Timeline - key dates in efforts to convert Aspen Lakes to a resort
1984: Oregon law establishes the rules for siting Destination Resorts under Goal 8: Recreation Needs.(see Footnote 1) Destination Resorts, including housing units, are allowed outside urban growth boundaries in order to promote the state’s interest in tourism and recreation. As such they are required to have at least 1 overnight unit for every two residential units. They are also required to comply with rules protecting open space, wildlife, and agriculture.
1988: KMB Enterprises and Sisters Aggregate and Construction (both Cyrus family partnerships) purchase 1084 acres known as Wild Horse Plains and Wild Horse Meadows in rural Sisters. Rules and laws in place at the time of purchase, just as today, do not allow for the building of a Destination Resort on these lands.
The Cyruses obtain permission from the county (CU-88-77) to build a golf course on the land. They also apply to build an RV park on the property, and mine 150,000 cubic yards of gravel (about 15,000 truckloads) from the flood plain of Whychus Creek. Plans for the RV Park and mining operation are both rejected by the County.
1989: Deschutes County approves the developers' plan for a cluster development on the Wild Horse purchased lands, with 65% of the land to be protected as open space (see document 89-70 here). The permit also states, “No part of the open space of the proposed development will be subject to further development.” The County Zoning statute at the time also states that no commercial or industrial uses are permitted in cluster developments.
Two subdivisions are platted: The Rim at Aspen Lakes for 19 lots plus designated open space; and Golf Course Estates at Aspen Lakes for 125 lots with a previously approved golf course counting toward open space requirements.(2)
1990: Nearly all the lots in the Rim subdivision are sold, the water system is built, and CC&R’s are filed for both subdivisions. These CC&Rs make no mention of future plans for a destination resort.
1991: Deschutes County writes regarding the Rim that, "...the open space associated with TP 89-712 could not be counted toward open space requirements for any other development not included in the cluster development covered by TP 89-712." (3]
1992: The Cyruses drop an appeal to LCDC over the creek mining decision. They sign a required cluster development open space Deed and Land Use Restriction written by the County defining activities that will be allowed on the Rim open space. This document requires the lands to remain in open space pursuant to County ordinances in perpetuity, with the only exception being if the lands are brought within an urban growth boundary.
Building permits are issued for the Rim at Aspen Lakes development.
Deschutes County creates its destination resort overlay map, including almost the entire county in it. (4)
1993: Although there has never been a legal county process for converting from a cluster development to a resort, the Cyruses rewrite the homeowner CC&Rs for the yet-to-be-completed Golf Course Estates at Aspen Lakes, stating intentions for a future resort that would absorb the development.(5)
1994: KMB Enterprises files for bankruptcy, the first of two bankruptcies related to the Aspen Lakes lands.
1995: The Cyruses obtain new financing for the Golf Course Estates at Aspen Lakes. Construction resumes on the 18-hole golf course and lots are sold at Golf Course Estates.
1996: The Cyruses attempt to swap 150 acres of Rim Open Space designated in the 1989 Conditional Use permit to the County for land adjoining the Cyrus farm about a mile and a half away. This bid to trade away the Rim's designated open space is successfully fought by Rim homeowners.
The Cyruses submit a revised plan for completing the Golf Course Estates at Aspen Lakes subdivision to the county.
1997: Deschutes County approves the revised Golf Course Estates plan, but requires an open space management plan and deed restrictions to be submitted.
Deschutes County approves the building of “temporary clubhouse facilities”, including cart storage, temporary office building and parking area.
Wishing to build houses on some of the permanent required open space, the Cyruses appeal the open space requirements, first to a hearings officer and then to the County Commissioners.
1998: The Cyrus plans for building on the open space are denied by a county hearings officer. But the developers appeal this decision to the Board of County Commissioners. Over the next seven months, the terms of the management plan for Golf Course Estates are rewritten by the Cyruses and accepted by the County. The developers claim this document opens opportunities to avoid the terms of CU89-70 by not completing all five phase of the cluster development, or (ii) by changing the land use laws applying to it. (1998 Golf Course Estates Open Space Management Plan)
2002: Aspen Lakes Golf Course LLC secures a permit from the county to make the "temporary clubhouse facilities" from 1997 permanent. The clubhouse is a 14,109 square foot building including parking for 180 and "retail, food services, and office uses."
2005: Seeking to capitalize on Measure 37 which briefly rolled back state planning restrictions, the Cyrus family files a Measure 37 claim on all of their Exclusive Farm Use properties within Deschutes County. Their claims demand the County allow rural residential five-acre homesites on their EFU zoned lands, or pay $29.5 million plus attorneys' fees if their claims are disallowed. The County Commission gives the green light to allow development, but this decision is appealed by neighboring property owners in court. Ultimately, the passage of Measure 49, which gutted much of Measure 37, led to the denial of the Cyrus's effort to convert farmland to homesites on their EFU lands.
Meanwhile, the Cyruses plan to convert the Aspen Lakes cluster development to a destination resort with “much higher density than RR-10 zone.” Plans including increasing home sites from 144 to more than 400. The resort plans also include a 150-room hotel and man- made lakes and streams sited on the Golf Course Estates open space. [Proposed Destination Resort with Aspen Lakes subdivisions]
2007: The commercial uses at Golf Course Estates expand again, with the opening of the retail golf shop and restaurant. Weddings begin to be held on the site, another commercial use prohibited by the original cluster development permit.
