
in the code dealing with sign types, and section 152.650 regarding disallowing
subdivisions in the
Mr. Jennings noted that the
Planning Commission had recommended deleting the proposed changes to the
Part 2: HB 2210:
Bio-fuels
This part would provide for
updates to Development Code language, adding the definition of bio-fuel and
bio-mass and allowing bio-fuel facilities to be dealt with through a conditional
use permit or land use decision, based on the size of the facility.
Mr. Jennings noted the letter
received today on this matter from consultants, Stoel
Reeves.
The PC recommendation was to
approve this part as presented.
Part 3: Farm Exempt Permit Approvals
Farm Exempt Permits are exemptions
from state structural permits for farm structures, which the county currently signs
off on, and the applicant is exempted from the county’s Zoning Permit. The proposed change would provide
clarification between approvals by requiring a County Zoning Permit in addition
to the State Farm Exempt Permit.
Guest, Kal
Garton was concerned that this would trigger new
structural requirements by the State Building Codes Division. Mr. Jennings explained that this would have
no effect on that process. It would
simply add the requirement for a County Zoning Permit in addition to the Farm
Exempt Permit. It would not change the
criteria or standards for state approval.
Part 4: Type IV
Land Divisions
Mr. Jennings explained that
each type of land division deals with a different land designation. Type IV is for divisions in resource zones;
One proposed change is to the
Review II process for creating parcels less than 160 acres. Parcels as small as 80
acres may be created because the state allows this minimum size; although some
counties have retained a larger minimum, including
We currently have a process
for this type of division which involves circular area review (
The Planning Commission also
requested that these approvals be bumped from an Administrative decision to Legislative,
at least initially, so that they may review them.
Mr. Jennings noted that the
proposal would not change the ability to have a dwelling. Applicants must meet the same criteria for
dwellings as before, and changes are compliant with ORS 215.780 (1). The changes would clarify the process for
Type IV, Review II and would allow landowners some flexibility with their
land.
The change to the Type IV,
Review
Part 5:
Comprehensive Plan Update.
Mr. Jennings explained that
the Comprehensive Plan must be changed to coincide with changes to the
Development Code.
He went through PowerPoint
slides summarizing the Planning Commission hearings and comments received,
noting that most were in opposition to a specific portion of the changes.
Mr. Jennings explained that
the Planning Commission recommended approval of most of the proposed changes,
with the exception of the removal of the
There was some discussion
about exhibits to the Planning Commission meetings and whether they should be
made part of the Board record.
Motion: Commissioner Givens moved to adopt the exhibits
from the Planning Commission hearings as Exhibit #1 (which contains 38
individual exhibits), and the letter from Stoel
Reeves received today, May 29, 2008, as Exhibit #2. Commissioner Doherty seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Public Testimony by Part
Part 1 - Proponent Testimony: Pat Sullivan
represented Seven Hills Properties, testifying in favor of the Planning
Commission recommendation.
Opponent Testimony: None
Part 2 – Proponent Testimony: None
Opponent Testimony: None
Part 3 – Proponent Testimony: None
Opponent Testimony: Kal Garton had concerns about requiring a zoning permit for
farm exempt structures. Mr. Jennings explained
that the proposed changes would not affect what is required structurally by the
state. It is and will be up to the state
to find the structure farm exempt or not.
We just acknowledge land use approval for farm exempt structures and the
state determines whether or not it meets their requirements for exemption,
regardless of whether or not we issue a zoning permit.
Part 4 – Proponent Testimony: Pat Sullivan represented
Seven Hills Properties, testifying in favor of the proposed Type IV, Review II
process and supporting the recommendation of the Planning Commission to adopt
the revisions.
Opponent Testimony: Scott Hendricks asked that the Board take a
proactive stand regarding a proposed Go-Below for the
Mr. Hendricks referred to the
elimination of the standards of partition of
Mr. Hendricks felt the
county’s vision for land use planning is short sighted. The paradigm has shifted for agriculture and
Mr. Hendricks suggested a
minimum of 320 acres in the
Mr. Hendricks referred to the
Planning Commission meeting in Milton-Freewater,
noting that there were over 100 people in attendance. He also noted that there had been a show of
hands for those in favor of keeping the 160 acre minimum and most were in
favor.
Kal Garton testified that his
understanding of what Friends wants is to keep the current
Mr. Garton
referred to the requirements of
Mr. Hendricks responded to
Mr. Garton to clarify that he testified as both an individual
and representing Friends. They wrote a
Go-Below on behalf of citizens regarding
Robert Klein testified on
behalf of himself and Friends, backing up the statements of Mr. Hendricks. He cited several statistics reflecting a drop
in the number of farms, but an increase in size. He also noted that
Mr. Klein stated that, generally,
smaller acreage means less efficient commercial farming and more waste of
water, which can also mean more potential for future abandonment. Higher land prices are driven by dwellings,
and smaller parcels can also increase demand on water sources.
Friends believed that
circular area review allows for planned growth around the more populated areas
in the
Friends would like the Board
to conduct a survey in the county, particularly in the
Commissioner Givens wondered
what Friends thought about the impact of water issues in the
Commissioner Givens noted on
one of the statistical maps presented by Mr. Klein that there was greater wheat
production in
Mr. Klein stated that growth
is inevitable, but Friends wants to see planned growth. They feel it would be better to create
specific special areas rather than blanket the whole county.
Commissioner Givens asked Mr.
Garton how he felt about partitioning. Mr. Garton replied
that he felt even 80 acres was too big.
Commissioner Doherty noted
the Comprehensive Plan named a 19 acre minimum, also mentioning diversity,
production, etc. and wondered if that still represented the guiding principles
for the county. Mr. Jennings replied
that state legislature forced an increase in the minimum parcel size, so
according to our current Development Code, no.
Commissioner Doherty noted
that the county’s ag is made
up of numerous types of crops with the biggest acreages in dry land wheat, but
the Comprehensive Plan never states that we should be protecting lands for
wheat. The priority is on productivity
or yield for various types of crops. He
wondered what is to be accomplished; getting the most production out of a land
resource or micro managing to protect one sector against another. Ms. Mabbott added
that out purpose is to protect the land for farming, not to focus on any
particular type of farming.
Ms. Mabbott
pointed out that some criticize that standards are too rigid and don’t allow
for the flexibility that ag
is experiencing. That is the reason for the
legislature allowing the Go-Below option.
Commissioner Doherty
suggested to Mr. Klein that restricting to larger sizes may actually be harmful
to the economy. Mr. Klein replied that
smaller parcels are more difficult to farm, and production is much higher on an
irrigated farm. Mr. Jennings pointed out
that the 800 acre average farm size Mr. Klein mentioned earlier is the size of
the whole operation, but a farm can be made up of multiple parcels. It is misleading to state that the average
farm is much larger.
Commissioner Doherty noted
that the larger parcels are growing a large corporate farm culture. We could be ruling out the smaller family
farm culture by restricting to larger parcels, which can be unaffordable for
many new farmers. A good case can also be
made that smaller farms are becoming more productive.
Mr. Klein replied that LUBA
even noted in the Seven Hills case that a larger parcel size can be used for multiple
crops and still be economical.
Commissioner Doherty asked
Mr. Klein about the concern about real estate valuations. Mr. Klein replied that it results in increased
cost for farmers. Commissioner Doherty
argued that, if he were a farmer who could buy 40 acres and have a supportive
farm for his family, why should he be forced to buy a larger parcel? Mr. Klein replied that smaller parcels are fine
for smaller, more broken out areas of the county, but are not good for the larger
bulk of the county.
Pat Sullivan noted that the
revision of the Code is to bring the county in line with state law. Amending the Code to remove
Eric Sederberg
testified that he agreed with Mr. Garton’s
testimony.
Carolyn Ely testified that
the object is to keep farm land not be farm specific. Large parcels are too expensive for new
farmers. Some can work outside the farm
and buy smaller parcels to build their farms, but the larger parcels sizes cut
out the smaller farmer. Corporations are
buying up larger farms.
Norm Kralman
presented letters from Ruth Renken and Ron LeFore, as well as his own letter of testimony. Letters were numbered as follows:
Motion: Commissioner Givens moved to add Exhibits #3-7
to the record. Commissioner Doherty seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Kralman
testified that he agreed with diversity, but in its own merit it is not
enough. There is not enough water for
many types of crops in some areas of the county.
Mr. Kralman’s
biggest concern was with the Go-Below Friends proposed at the Planning
Commission hearing in Milton-Freewater. He did not think it should go through a
Go-Below process, but should be made part of this proposal.
Mr. Kralman
felt that we wouldn’t be hearing the proposed 160 acres changes if not for the Seven Hills application.
The protections in the proposed changes are very broad, but it is important
to have checks and balances so that there is equity among citizens, and the ability
of scrutiny regardless of pocket size.
Ms. Mabbott
explained that staff had not originally proposed a Go-Below for the
Commissioner Hansell noted that, thinking back to how the county ended
up with 160 acres, he remembered that Thousand Friends of Oregon had
successfully gotten a court case to throw out a smaller parcel size, so the
county realized that they would not win a case to keep 19 acres. The county settled on 160 acres because Thousand
Friends and the county came to an agreement that it was an acceptable size. They began to look at the Orchards District and
what sizes would make viable units, working hard to get the smallest sizes they
could justify. In 1993 the state took
that away and made a blanket 80 acre minimum.
There was some discussion
about the high cost of defending issues like this, especially for the every day
citizen, when attorneys are generally necessary to work through legal
issues.
Dona LeFore
stated that the Board has a big responsibility to look at the needs of the
whole county. She was more concerned
with the protection of resources, such as water than parcel size.
Mr. Garton
referred to an ag survey that
was handed out that showed that the majority of farmers in the county have
other jobs besides farming to supplement their income. He also noted that there are 72 vineyards in
Mr. Garton
asked that the list of question he gave staff previously be answered.
Kent Madison testified that
he felt partitions should be resource based.
If a person wants to divide and adequate water is there it should be
allowed. If older water rights are affected
they have the right to go to Oregon Water Resources and have younger rights
halted.
Eric Sederburg
commented that there are hundreds of families who participate in County Fair
who, if surveyed, would reflect the desire for smaller parcels. He also noted that two 80 acre parcels can be
farmed just as easily as one 160 acre parcel.
People need the opportunity to acquire smaller parcels.
There was some discussion
about lack of public notice and participation back when the minimum parcels
size was increased to 160 acres.
Commissioner Hansell explained that the public
will have input in the Go-Below process, but the county is bound by state laws. The county is doing its best to maintain
local control.
Ms. Mabbott
reassured that part of the process for the Go-Below is staff is putting
together would include public meetings and informal work sessions, and there
would be plenty of opportunities for comments.
She noted, however that many property owners in west county were against
the proposed Go-Below.
Part 5 – Proponent Testimony: Pat Sullivan
supported the Planning Commission recommendation.
Agency Testimony: None
Rebuttal testimony: none
Commissioner Hansell asked for any requests for continuance. It was noted that Planning
staff had requested a continuance for opportunity to review the bio-fuels
letter from Stoel Reeves.
Dates were discussed. Monday, June 16th at
Motion:
Commissioner Givens moved to continue the hearing to
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Motion:
Commissioner Givens moved to approval of the minutes of
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Hansell adjourned the meeting at
Respectfully submitted,
Heather Haueter
Secretary