It’s a thorny issue, one that could have the state looking over their shoulders as Deschutes County
In a work session Wednesday afternoon, April 20, County commissioners waded through a “matrix” of options put forth by county planning staff for crafting new event rules.
As a starting point, commissioners must decide whether or not to allow any events on agricultural land. There are those who would prefer an events ban but commissioners appear to have eliminated that option.
Such issues as minimum acreage, the size of events, setbacks from adjoining land, access, traffic, parking, the number of events in a given period, their duration, and noise limitations are all part of the deliberations.
Complicating the process is the lack of firm guidelines in state rules for events on farmland.
In the words of county planning director Nick Lelack, “We could very well be the test case (for state guidelines) for whatever path we take” in the form of a text amendment to the county development code.
A memo to the commissioners from Lelack and senior planner Paul Blikstad noted that staff of the state Department of Land Conservation and Development have said, “that they are interested in the proposed text amendment (s) and process as it may have statewide relevance.”
Counties left to "proceed at our own risk"
Lelack said that given the uncertainty Deschutes and other counties “can proceed at our own risk” as the state works through the issues and develops new regulations. There have also been bills pertaining to farmland events circulating in the legislature.
Lelack noted that some counties have initiated guidelines for weddings and other events that may eventually be found at odds with state land use laws.
The controversy is emphasized in the planners' outline of opinions for and against commercial events on farmland. As an example, proponents were said to “not want a minimum parcel size..” while opponents, “did not want event venues at all, so the minimum parcel size wasn’t a factor in their opposition.”
Although the work session was only the starting point to give county staff direction for drafting rules, several options emerged in the discussion.
The commissioners favored limiting to 10 the number of events in a single year, and stipulating they be held from 11 am to 10 pm.
Also discussed were requirements that would limit permits to four years before required renewal; that notice of scheduled events be given to neighbors and fire and safety agencies; that events have 100 foot setbacks from property lines; and that MUA 10 and RR10 zones be excluded from consideration.
Commissioners debated issues of temporary event structures such as tents and how long they could remain in place; vehicle access and parking; event setup and takedown time limits; and hours that music could be amplified. They favored restricting events to land on which the permit holder lives or on adjacent land rather than on remote unoccupied property.
Regarding the type of buildings allowed, commissioner Tammy Baney observed, “My sense is that it be no added structures...that it be temporary unless there is an existing facility that has been brought up to county standards.”
Commissioners asked if permits for events could be based on a case by case basis taking into consideration size of the venue, neighboring properties, access and other criteria.
Commissioner Al Unger said he preferred an approach that would result in activity being compatible with neighbors.
However, county assistant legal counsel Laurie Craghead and planners cautioned that there should be objective standards that could be applied uniformly for all applicants.
A long running controversy on both sides of the Cascades
Holding events on farmland has been controversial for several years not only in Central Oregon but in the Willamette Valley
Some counties have issued permits under state law allowing private parks, which are not allowed by the Deschutes county code. The county code also prohibits holding commercial events such as weddings on land zoned for exclusive farm use, or EFU.
Some landowners say allowing additional uses on farmland supplements their income to offset uncertainties with crops and livestock operations arising from fluctuating market demand, weather and other variables.
In August of 2010 a Deschutes County landowner was fined $500 by the circuit court for holding a wedding in 2009 at her Gardens and Flying Diamond Ranch in Redmond Bend
Following those decisions, in 2009 some landowners acting as Country Gathering Associates, pressed the county for a code change to allow events as a conditional use on EFU land, but later backed off on the effort. Now the state DLCD has taken up the issue and there have been related bills introduced in the legislature.
Senate Bill 960 in the 2011 legislative session would allow events “subordinate to the primary use of the lot or parcel for farm use.”
It would permit counties to issue “limited use” permits for up to six events lasting no more than 72 hours over a two-year period. It would also allow “single-event” permits for one year. The bill has various provisions for noise control, hours of events, structures, vehicle access and others but does not specifically mention weddings.
Senate Bill 325 introduced in the 2009 regular session would have allowed weddings and other commercial activities on EFU land in counties that have provisions for “private parks,” which Deschutes county does not.
Legislation would accommodate winery events on farmland
Current proposed legislation, HB 3264, is aimed more at accommodating events on larger winery operations in the Willamette Valley
However it would also provide local governments with additional direction in authorizing commercial events related to wineries that have been approved as an outright use on EFU land under existing state laws. The bill appears to provide additional discretion for local governments to expand the types of events beyond those related specifically to wine production and sales.
ORS 215.452 allows an onsite winery as an outright use on the Grossmann’s EFU-zoned land as the result of their having planted a minimum 15-acres in wine grapes. However, county planning staff have interpreted the legislation to require that a vineyard already be producing grapes to qualify for a winery. A decision on the FHC application is expected in the next few weeks.
In the county's next step, commissioners will review the upcoming draft text amendment from the planning staff and refer it to a public hearing after a 45-day notice period.
