Board opens record in Tumalo RV-park code amendment hearing after hours of testimony

The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners held a de novo public hearing Oct. 22 on a proposed text amendment to allow recreational-vehicle (RV) parks as a conditional use in the Tumalo Commercial District (file no. 247-25106TA). Staff, the applicant and more than 30 members of the public presented testimony over several hours.

Associate Planner Audrey Stewart (Planning Division) explained the proposal would amend Chapter 18.67 of the Deschutes County Code to allow RV parks in the Tumalo Commercial District and add siting standards requiring an RV park to be sited on a lot or contiguous lots under common ownership that abut Highway 20 and are 2.3 to 5 acres in size. Stewart said the proposal would not itself approve development on any specific property; a separate conditional-use permit and site-plan review would be required for any project that sought to develop an RV park.

The hearings officer previously held an initial hearing June 16 and issued a recommendation on Sept. 3; the board voted Sept. 3 to hold a de novo hearing. Stewart told the board that the record submitted to the hearings officer included dozens of written comments: 76 before the initial hearing, 36 in the open-record period and 33 additional comments after the hearings officer mailed his recommendation. She said her mailing list contained about 96 entries.

Applicant Joel Giesler and attorney Adam Smith presented a substantive case arguing the county needs additional RV and campground capacity, that only one property currently meets the applicant’s proposed geographic limitations and that conditional-use review would address site-specific concerns about traffic, sewage and compatibility. The applicant provided a conceptual site plan showing about 30 RV spaces, a proposed wall and additional landscaping to buffer the nearest residences, a pedestrian connection toward the Deschutes River and reliance on central sewer service if an RV park proceeded.

Opponents and nearby residents raised traffic, safety and character concerns, noting narrow local streets (Wharton and Riverview) with limited sidewalks and schoolchildren who walk in the area; several speakers asked that the board preserve the Tumalo community’s rural character. Others raised concerns about impacts to the Deschutes River, dispersed camping on national forest lands, enforcement of length-of-stay limits, and whether sewer and water capacity would be sufficient. Public commenters who identified as Tumalo residents, business owners or property owners repeatedly urged denial or urged the board to require more specific, binding mitigation measures before any code amendment.

Commissioners asked staff and the applicant technical questions about steps that would follow a text amendment. Planning staff described new-application notice procedures (250-foot notice to adjacent property owners), a conditional-use standard review in County Code chapter 18.128, and a 12-day appeal window following a staff decision. The applicant’s traffic engineer’s materials, submitted in the record, compared a hypothetical 30-space RV park to a potential residential alternative and estimated lower daily traffic generation for the RV park than for 30 residential units.

After public testimony and applicant rebuttal, the board agreed to leave the written record open and set an open-record schedule. Staff established the deadlines: new evidence and testimony accepted until 4 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 29; rebuttal testimony due 4 p.m. Wednesday, Nov. 5; and the applicant’s final legal argument due 4 p.m. Wednesday, Nov. 12. Staff said the earliest the board could deliberate after those filings would be about two weeks after the applicant’s final legal argument (subject to agenda scheduling). The board treated the matter as quasi-judicial and closed the oral portion of the hearing.

Why it matters: The change would convert a legacy limitation on RV parks in the Tumalo Commercial District into a narrowly scoped conditional framework; staff and the hearings officer framed the issue as technical and legal, while many residents framed it as a policy question about community character, traffic and river impacts. If the board later approves a text amendment, any actual RV park would still require a separate conditional-use permit and site-specific review.

Next steps: The record is open through Nov. 12 for supplemental filings. Following the final legal argument, staff said the board would schedule deliberations; the hearings officer’s recommendation and the expanded record will be part of the board’s review.