Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Is there any public comments online on any topic that is not on our agenda tonight? Anybody else online, actually?

Perfect. Susan has a hand up. What's that? Susan has a hand up.

Oh, I'm just saying I'm here.

Okay.

Thanks.

You're here too?

You can hear me. Yep.

Did you have a comment or just your hand up?

Nope. Just let you know I'm here too. Thanks.

Perfect. Appreciate it.

Looks like we may have lost Susan. We have five. Or they are just both disappearing. Oh, while their hand is not up.

All right. So no public comments. Action items. We have a work session on 20. Well, it's not on the. Oh, there we are. Nope. You're right. Sorry. Minutes. We have a motion to approve the minutes.

Commissioner Williams moves to approve the minutes on June 25th.

Is there a second?

I second that. Commissioner Stockton seconds.

It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion regarding the minutes? Seeing as none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed? Motion carries. Thanks for catching that. Hey, action items. Work session Deschutes County 2040 plan. Limited remand.

Thank you, Chair. Good evening. Commissioners, for the record, Will Groves, your planning manager. I have for you this evening the 2040 comp plan remand. And this is in a particular posture before you. As directed by the board, this is presented to you for review without the requirement for or the need for a full public hearing associated with it. So I'll give you a work session on what's LUBA's done, what the board's asked you to do with regard to this, and then we'll provide some opportunity for you to ask questions and give any feedback that you might have. So the file number for this one is 247-26000-409A. That's the remand file. And you'll see up on the screen some of the original file numbers that were associated with the 2040 comp plan. Okay. And so the review purpose and role here for you today is that this is a Planning Commission review of a limited remand package, and this is not a final adoption hearing. The remand is limited to the issues identified by LUBA and is not an reopening of unrelated 2040 Comp Plan topics. This PC review is part of the remand procedure required before the matter returns to the Board for an evidentiary hearing. And the package before the PC includes the revised policy text and findings directed to those LUBA remand issues. Little process history here. County sent initial notice to DLCD for the comprehensive plan amendments in August of 2023. Board initially adopted these in October of 2024. In 2025, the board withdrew the initial decision for reconsideration and conducted additional proceedings. leading into July of 2025, reopening the written record. August 11, the Board considered revised policies 10.1, .1, .2, .3, and we'll talk about those. And in August 27, 2025, the Board adopted Ordinance 20-25-007 on reconsideration. And on April 13, 2026, LUBA remanded the decision for further proceedings on two discrete issues. So what's on remand? Issue one is procedural compliance with the proposal notice and hearing requirements. So LUMBA found that the county must provide notice required by RS-197-610-6 and OIR-660-1845 and conduct remand proceedings consistent with those provisions. Those include notice to DLCD. And the county must also ensure remand proceedings are consistent with 22-12-010, including this PC review and a board public hearing. And so what was found is when the board made some modifications relatively late in the process to the comprehensive plan, LUBA determined that that set off a requirement for new notice to DLCD and new procedures here before the proceedings before the planning commission and board. So we're curing that now. Issue two had to do with amendment of former policy 10.1.3 to address non-resource lands and plan code conflicts. And I'll go into some depth into that. So why the notice issue came up, LUBA again found that the August 11th changes materially altered the proposal originally noticed to DLCD and that the original package didn't include rural minimum lot size policies or authorization concepts for cluster PUD developments on non-resource lands. Again, because it had changed, new DLCD notice was required. And as mentioned before, we're conducting the local hearing process issues under 22-12-010. So why was former policy 10.1.3 remanded? LUBA held I'm going to back out a little bit here and go a little off script here. So OAR 660-004-0040 explains how in rural residential exception areas, so that's a comprehensive planning designation for lands that have been taken out of farm and forest use and have been identified for residential uses. And in that section, it explains a wide variety of things that have to do with those lands. But one of them has to do with cluster and planned unit settlements. And it turns out that OER 660 section deals with what we think of as rural residential exception areas in three different categories. There's ones that had arrived that way prior to October 4, 2000. There's ones that after October 4, 2000 were rezoned and comprehensive plan redesignated through a goal exception process. And finally, the third category of lands are non-resource lands that, without taking a goal exception, were essentially excused from farm and forest protection because there was a finding that they did not have those resources and were not required to support those resources as part of protection of farm and forest. And so what Luba found is that the rule expressly excludes non-resource lands from the protections that the other two categories are afforded. And those would be the pre-October 2000 lands and the exception lands with regard to planned unit developments and cluster