- A new kind of wedding crasher ?
But the speaker earnestly outlined the “smelly” scenario she warned could evolve if an errant cow marauded through a wedding on farmland.
The comment was among an opening salvo in a back and forth dialogue Dec. 8 as the Deschutes County Planning Commission wrestled with planning staff recommendations for new “text amendments” that would allow commercial events on land zoned for exclusive farm use (EFU).
For the most part supporters and opponents of the recommendations found some common ground in at least one idea—that it’s time “to get it done” one way or another. “It” has simmered for a contentious four years on the county’s planning agenda.
Besides the potentially malodorous outcome laid out in the opening comments a number of those speaking against the proposed text amendments said noise from amplified music and traffic were their main objections. Some wanted no part of commercial events on farmland while others left open the door for compromises to accommodate neighbors.
As for noise, one speaker who has held weddings on his EFU property reminded those present that “farming is noisy, dusty and smelly.” He asked how a permit for six events as proposed in the “agri-tourism” amendment to the county code would create more impact than the typical farm activity.
“Underlying the message in my testimony,” the speaker summarized, “would be to just adopt it.”
A spokesman for the conservationist group 1000 Friends of Oregon’s regional office outlined the position that any event activity be “subordinate” to agricultural activity and “not disrupt the stability of the property.”
Pam Hardy said 1000 Friends favored events such as “farm dinners” using agricultural products, and would like to see different standards for large and small events. Noise levels, she suggested, should be controlled by having amplified sound set back 1,000 feet from neighboring property lines or there should be a requirement that sound at the property line be no more than at conversation level. She also suggested that obtaining “waivers” from neighbors might be an option.
Several speakers who plan or promote events, or supply equipment catering services, advocated adoption of the amendments as a way to encourage economic recovery in difficult times for business and agriculture.
An event planner and manager emphasized that by “this going on and on we’ve lost many event based businesses,” and that events have gone elswhere, including across the Cascades.
An event planner and manager emphasized that by “this going on and on we’ve lost many event based businesses,” and that events have gone elswhere, including across the Cascades.
The text amendments proposed by county staff follow guidelines established in state legislation, SB 960, applying to “agri-tourism, HB 3280, events at wineries, and conditional uses for private parks and events connected to home occupations.
Weddings have been the focal point of most controversy in the county's long discussion of events on EFU land. The language of SB 960 is unclear as to whether weddings would come under the definition of "agri-tourism."
The staff proposal for agri-tourism would allow up to six events under a two-year limited use permit renewable after review to assure conditions had been met. Up to 18 events would be allowed on a four-year permit that would require public notice and comment for renewal.
Weddings have been the focal point of most controversy in the county's long discussion of events on EFU land. The language of SB 960 is unclear as to whether weddings would come under the definition of "agri-tourism."
The staff proposal for agri-tourism would allow up to six events under a two-year limited use permit renewable after review to assure conditions had been met. Up to 18 events would be allowed on a four-year permit that would require public notice and comment for renewal.
Events on EFU land with wineries are allowed as an “outright use” by HB 3280, The county has required that no more than 25% of a winery’s revenue be from events. The county can also require standards for “health and safety.”
The other options to hold events on farmland would be under state legislation pertaining to private parks and home occupations, both of which would require the county to issue a conditional use permit.
At issue with the private parks option is the definition of “recreation” use required by state law. County planning director Nick Lelack noted that the state Department of Land Conservation and Development has recommended that the county “tighten” any amendments so that events would not be permitted under more than a single measure.
Should the county proceed with allowing events under the private parks method Lelack noted it could become a statewide “test case.” Crook and Benton
Lelack said DLCD has suggested in requested comments on proposed text amendments that the county “don’t pursue” allowing events under the private parks or home occupation provisions.
After closing nearly three hours of staff presentation, public comments and discussion, planning commissioners voted to close the oral comment period but leave open the opportunity for written comments until Jan. 5.
During that time commissioners will weigh public testimony and written comments along with suggestions from the state Department of Land Conservation and Development in an attempt to fashion a final version to consider at their next session Jan. 12. From there the commission decision would go to the Board of County Commissions for action, which could include additional hearings.
Summary documents submitted by the county planning staff:
