Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Ready back there.

We'll call the meeting to order. First item on the agenda is approval of the minutes for May 14th and May 28th.

Commissioner Williams moves to approve the minutes for both dates.

Second.

I'll second that.

It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Seeing as none, let's do them one at a time. All those in favor of approving the minutes for May 14th, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Carries. All those in favor of approving the minutes for May 28th, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Public comments? Are there any comments from the public on anything that is not on the agenda tonight? Is there anything? Oh, looks like we have a hand raised online.

Yeah, it's just me, Jessica. I'm just hoping to get raised as a panelist. Can you guys hear me? Yep.

Welcome. All right, is there anybody online that has comments not on the agenda tonight? All right. Action items. First on the agenda is a request to reopen the public hearing concerning City of Sisters UGB.

Kyle. Good evening, Commissioners. For Kyle Collins, Senior Planner. As the Chair just pointed out, the primary purpose of this item is to formally request a reopening of the public hearing and the associated record for the proposed Sisters UGB expansion. This is a little bit of a strange situation that we don't always find ourselves in. I'm happy to answer questions that you might have, but in just... So we had the public hearing on this matter before the commissioners on the 28th. During that time, you left the record open for one week with the expectation that we'd come back today and actually go into deliberations. But we received a lot of comments during that open record period. And some of the most pressing comments came from three of the state agencies that oversee UGB expansions in some form or fashion. So Those are from the Department of Land Conservation and Development, the Department of State Lands, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, respectively. They all kind of came together as one package submittal. So based on those particular comments, we as staff thought it was worth making this formal request. Obviously, this is coming from our director, Peter Gutowski, to reopen the hearing so that the commissioners would have the opportunity for those agencies to participate at a future date and actually explain more detail for what those comments meant there. They're not the most explicit in terms of expectations that might come out of those comments, future actions that have to be undertaken by the city as they move forward in any type of UGB process, whether this one or something in the future. And generally just to lay out some possible issues with their proposal as it relates to state law and the compliance issues that might go in there. One thing that I will say is happy to answer questions from the board, but because the record is closed right now, I can't offer you any sort of new materials or new evidence that you could consider as a part of your ultimate deliberations whenever we get to that step. So anything that's been submitted into the record, I'm happy to give you kind of a staff's opinion. If I have any information that I could provide you, that's already been included in the record in one way or the other, but I can't offer any sort of new perspectives or weigh anything towards deliberations at this point. Okay. With that, I think that's probably enough preamble, but happy to answer any questions you got. I would have a question.

And that is why they waited until the 11th hour after roughly two years of discussion with the city of Sisters, multiple comment opportunities, including Sisters Planning Commission and open hearing here. They waited until essentially the day the record closed to submit substantial input.

That's a great question, and I think probably best one for them directly, not really one that I can answer. I can at least tell you that from Deschutes County's perspective, so at the start of particularly applications like this where there's a lot of feedback from agencies that we would expect, we provided them a notice of this application, both kind of a standard mailed or emailed notice that we send out. Generally, they also receive what's called a PAPA or a post-acknowledgement plan. um designation it's essentially a requirement that we provide notice to dlcd in this case it came from the city of sisters specifically because they're the ones driving the ship here um that says dlcd hey we're about to make changes in this case to the comprehensive plan and to the zoning designations for some of these properties and then that sets off a 35-day window before the first hearing that they have to provide comments if they wish to do so They don't always provide comments. Sometimes they do. I think it's in some cases just dependent on staff availability and resources that they have. But I couldn't tell you the specific.

And I guess maybe it's not within our purview, but I would certainly support some sort of a restriction in the future that their comments must be submitted no later than the public than the open hearing.

I think that is the purpose in general, at least the expectation with the 35-day notice associated with those PAPAs that we provide them. But, again, they don't always – sometimes they just don't have comments to provide. Obviously, this time they did.

Like I say, a little frustrated. Any other comments, questions? Go ahead.

if we were to reopen the public hearing what would be the staff's recommendation on uh time frame for uh would you want us to reopen it and we meet on the july 9th or reopen it meet on the next because if if i understand if we were to reopen it is that effective today or is it effective july 9th

The actual request to reopen the hearing would be effective today.

And which we could receive written testimony until the actual public hearing or not?

So it would wait until the actual hearing itself would be opened. That's an important thing to note. Obviously in the memo that you got here tonight that's part of your packet, we thought probably your next available meeting because there is sort of a time is of the essence component of all this. And so the earlier we can get some of these representatives from the agencies in front of you and, of course, anybody, any other members of the public that want to participate and give additional testimony, they're welcome to show up to that hearing as well. But the sooner, the better, ultimately, to have some of these questions answered and resolved, and the sooner we could start to move forward in this process, whatever that ultimately looks like. So the 9th, July the 9th, would be our formal recommendations from staff of when to reopen that. I still have to send a notice out to everybody. We're required to re-notice the hearing. All that has been sort of pre-staged. So we can meet all those respective deadlines, but that is the earliest we could ultimately get to reopening everything. Great. Anybody else?

Just a brief one to follow up on yours, Chair Cyrus. And I see the City of Sisters is here too. I'm wondering if there is from those state agencies all or some – testimony documents on this matter in front of the review boards with the City of Sisters already. I'm not as familiar with that record as I should be looking at those materials, but if they have already submitted materials there, are these going to be all new materials? Are they going to reference those or remains to be seen?

I think it remains to be seen. To my knowledge, those materials, unless they – the City of Sisters obviously has the ability to do something very similar to what we did, which is basically just to reference the entirety of the county record. It could be looked at by both review bodies. But the comments that we've received specifically from DSL and DLCD and others went directly to Deschutes County. So they're just in our record for the time being. But there's obviously relevance for the city decision makers to take into account as well.

Okay. It's just, again, you mentioned, Kyle, that it's an unusual circumstance and so forth. I just, because part of this process has played out already in front of other review boards, I suppose we should expect that. I mean, and maybe there will be new material in front of the commission, the county commission when it goes there. You can always anticipate new material when you have subsequent hearings. But okay, I guess that answers that. Thanks.

Great. Anybody else? Thoughts, comments, emotion?

Can I, Chair, just to further, I'm thinking sort of as we're going along, we'll have opportunity in the hearing to hear from, I would assume, maybe I'm assuming incorrectly, from the city of Sisters in response to state agency comments?

In many ways, I think you could think of it as essentially just a reboot of the entire hearings process. So yes, any interested parties, including obviously the applicant, the city in this case, would likely participate in those proceedings as well.

Okay.

Just from the purposes of why we are making the request as staff is we really do want to give an opportunity for the commissioners in particular to get feedback from the state agencies to understand some of those comments a little bit more. And then obviously we as staff will probably provide some additional details as well during the hearing process.

I guess I kind of would support reopening this for two reasons. One, I think the city needs to have the opportunity to address the concerns raised, because otherwise we're limited to using the newest information in our decision. um and number two i certainly i had some questions that i had asked the city at the last hearing and had hoped would have been provided in written testimony and was not and so i'd certainly like an opportunity to ask the city to answer those questions that's probably reasonable and go ahead

Oh, so related to that comment that came from the tri-agency, did the county know any responses that addressed it? Because I read Mr. Woodford's comment on City of Sisters, read a few other comments because the tri-agency one came in on the 3rd. And then it closed on the 4th, so there's still some that came after. I was just curious, did the county know anything that came in addressing what was noted there?

No, nothing was submitted into the record specifically to address all of the issues that were brought up or all of the themes that were brought up as a part of those particular comments.

Okay, and that's what has me intrigued with reopening. So, okay, thank you.

So, I would entertain a motion to reopen if anybody's so inclined.

Also move. This is Commissioner Altman. I move to reopen the public hearing. Okay.

Is there a second? Do we need to specify? Sorry, you're asking for a second, but a date or?

July 9th. July 9th. Is that correct? July 9th? Correct.

Commissioner Williams would move to second reopening the public hearing on the next planning commission July 9th.

Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thanks. See you in two weeks. Great. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is a work session for private family burial grounds. Text amendment.

Good evening, Chair, Commissioners, Will Groves, your planning manager. I'm here pinch-hitting for Tanya Saltzman, who is off on a lovely vacation. We have for you a work session tonight for public burials, and we've talked about this issue in the past. I gave you some information about it, and now I want to go into a little more depth on the topic. The purpose of the proposed amendment is fairly narrow. We routinely receive inquiries from property owners who want to establish private family burial grounds on their property. These aren't requests for a public cemetery or burial park. They're requests for noncommercial burial areas for the property owner and certain family members. So state law requires written consent for that type of burial, and the county code doesn't provide a clear local process or citing standards for reviewing those requests. So the board's directed staff to bring this forward. For a code amendment that would do three things, create a clear review procedure, align local code with state law, and ensure that there is adequate long-term documentation of burial locations. Let's talk about – so we're proposing a new section in Chapter 18.116, supplementary provisions that would specifically address private family burial grounds. High-level language does five things. It defines the use. So it shows that it's a non-commercial burial on private property for the interment of the property owner and persons related. And it makes clear that this isn't one of the other things that is related by the mortuary board, like a cemetery, burial park, mausoleum, columbarium, or other facility operated as a business. Second, it establishes a review procedure, and it talks about kind of how that goes through the process. But in the end, the planning commission is required by state law to be the reviewing body. We looked into should you have wanted to potentially delegate that authority if that was something that was plausible under state law and in coordination with a legal counsel determined that that was not possible. Third reason we're doing this, it meets compliance with state law. Fourth, It requires a recorded declaration of restrictive covenant before the internment occurs. And that provides a legal description of the tax lot and information that the property contains this burial ground, a map of the burial area, and establishing continuing obligations for burial records and disclosure. So, you know, it's important that somebody stays interred. And it adds local siting standards. So this is the part that really there's some discretion over. So we talked to kind of in the building amongst ourselves and to other jurisdictions that do this and said, should there be any other sideboards? Because we're allowed as a local jurisdiction to add other sideboards to it. And in our draft that we have before you, We have 100 feet from well springs or other drinking water sources to avoid contamination of those water sources. 50 feet from streams, rivers, and lakes. 25 feet from property lines, given that, as we heard in the presentation from the Sisters folks who were here a couple weeks ago, people get buried over property lines because you don't know where property lines are. A setback gives you a little bit of a caution space in there and at least 50 feet from onsite wastewater systems. So, you know, one of the things that somebody might do, they might be on a relatively small property. have a septic system and a replacement septic system area that takes up the entirety of their property and then drops a relative in the replacement area, and then they have no basis to replace their septic system. So some coordination with septic systems seemed appropriate. And then, of course, there's other state laws that govern handling, transport, disposition, disinterment of human remains. We're not getting into that business. We're proposing these standards for clarity, record keeping, and environmental and public health. But again, it's important that this doesn't authorize commercial cemeteries, open the sea sites to public burials, doesn't create fee-based burial uses, and it doesn't remove the need to comply with other regulations. So this is your work session on this topic. I am available for any questions at our next regularly scheduled meeting. We have a public hearing on this matter. And that concludes my work session report. Yes.

So would you propose different criteria for, say, an urn with ashes versus a casket with a body?

I hadn't even considered the matter.

Reason being is I'm personally aware of... um ashes in urns i mean being interned on you know the edges of a of a private pond for example i mean your contamination is nil yeah i mean you can spread ashes pretty well anywhere but anyhow just a thought yeah it seems like everyone hadn't even thought about it um

Yeah, that'll be something I'll alert Tanya to that and see. I want to be careful that these rules don't end up baroque in terms of having all sorts of if and now therefores. But it seems like you have a specific example in mind that seems very reasonable, and we wouldn't want to preclude that accidentally. Okay.

So I would then have two questions. To add on to his, we would look at the green burial or the natural composting. And I never do this, but I actually printed up something. And you kind of covered it, which surprised me. If the planning director recommends approval, the planning commission may approve the application. We normally just make recommendations, but it would actually be the planning commission OK-ing someone to bury a family member on their own property.

OK.

Yes, go ahead.

So I had kind of a question on that too. So I'm just going to go like a hypothetical. Someone passes, they want to bury their family member on, I would think there's a time of the essence situation with this. You only have a certain amount of time to get this person in the ground.

Not really. They don't have refrigeration these days.

Okay, so they apply. Would they go through the process? Then it comes before us, maybe in the public comment type. It seems like this could drag out for a while before they can get actual approval to bury their family member. It seems like a pretty... This seems like a hard, cumbersome process.

To follow up on her comment, and we've had this discussion, is there an opportunity? I realize that it's a no-no for us to do... Group emails. Could this be something that could be a simple approval via email of the Planning Commission to where we are meeting the criteria for Zoom? So it can be expedited somewhat. I mean, you send us a group email and we hit reply all on yes, no, or let's hear it.

Because it's not a public hearing. It's private property.

It's an interesting question. I'll also research that. I know that there's some public meeting law about kind of notice and agendas and process. And I don't know if, in fact, if you were all sort of game for this, that we could say, hey, we're going to have a special Zoom-only meeting, you know, on some particular day to expedite somebody's internment. And, you know, at least a quorum of you were available for that. you know, that might be something that could be done. I haven't tried to schedule impromptu meetings before of the Planning Commission, and so I'm assuming that there's some sort of procedure that goes with that, but I don't know it off the top of my head. To your point, very much my concern. We explored at some length the possibility of having the Planning Commission at least be offered the opportunity to delegate this to the planning director, who would then be able to approve these things potentially same day.

Mm-hmm. I see we've been being monitored by legal counsel. Do you have anything you'd like to add, Stephanie?

Well, hello, everyone. Stephanie Marshall, Senior Assistant Legal Counsel, joining you from Salem. Yeah, so, and Will's correct. You know, they've bounced questions off of me. And unfortunately, we're acting or we're discussing this pursuant to Oregon statute. And without... without a clear delegability of the responsibility. I mean, it's delegated to the planning commission and there's nothing in the statute that says that they can delegate it further. Then the question becomes, would there be an objection to that, you know, or like what does that do to the, you know, legitimacy of, say, you know, the planning director is okay of that? You know, those are, you know, those are further down the rabbit hole of we're not quite sure.

I guess maybe this might be an opportunity for some legislative corrections this upcoming session. Commissioner Williams.

So on Stephanie's part, if the planning director recommends approval, it's one individual making a decision.

Right.

If we give that okay power to the planning director, and it doesn't go through any review, even though I totally get what you're saying, that might be a fine line.

Yeah, I mean, if that's an option, I could, like I say, my preference would be to create sideboards and say, okay, here, I mean, here are the steps in the process. And, you know, if they meet that, I mean, who am I to say no? Yes, go ahead.

Another question besides the approval is, so there would be a map that would disclose where the body is. And then when there's a sale of the property, that map would, you'd have to disclose it. And would that come through like the title, like an easement would be like a title search would then discover that?

Well, that'd take all the fun out of the hunt.

Yeah, like how is the notice then passed to the new owner?

The presumption is that since it's recorded with the clerk, it would be a recording to the property that then would show up on a title.

On a title report. So my suggestion would be that they actually require a filing with the county clerk's office so it would show up on the title record for that property, the exact location of where that person is.

And that's what I thought I read, some restrictive deed or something like that when I was reading it.

So if that's the case, you'd be notified. Now, can a person then not develop that portion? Is it then, if you wanted to build a shop on the burial site, could you then not build that?

Or are you required, if it's your property, are you required to move it?

Those are all different things. How do you move it? How do you notice? Do you have to notice the... Well, there's a deed restriction. Yeah. How do you provide this? It's just that's where I'm getting conflict. That's where it's getting muddy to me because I think, you know, there's these like this is like tribal burial grounds. I mean, it's a very hot topic of and it's respect. It should be respected. And that's where I'm coming through. It's like, well, how this will very much affect how land is then developed.

And well, did you say you get numerous requests per year for this?

And those are just the ones that tell you.

Yes.

To your point, basically it's not in county jurisdiction what happens at that point. So I know there exists state and federal laws about interment, disinterment, that sort of thing of bodies. And one of the things that we're expressly doing is not getting involved in that space. So just under state statute, we have an obligation – If you're going to bury a person, then record a document. What happens from that point, we can certainly do some research, but none of it's county-based.

I would anticipate that as long as the location is recorded, what happens after that is between the buyer and the seller. Maybe the seller doesn't care. Maybe they just want to be ashes to ashes, dust to dust, and be part of the tree that's growing there versus, you know, if they want to preserve their location, that's up to, I would think it would be up to them to create the documents to protect themselves.

Commissioner? A question for you, Will, and maybe this doesn't apply, but in the spirit of clear and objective or two-track processes elsewhere in the code, If this, pending what happens with the hearing and Board of Commissioner action and so forth, then as Commissioner Williams alluded to, and the language is drafted, then falls to the Planning Commission to approve individual applications. if an applicant meets the explicit criteria, what sort of discretion would the planning commission have in reviewing applications?

So it would be, you know, it's a rules-based process. So, you know, you would go down through the rules and for each of them, you'd say, is this met? Is this not met? Is this unclear? And in these matters, the applicant has the burden of proof. So they would have to show you that, yes, we affirmatively meet each of these rules with sufficient clarity for you to decide that the rules are going to be followed. So you could imagine scenarios where they come in like, yes, we've done all the things. Boxes are checked. You all look at it and say, yes, boxes are checked. You can imagine scenarios where you'd say boxes are not checked. You don't actually have a document recording this or your map is of the wrong property. You know, you could imagine a kind of ambiguous scenarios where, you know, that you've got some sort of water feature, which isn't a stream or lake, but is something else. You know, it turns out that it's categorical. You might run into weird interpretive issues at that point. You know, staff would help together with legal counsel to help you navigate that. But, you know, in the end, we would come to you with a basically there's a proposal. We think it meets it. What do you all think? Good. Let's go. If you came back and said, let's say that you found it was, well, I mean, you couldn't later, what I want to point out is you couldn't later have arbitrary and capricious rules. Like if it turned out the all hated left-handers and somebody wanted to bury a left-handed relative and you said, nope, don't want to do it, you'd have no basis to do it, right? You know, you couldn't be making up rules on the fly. And even if it was something that we all agreed was like, wow, we didn't think of that. And that's a real problem. If it's not in the rules, you couldn't at that step decide that this burial was improper. We would have to allow that one to pass and come back to rulemaking again.

Okay, thanks for that answer. And then if the Planning Commission does make decisions on these matters, and you said, what's the, you mentioned that a moment ago, sorry, I missed it. What's the approximate frequency we can expect these?

A couple times a year.

A couple times a year. There would be an appeals process, I imagine, and that would go, of our decision, and that would go, the Planning Commission decision, that would go to the Board of Commissioners, then, I imagine, or what would be an appeals process?

Stephanie's shaking her head.

Sorry. Yes, Stephanie Marshall again. There's not a clear appeals process. So your question is an excellent one. I'm almost thinking that the appeal might go to district court, state court, but again, not 100% sure because you are the decision-making body and having an administrative appeal to the board Yeah, usually that set forth that process. So if that was available, it might be in the statute. But the fact that it's silent gives me the gut feeling that it might just be the circuit court.

Okay, that might be something that when it goes up upon the hearing in our process and when it goes up to the Board of Commissioners, they might want to clarify at their discretion what an appeals process might look like.

Yeah, that might be helpful. I can imagine a scenario where you, let's say that you had surviving relatives who had a disagreement about what to do with something and, you know, if the map was accurate or some other matter. And we could end up in a process where somebody, even if you said you meet the rules, check that someone might want to file an appeal of and say, nope, I think you did it wrong. They obviously have some right to do that appeal. So it would have to go to somebody. So it'll be an interesting question to determine who that somebody is.

Okay. Thank you, Director. And thank you, Council, for those answers. Yes, go ahead.

To finish my thought process, because I still am thinking, and kind of, Stephanie, this might... Because my thought process, I might not be exactly right, but there's several types of easements. And there's easements that run forever with the land, and then there's easements that die with the sale of the property. And I'm uncomfortable with saying, hey... Buyer and seller, you guys figure, I mean, that to me makes, makes me uncomfortable, especially like human remains that since there's such like a historic, you know, precedence with controversy on human remains on property. Is there something that the county can put in there like this, you know, ends with the sale of a property? Or do we don't even go there? Because am I correct that there are certain easements that run forever, like a shared driveway, and then there's certain that... And like, is there any way to make that more clear for the parties that... you know, assume the body.

I think that's probably, I mean, all open for discussion on what we may want to put in as far as rules. Personally, I would rather not get involved in those details and leave it between buyer and seller.

I think I'm asking Stephanie's question. I'm asking her more if she has an opinion as to

Okay, Stephanie Marshall, Senior Assistant Legal Counsel. Well, first, I'd want to double check to make sure that the county wouldn't be prohibiting that which state allows. So that's kind of a parameters thing, like could we even consider that? Would that be a proper exercise of authority? Do we have that authority to exercise or not we, but the Board of Commissioners? um and and second yes you are correct that there are different um there can be a term easement um or there is an easement there are easements that run with the land um this is not so much an easement but it is recorded against the property to put future owners on notice that there are human remains on the property um you know i do tend to think that it's It might be more of a situation where the individual buyer and the individual seller have their own opinions about it. All that being said, Commissioner, I would want to see, because it's It's a topic worth discussing, obviously. You brought it up and I think it's definitely a fair question. So I think the first thing I'd like to do is to see, you know, are there, you know, is there discretion to expand or restrict what state law is allowing under these provisions? You know, because there are things you have to show under state law, like you can't build a mausoleum and things like that. but just to see how far our authority might expand or perhaps contract just to kind of allow things like this to be put on the table for discussion. Thank you.

Commissioner Williams.

So this document specifically states a declaration or restrictive covenant, and an easement gives someone the right to use a portion of another person's land, while a covenant is a mutual agreement or restriction dictating how you use your own land. So it's not an easement. It's a covenant, at least how it's drafted right now. Commissioner Altman.

So as part of this, are there rules for disinternment? I mean, is that so if in Commissioner Kelly's example here, we have a buyer and a seller and the buyer says, I really like your property, but you've got to get rid of the body. There's a process for that.

So I ain't grain of salt. I'm using the cheapest AI that money can buy. It says under Oregon law, a new owner just can't dig them up. Disinterment requires consent or a court order. So written consent under ORS 97220. or consent of the deceased next of kin, or a formal permit from state health officials on how to safely remove the manes. If the family refuses to give consent, the new owner's only option is to petition the county court, and the court will decide to hire a hearing if there's a compelling reason to allow the relocation. But the legality of the original burial matters. So if it followed the law, so if you went through the planning commission, basically if it's done correctly, the burial ground is a permanent land fact. And if the burial was illegal or undisclosed and you failed to disclose it, the new owner could reasonably come back to you and say, hey, you sold me something that wasn't properly represented. This is not just a property. It's a property with dead people in it. and you know you've damaged my value or some other usability of the land accordingly um but we'll again very preliminary answer and we'll get you a better one for next time thank you mark um

Are there any nearby like neighboring counties or just other Oregon counties you could provide examples of like the code they have for this stuff that already exists? Because it sounds like there might be some other counties out there that already have the private burial ground practice in place. So just as an example, I'd be curious to see that in advance of the public hearing if it's out there.

Yeah, for sure. Lane County, I think Benton was one that came up. And so like in Lane County, you have to file a type one zoning determination through their, basically their CDD department. If I remember correctly, they didn't put any additional sideboards about about where, you know, like trying to keep them away from water sources. I think that's a local innovation that we made up. It seemed like when we talked to our environmental health folks, they thought that that was a good idea. But we were, initially we thought, what are all possible things that you might put as constraints on this to make sure people don't do things that are ridiculous? And in the end, Every time you make a rule, you have to make sure it actually does what you mean it to do and doesn't do what you don't mean it to do. And you've thought about cases. And so it looks like most jurisdictions just say the planning commission signs off, something's recorded, victory.

It's pretty simple.

Yeah.

Okay.

Great. Anybody else?

Great. Thank you. You're welcome. This looks to be a potentially interesting discussion. Yeah, for sure. Lively. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Better than deadly. Hopefully not.

Uh-oh. Contemplate, thank you.

Go ahead.

Property value is going to be...

Depends on who's buried there.

Good point. I mean, that's definitely going to be effective. There's going to be a lot of people who don't want a stomach purchasing a property with.

That's considerations that it's up to a buyer and a seller. Yeah. And a realtor to disclose.

I know. I know.

They're only liable if anyway.

So anyhow, so comments. Staff comments. Let's see. So what we got going on. So the draft 2627 work plan board approved it with three requests into the work plan. So basically what you saw went forward. There was a request to explore a groundwater area of concern declaration with the Oregon Department of DEQ for Southern Deschutes County. You may have been tracking, as we've discussed over kind of the past months, that there was a legislative action that allowed a groundwater area of concern to potentially be applied to areas that are in a similar situation to South County. And what comes with that is some additional opportunities if that declaration is made for small sewer systems or large sewer systems to be applied outside of UGBs, outside of urban areas. You know, we anticipate that that's something that ultimately the Department of Environmental Quality has to make a decision about. So we've been asked to engage with them to see if they would be interested in running that process and not to force an outcome, but to just begin that discussion. Also, an interest in trying to participate at the legislative level to remove residential density restriction for manufacturer home parks. near urban growth boundaries. So the concept here was for lands that are not within the city but are near the city, that there might be some sort of density bonus if you were trying to put in a manufactured home park. But that would require a legislative action at the state level. For the planning commission, the matter that you put forward did get some traction. And there was a request to schedule an agenda item with the county road department to discuss regional transportation planning. And so this was focusing on as it pertained to urban and rural traffic patterns and evacuation routes in the event of a wildfire. And so the board recognized that urban traffic patterns and evacuation routes are city responsibilities. They nonetheless, through the PC, could benefit from the regional transportation planning discussions that are occurring in Central Oregon. And so the road department will be providing that update and discussion. So

Interestingly enough, I found statute that allows the county to actually take jurisdiction from the city for collectors.

Oh, interesting.

Which is back to the point of the city creating burdens for restricting traffic flow.

Yeah, sure enough. And so I'll come to you not quite in the format of a panel discussion, but more of a presentation from the road department. We may try to wrangle up Lauren Street, our community wildfire protection supervisor. She spends a lot of time thinking about this in the community wildfire protection plan space. Upcoming hearings. So the comprehensive plan 2040 remand is getting calendared. And so that will be in front of you for a review on July 23rd. Again, due to timeline constraints and expediency, that's going to be one where we'll present to you and you're providing recommendations, but not a multi-night hearing process. And then that hearing is scheduled, all forces willing, to go to the Board of County Commissioners on August 5th. I think I described previously that remand focuses on procedural issues, which this process is intended to cure, as well as differentiating how the code deals with planned and clustered developments in different scenarios, depending on how residential land initially became residential land. I can't remember if I said this at length previously. The short version is that the comp plan as drafted treated all residential land the same, and in fact, For planned and clustered developments, land that was zoned residential prior to October 4, 2000 is subject to one set of rules. Land after that that received a goal exception is subject to another set of rules. And land that was the subject of a non-resource land amendment, so not through a goal exception, but they successfully argued we're not a farm, we'll never be a farm, Thus, the protections of Goal 3 should not apply to us, but they didn't take a formal exception to Goal 3. They are in a third category. And so the new comprehensive plan language just acknowledges that. Luba and the remand spelled out pretty clearly what they're looking for the county to do, and this is a we-heard-you-were-doing-it patch that will be coming through the county. Let's see. Also coming up, you know, just keeping an eye on farm store amendments. We talked about the legislative action to expand the types of economic activities that are not directly farming related, but can be entertained on certain types of farms. And so that's something that will be coming to you before the end of the year. And just a reminder that the Tumalo Community Plan updates continues to move forward. We're looking for a second date for public engagement. That one, Tanya will be leading, and I would characterize it as, we heard you say this, did we get it right meeting before we proceed into, and now what should we do about that? And let's see, there's a couple other projects, but none of them really raised the level of summary. I know I was going to, Stephanie, if you feel comfortable, I was going to let you talk a little bit about your day.

Oh, Will. Yes, yes, yes. Yes, I'm currently in Salem. Came over today for a good cause hearing before LCDC, the Land Conservation and Development Commission. There was a petition that was filed by Land Watch and A Thousand Friends of Oregon, a petition for an enforcement order against Deschutes County. And there are two primary types of decisions, and then there are sub-issues. The primary decisions that they're challenging are non-resource land amendments, so the plan amendment zone changes from EFU to one of the rural residential zones. And the other issue had to do with non has to do with non farm dwellings. And under those two big umbrellas, there's sub issues. The point of the good cause hearing today is that the commission was deciding whether there was basically had the petitioners made the initial showing supposedly with substantial evidence to send it onto a formal hearing, a hearing on the merits of the petition itself. So this was a procedural hearing today, but we did get into a lot of the arguments in the very brief 10 minutes that the county had and that the petitioners had. And DLCD staff did a presentation for 30 minutes, and then each besides had 10. And then the commissioners asked some questions. So I'm glad to have it behind me. I think that it went as well as I pretty much expected. There were some questions and it was not a unanimous vote to send it on. So I think of that as a little bit of a success, you know, and the hearing is scheduled for August. I believe it's August 11, and that will be a Zoom hearing. There's a hearings officer that's been appointed, and I can't remember what his name is off the top of my head. There are several subsequent mid steps. So there's an opportunity for parties or people that wish to become a party to the good to be not the good cause. to the contested case hearing, there's an opportunity for them to request party status. So that'll be next. And the hearing is scheduled for the afternoon. And again, I believe it's the 11th. And I don't know, I don't think that we could all get through everything we're gonna try to get through in half a day. So I might be following up with staff over here in Salem. In the next couple of days, maybe even in coordination with petitioners just because I think it's going to be a big lift and after the contested case hearing the hearings officer will make a recommendation to the Commission to LCDC and the Commission will it won't be a hearing because there'll be no further, as far as I understand it, there'll be no further argument following the hearings officer's recommendation. And then they'll decide whether to accept that recommendation either entirely or partially or say, we don't accept it. And honestly, from there, I'm not really sure. Maybe they just enter an enforcement order regardless. And that decision of the commission is, if it goes away that we're not hoping for, or if there are questions, there's further process and appeal would be to the Court of Appeals. So the agency makes the decision and that's appealable under the Administrative Procedures Act to the Court of Appeals, but that's further down the road. So I'm gonna be very busy over the next couple of months here up to the hearing date. And yeah, I'm trying to think if I have anything else to update you on other than what you've already been hearing about tonight. I think that's about it. Let me know if there's questions. I'll see if I can field them.

Great. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Kyle, did you have anything more? Great. Commissioner Kiaris.

All right. Hope you're feeling better.

Commissioner Hofkamp. Thanks. Commissioner Altman. Hey, thank you. Commissioner Williams. Commissioner Stockkamp.

Just one question for Will. You said regarding the manufactured home stuff, you said near. Is there like a definition yet for near? Okay, I was just curious. Nope, that's it for me.

Commissioner Kelley.

And I'd just like to thank everyone for a short meeting. Interesting topics coming up. So with that, meeting's adjourned.