subdivisions. And those first two categories have safe harbor-like provisions. So it says in rule that you can do cluster and PUDs under certain circumstances with certain parameters. But it does not make those same protections for these non-resourced lands. And the vast majority of our modern planned amendment zone changes out of EFU in particular have gone through non-resourced lands. So they are not afforded the same statutory protections or rule protections if they were to try to apply for a planned unit development or cluster subdivision. So this was remanded by LUBA. The board issued a limited remand order, and it didn't reopen the entire plan. Staff was directed to provide revised notice, conduct this review session, and return to a board hearing. And the scope is confined to the LUBA-identified issues, narrowly tailored conforming changes needed to implement the remand. So here's the proposed solution. We keep policies 10.1.1 and 10.2 unchanged, and we're replacing the former one-size-fits-all policy 10.1.3 with two policies that track the remand distinctions. Revised policy 10.1.3 addresses property outside rural residential areas on an effect on October 4, 2000, when the land has received a goal exception. And 10.1.4 addresses property outside those areas when the land has been designated non-resourced land. And this structure separates exception land from non-resourced land and avoids new policy level acreage standards. So this table explains how these would be treated. Again, in each case, it describes which lands it applies to, what type of application would need to be made, what types of findings were required. And most interestingly, for non-resource lands, the safe harbor, as I mentioned before, doesn't apply. And so full Goal 14 compliance analysis is required. And what that means is is that if you come in for a non-resource land and try to do a cluster or planned unit development on it, there's no protection that causes rural to see that as inherently rural in nature. So if you had a non-resource property outside city limits, it was EFU, you got it rezoned through a non-resource process to MUA 10, and you came in and said, I want to take these 200 acres and instead of making 20 10-acre lots, I want to do a cluster. you would have an obligation to do a full analysis that says, look, I'm not doing a runaround on the limitations that are trying to keep rural lands rural. This is rural because it's not dependent on city services. It's at a density that doesn't mimic urban level densities. It's at least two acres in size, a variety of other parameters that ensure that it's rural. So the distinction here is that 10.1.3 lands have a kind of a safe harbor that says you are presumed to be rural and don't have to worry about Goal 14 if you meet certain sideboards. For the non-resource lands, you have to make express findings that say where this is inherently rural, here's how. So supporting findings were included and they explain how these policies all work together and that they also explain that the revised policies no longer create the former policy code conflict because they don't establish independent lot sizes or density standards for the non-resource lands. So really what's being asked here today of you is to review that limited remand package, which was included in your packet, discuss any concerns, revisions, thoughts that you have, and forward a recommendation to the board. Not to get ahead of the planning commission, but this is a relatively... constrained opportunity here. Luba said, you did it wrong. Here's how. Here's how you fix it. The board said, OK, staff, bring this back to a process. Do exactly what Luba said. Don't do anything else. And so I'm available here for if you have any questions. I recognize this is a relatively technical topic. And certainly, you're available to make any comments that you want with regard to this. And overall, this is focused on a very technical fix to both the procedure, which we're fixing here this evening, and how non-resource lands are treated with regard to a future planned unit development or cluster development. And with that, I'm available for questions.

So what's next steps?

So planning commission action, you're provided the opportunity to read this or to review this and provide any comments that you might have to the board. So to the extent that you had any concerns about the approach that staff had taken, any surprising legal analysis that might inform our process or any other kind of thoughts generally about this, I'm available to carry those forward. know normally in these circumstances you know there might be something that had a policy aspect or something that where you know there might be a a question involved here um you know certainly one of the things that you could you could do in you know so an alternative would be for the county to take a position that we're just not doing cluster or planned unit developments you know so the approach here um basically is taking advantage of the field that the statutory provisions put out there so sort of what's maximally allowed is being allowed through uh rule and through this uh through this amendment so you know one of the things you could reasonably recommend to the board is that you know these things are just too much of a headache plan and cluster subdivisions or we didn't like them generally and we shouldn't make space for them in our code um you know that would be a that would be a longer discussion but you know there's a What you're seeing here is that previously the comprehensive plan had made basically a theory of what was allowed for cluster and planned unit developments, and that theory was too broad, and Luba said you need to rein it in, and this revision does exactly that.

So I guess my question more along the lines of do we need to put this to a public hearing or is this deliberations and a vote?

So this is neither of those. So this is under Title 22, the planning director can direct matters that are on their way to the board through the planning commission for a review process. So that's specifically what you're here for this evening. And so basically any sort of comments that you might have associated with this, I'll carry forward to the board, but it eliminates the need for a hearing before the planning commission or an official vote on anything. This is just an opportunity to make sure that citizen involvement occurs and that any concerns that you might have associated with this are carried forward into the board process.

Okay, great. I just was a little unclear on kind of where we stood.

Great question. Is there any questions?

Comments? Just real quick.

So just to reiterate what you stated is we were pulling out non-resource lands from 10.3 and they must go through a full goal 14 analysis. Whereas exception lands can either do goal 3 or goal 4 or both and not have to do goal 14.

Hello, so the first part you got right. So let's say, so your zoned residential or your comprehensively planned designated rural residential exception area, if you arrived at that way by non-resource land designation, and you want to cluster to a planned unit development, you have to go through some pretty extensive findings that say, look, let's think about this. You know, there's no kind of precut path to go through. We have to think about this carefully to make sure we're not creating something that's urban in nature. For those rural residential exception lands that arrived by other means, There are provisions that allow them to take advantage of this OAR 660-004-0040 that say if you meet these sideboards which have to do with acreage size and some configuration requirements, then you don't have to worry about this goal 14 question if you're in fact accidentally creating something urban in nature. So they basically come with a path that's already paved towards doing this and the Yeah, the non-resourced lands have to put it in four-wheel drive and drive a rough road to that outcome if they want to get there.

Okay. Commissioner Stockamp.

Yeah, well, so is it going to be a public hearing with the county commission then on August 5th? Am I understanding that correctly? That's correct. Okay. Okay. Great. Well, I just wanted to comment. I appreciate how swiftly planning staff has brought this remand forward, and I understand it's not a public hearing tonight, so just appreciate how quickly it's moving since it's been a multi-year process. So thanks for doing that.

Okay, thanks. And my comment on this is, I mean, I think it looks fine. I think it's a good solution to the problem, and I'm fine with moving forward the way it is.

And I would second that. To move forward with the county commissioners with how you've directed it, I don't think we'd need to just say no to clusters and PUDs.

Go ahead. Yeah, I'm trying hard to think of a problem with it so that I can sound intelligent and insightful. But I also can't think of any problems with it either.

I mean, I fully support the clusters, and I'm, I guess, disappointed that the process isn't allowed for the others, because I think it makes sense as a better use of the land than, you know, breaking it all up in 10-acre parcels or whatever the zone happens to be. I... Like I say, I like the cluster concept. I think it makes sense, and it might be something to take a look at from a lobby standpoint for future legislation to fix what I consider to be a problem.

I think that's exactly on target too. There have been some discussions at the state level about doing a non-resource lands rulemaking process to make express kind of what the rights and obligations about these non-resource lands are. Historically, there hadn't been a lot of them. And over the years, you know, there's been increasing numbers and they don't have the same explicit, you know, explanations about how they work and rule. So there's definitely some interest in that process.

Great. Anybody else have questions or comments? If none, I guess, is that everything you need from us? Everything I need. Thank you so much. Great. Thank you. All right. Next on the agenda, deliberations on private family burial ground text amendments.

And you're up with your bare bones proposals.

Jokes just write themselves. For the record, Tanya Saltzman, senior planner. Just a little technical note. We, on the invite, there was some confusion at the beginning of this meeting. Some people tried to join via Teams because Outlook sometimes sneaks in a Teams invite at the end of meetings. A meeting invite. If anyone is still there or having problems with the Zoom, if you get out of the Teams invite, you'll be able to hear the Zoom because it's competing audio. And hopefully nobody should be on Teams. And sorry for that error. Computers. So I think we're all here. But I just wanted to let everybody know that. So this agenda item is deliberations for...

Excuse me. Stephanie has her hand up.

Hello, everyone. Can you hear me?

We can.

Okay, great. Yeah, I was just checking in to let you know that I can hear everybody and I'm here for the deep discussion on private burial grounds. Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Thanks for making it through. Sorry about the confusion. So this is deliberations for the text amendments for private family burial grounds. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on July 9th. Prior to that, there was a work session on June 25th. At the public hearing, no comments were received during that hearing. The hearing was closed at that time, at the end of that meeting. The written record was left open until 4 p.m. on the Wednesday after that. And just as a matter of procedure, a 35-day notice was provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development on June 4th, 2026. So I'm not going to go over the background again because we've discussed it, but since the public hearing, staff has received no comments written and none have come through at the public hearing, as I noted earlier. So a couple of the things that were raised during the public hearing about these amendments, there were a few just kind of items of note that the Planning Commission wanted to dig into further. One of those things was burial depth, and the other thing was just talking about the setbacks. So as I noted before, the proposed code has some setbacks from various water sources. We borrowed those standards from Benton County who had done that in their code and as well as the fourth one which is at least a requirement to be at least 50 feet from any on-site wastewater system, soil absorption area or replacement area. That was from our own staff, our wastewater specialist. So that's kind of the only thing that goes beyond the statute. Those were just two items that the Planning Commission flagged in their discussion last meeting to potentially discuss. And that's what I'll leave the Planning Commission to discuss. I will note that in our research, basically all the other counties that do this did not stray very far from that ORS. They didn't really institute any other requirements besides the setbacks that I just mentioned in one county. Everything else was pretty much A lot of them don't even write it in their code. A lot of them just have a procedure kind of internally and relied on the ORS and did not add additional requirements because just keeping it simple. So just as a point of a data point on that, of course, the commission can recommend to the board whatever they choose, but just giving a little bit of context. So with that, I'll just turn it back over to the planning commission.

So how do you treat ashes? Is that considered a burial?

They were... If they're in an urn, that counts as a burial because it's a thing you're burying. I think scattering ashes is not regulated by this.

I guess my only thought would... be to create an exemption from all of the setbacks for an urn or ashes. Because you're not looking at any kind of a contamination issue with the water features and all the other stuff, would be my thought.

Okay, noted. More discussion?

Can't really, I mean...

I mean, if you can spread ashes, I mean, it's pretty... Just burying an urn at that point.

Yeah.

I mean, there's not... Ottery with inert material in it.

Yeah. So that would have... Yeah, that clause that has those four requirements would be exempt for...

I guess that would be my thought as I'm looking at the reasoning for a setback. I mean, for wells, springs, water sources, ponds, lakes, all that kind of stuff is all having to do with potential contamination of the water supply, which you wouldn't get from ashes.

May I provide some feedback from Vice Chair Kelly? Absolutely.

Absolutely.

Her main concern is encumbering future property owners with the responsibility of someone else's loved one. So that is Commissioner Kelly's input. She was traveling and did not know if she would have good reception.

I would just respond to that. Part of the law is to have a restrictive covenant recorded with the site plan saying someone is buried at this location on the property. So that in staff's mind is what kind of covers that. But I don't know if she means kind of Wants to get into more depth on that.

She also mentioned it as maybe her thought process because we texted a little bit and I said, well, you know, we're already allowing it. And she said her realtor hat was on when she thought about that. So, you know, when that title report comes up, how is someone going to feel about that? And, you know, I indicated to her, well, we're already doing it. It's just are we going to ORS it? And how many counties would you say have put in their code specifically referencing ORS?

You know, that's a good question. I was going to say dug around. um looked around and benton county is the one that has the most robust which is almost identical to what we are proposing here i didn't find other mentions in code specifically for this i it's it's hard to find because it can be in different places in the code you still have to follow those rules but it might not be mentioned in the zoning code per se

Okay.

It's kind of an unsatisfying answer, I realize, but they do keep it, you know, most of it, there's a form that they fill out and that sort of contains the rules and the references to the ORSs. That's, in our research, what we came across.

So, and I guess to address that concern, I think as long as it's been identified in the title report so that there's an alert that, yes, there is somebody buried in this particular location, That's up to the seller and the buyer on what kind of access, rights, whatever. I mean, theoretically, the new owner, if there's nothing in it, could exhume the body and move it to someplace else if they don't want to have to deal with it.

And that's governed by a separate process beyond land use.

Right. And I guess that's all I'm getting at is, I mean, that's between buyers and sellers, and that's not something I think we should get involved with regulating anymore. I mean, I would support something as simple as possible along the lines of, you know, complying with ORS XYZ with the other setbacks in place, accepting, you know, ashes, etc.

And right now, the ORS code, you have to have a casket.

They don't specify...

I mean, that would be the only reason I would be keen on water setbacks is if you can do a green burial.

My impression that they don't, I don't think they, I'd have to... Or a compost burial. But I don't think there's a distinction between different types of burials. I think the idea, you know, whether they're embalmed or not or what have you.

And so that would be the main reason I would think of setbacks is just for well water primarily.

Yeah, I mean, staff recommends, if we may, the setbacks apply to kind of all kinds of areas, with that potential exception of urns. But that is why we chose to put that in there. But it's up to the Planning Commission.

And I guess the question, I mean, yeah, I mean, is there a good reason for a 50-foot setback from streams or rivers and lakes or ponds? Is there a contamination risk issue, etc. ?

Fair question. I can't say that I've delved into the kind of soil science of it, but it does just to staff seem like a good idea to have setbacks from any type of source, some sort of foreign source of anything from any type of water body, just to be really sure about things. If this becomes an issue and a conflict going forward, this is always something that could be revisited. But that's just my staff's opinion.

Okay. I just wonder if there's specific, I mean, I can see, you know, the actually, and even the wastewater 50 feet long ways.

That was his recommendation.

I, yeah, probably wouldn't have an issue with that either. I mean, you put septic lines 10 feet apart from a, because of a, from a functionality standpoint. Yeah.

Yeah, I would say not being a specialist in that area, I would just be inclined to go with what... Just because what if there's things that we haven't thought of? And that's all I was going to say. Yeah.

So, thoughts? Comments? Ready to move on? What do you want to do?

I could make a motion.

Go for it.

All righty. I would move that we recommend the planning department's draft to the Board of County Commissioners.

I'll second that, Ms. Jessica, for the record.

Does that include the exemption for urns or no?

Good question. For me, it does not because what if we start to have Wooden urns versus metal urns, you know, people trying to be more natural.

Why would wooden urns be a problem to bury?

Oh, no, no, not, not. I'm just saying using the setbacks for the urns as well. I mean, why would it be a problem to bury wood? I don't know. I just, I want to keep this as simple as possible. That's a fair reason.

Yeah.

Okay.

Is there a second?

I guess I seconded it without realizing, without thinking it through.

You can always amend it.

Well, I mean, I think the motion is to keep it simple and recommend what the staff have put together without the exception for earns. So maybe I'll hang back and see if anyone else seconds the motion, since I sort of need to think about this for a second.

I would second it.

All right. It's been moved and seconded. And is there any discussion?

I would discuss that people who have a wooden urn are probably not really going to worry about where they bury it and are not gonna tell anyone possibly.

I'm going to say that people breaking the law is not a good reason to not have a law or have a law or exception to a law. I think it should say whatever we want it to say. And it would be one little line in there that would just say exception for bearing urns. It doesn't seem overly complicated to me. An urn is a very... I don't know, maybe an urn is not clear and objective. It seems clear and objective what an urn is, but if it's a vessel that contains ashes, I think that you're essentially burying ashes, which is already allowed without any of this. And the only thing you're doing differently is you're burying a vessel, which is also allowed currently. I can bury whatever I want to in my yard. So, I mean, clearly not. But any object or vessel right now, I could go home and bury a flower vase in my yard or an empty urn or whatever. So I just kind of feel like I can't argue with Matt's exception because I just don't have a good basis for the argument. So, I mean, I think we should allow things There's enough places where we don't want, where maybe some of us are recommending against property owner rights. So if there's a place where you can recommend something that is a property owner right, and there's no reason not to, then we probably should. No question.

Have you ever had an application for an urn or ashes?

Not to my knowledge, but these things don't come across our desk that often, although I will say we've gotten a couple inquiries in the last month for the future, which is also interesting. Pre-planning. They're planning, which we appreciate as planners. But we have not, I'm not aware of any request for earns.

So here's kind of my thought process. If we make it too complicated, put restrictions on it that they don't agree with, they're going to ignore the whole thing. The part I would like to see is just the record for the future owners that, yeah, shows buried over there in the corner, regardless of what state he's in. And that, to make it the easiest as possible... I mean, with that, I would move to amend the motion to include the exception for ashes. And I don't even think we need to mention what type of container they may or may not be in.

But that they are in a container.

Yeah. I mean, yeah. Burial of ashes in, well, any type of container.

do some research on the proper way to work.

Because nobody's going to fill out paperwork if they're scattering somebody.

And I am friendly to that amendment.

So we do that as a friendly amendment so we don't have to vote on it? Okay.

Commissioner, well, I'm the one who started it, so I am friendly to that.

But the seconder would also have to do that.

Okay, that's what I thought.

That's fine, yes.

Okay. So, is there any further discussion? Mark, you good with it?

I'm good. I think staff created the most simple solution with that friendly amendment. I think it helps cover things more too. I'm good.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries.

Thank you. Carry that recommendation forward to the Board of Commissioners with the exception for Painters of Ashes. We'll let you know when we schedule that. We don't know exactly when it's going to happen now. It depends on our load with other things right now, but we hope to get it relatively expedited because it is fairly straightforward. Great.

Thank you. Do you have any comments?

Staff comments.

The floor is still yours.

I'm good. Thank you.

Oh, come on. I figured there was something.

No, that's switching gears. Terrebonne Community Plan open house number two is scheduled. August 11th. I know it's a difficult time right now with lots of fires, but we hope that this will be able to occur. I will be sending out email blasts and we'll be doing social media and postcards and things like that probably very early next week. So you'll get emails from me, whether you like it or not.

What time is it? It's going to be 4.30 to 6.30 p.m. Okay.

And it's actually going to be held. We couldn't get a space in Terrebonne, which we regret, but it's held at the middle school in the north of Redmond that I'm blanking on the name of. Alton.

Oh, Alton Gregory.

Yeah. Yeah. And I have all that information on the website. So and I'll forward that to everybody. So it was really good last time around. Hopefully we'll get a good, good response this time. And you'll hear more from me and feel free to reach out if you have questions about that.

Great. Thank you. That's it. Peter.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Planning Commissioners, Peter Gutowski, Community Development Director. I just have one comment. Just wanted to express my appreciation for the Planning Commission convening this evening. Obviously, we've got five commissioners here. But just given the smoke, the wildfires, the lightning strikes that have occurred recently Just appreciate the ability to have tonight's meeting, carry the comp plan, 2040 remand to the board in August. And of course, the well-discussed recommendation on the private burial. So yeah, just thank you for what you do and coming in. There's a lot of noticeable and well-deserved or recognized issues facing the county from a wildfire standpoint. So to assume that the Planning Commission is making every meeting something we don't take for granted. And again, just appreciate your service.

Will? Yeah, thank you. So I forwarded to you via email the upcoming projects list. Just to note that coming up on August 13th, that's going to be our next meeting. I'll be doing a work session for Kyle on some amendments associated with the Sisters UGB process. Headed to... headed to August 27th with hearings associated with those that Kyle will handle. You probably also noticed that we're having a big season here, plan amendment zone changes, and those are before the board on July 29th, another one in front of the board on August 10th, one on remand. on August 19th and also another new plan amendment zone change on August 19th. So as you saw, there was an email that I provided you previously kind of summarizing the huge load of plan amendment zone changes we're seeing here this season. And those are starting to reach the board.

Great. Commissioner Altman.

No comments. Thank you.

Stock camp. No comment. Thanks for an efficient evening. Hear us.

Same. No comment.

That's great.

Williams.

Appreciate you, Chair Cyrus, for taking time off the line to come in and run the session. Thank you.

Great. Thank you.

And also for pulling on the line.

I actually haven't been too much this fire. I mostly have got good operators on the equipment and mostly just kind of supervising, keeping everything going.

Thank you.

And with that, I certainly want to thank everybody for being prepared and ready. And the meeting was fast and efficient. And it's nice to do a 45-minute meeting. So with that, meeting's adjourned.