The Cyrus developers submit a request for a Deschutes County text amendment (TA 07-7), to change county code and allow them to convert the Aspen Lakes cluster development housing subdivisions to a destination resort. The proposed changes included loosening setback requirements, allowing larger lot sizes, removing the requirement to build overnight lodging first as a condition of development, and other provisions.
2008: The Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation & Development states this proposal would be counter to Goal 8 and ORS 197-445 [Cluster developments can't be converted to Resorts]. Deschutes County, recognizing that a county may not exempt a developer from state resort rules, denies the Cyrus' text amendment, firmly establishing that cluster developments may not convert to resorts.
2009: The Cyruses attempt an unsuccessful legislative proposal for Transferable Development Credits, which would have given exclusive exemptions from resort development rules on overnight lodging, on wildlife mitigation and on open space to just two developers (including the Cyruses). In exchange, the developers would have paid into a fund for South Deschutes County sewer connection fees or system improvements.
Deschutes County initiates a resort overlay map revision, intending to make clear what land is really eligible for resorts. The County plans to remove from the map all platted subdivisions, parcels of land under 160 acres and Irrigated Farm Tracts under one owner with greater than 40 acres of contiguous irrigation.
2010: Local lobbying by the Cyruses leads to a special "Cyrus Amendment" exempting them from the new map provisions, and keeping some of their lands in the resort overlay map. According to local media, this activity includes possible conflict of interest lobbying by Planning Commissioner Keith Cyrus (see "Critics decry path to possible resort," Bend Bulletin and "New Resorts and Good Old Boys," The Source), and a violation of the spirit and possibly letter of Oregon public meeting law by county officials and Matt Cyrus ("Deschutes Officials Fail Public Again," Bend Bulletin), in order to grant the Cyrus family a special entitlement for their otherwise illegal development plans.
2011: The Cyruses default on their Aspen Lakes development payments and go through a second bankruptcy. They pursue additional legislative proposals before the state legislature calling their development plans “the Cyrus heritage farm development”. As proposed in SB 982 and HB 3372, a heritage farm development on their lands, and only their lands, would consist of over 500 homes and overnight lodging units, sited on EFU, surface mining, and additional subdivided land.
2012: The Cyruses introduce SB 1584 and the "heritage farm" becomes a "heritage guest ranch", authorizing development of resort-style amenities by owner of heritage guest ranch. The bill again exempts development from specified provisions of land use planning statutes, statewide land use planning goals and acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations in order grant the Cyrus family a special entitlement for their otherwise illegal development plans.
2013: The Cyruses push for two more pieces of legislation. HB 3536, another "Heritage guest ranch" bill, seeking to contort the provisions of the 2009 Metolius TDOs to fit their project. Materials distributed to legislators misrepresent threats to the Metolius in order to justify such a ‘transfer’ of development opportunities.
Multiple agencies weigh in with concerns about the special exemptions to be granted to the developer. Of HB 3536, the state Department of Land Conservation and Development states, "Under this bill all local codes and comprehensive plans, as well as state statutes, planning goals, and rules which would otherwise apply to this development are waived." [DLCD letter re:HB 3536], The Oregon Water Resources Dept. stated concerns that the proposal would require issuance of a new water permit whether or not the water was available under the Deschutes Mitigation Plan water allocation cap. [OWRD letter re HB 3536] It would grant the Cyrus family exclusive authority to build 480 plus homes, an RV Park, security facilities, roads, utilities, and unspecified other ‘recreational’ facilities.
At the request of the Cyrus developers, Rep. John Huffman and DLCD convene a "work group" in Sisters to develop legislation for 2014, creating yet another special pathway for this one developer. The proposal centers on using a "transfer of development opportunity" from a failed Metolius resort proposal from 2009 as a way to create a resort on Cyrus lands. The work group is initially comprised of three developers, one realtor and state agency officials. No public notice is given for the first meeting, but 30-40 concerned Sisters residents attend and demand a voice. This was the genesis of OLAWA.
Footnotes
(1) ORS 197.445. Destination Resorts are “to satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens and visitors” and are themselves considered a “recreational facility”. OAR 660-015-0000(8).
(2) Limited Commercial Development including a pro shop, snack shop, and horse corrals are also approved by Deschutes County though the County requires additional approval for any other commercial development.
(3) County file 1-784, 12/17/91
(4) This county resort map includes many land use zones that are off limits for resort development--residential subdivisions, and the city of Bend's sewage treatment plant, for examples. The map also includes the two Aspen Lakes subdivisions and other Cyrus lands in Sisters. Many landowners come to believe that simply being in the map means a resort could be built on their property. In fact, "Lands that are shown on a county Destination Resort Eligible Lands Map are simply eligible for approval of a destination resort. Including a site on the Destination Resort Eligible Lands Map carries with it no guarantee that a destination resort can be approved on the site."
(5) Confusingly, these CC&Rs are titled “Aspen Lakes,” and attempt to include the Rim's designated Open Space (Tracts A and B), though nearly all lots in the latter have been sold to the public, and the Rim is a completed subdivision governed by a formal Homeowner's Assn., not the original developer. The new document also requires buyers at Golf Course Estates not to oppose future plans to annex the property into a resort or convert it to a resort. (Despite this attempt to override the Rim's 1990 original CC&Rs, along with the 1992 Deed Restrictions on the meadow open space, the original Rim CC&Rs continue to be the document of record, as evidenced by title company reports as recent as June 2013.
1988: KMB Enterprises and Sisters Aggregate and Construction (both Cyrus family partnerships) purchase 1084 acres known as Wild Horse Plains and Wild Horse Meadows in rural Sisters. Rules and laws in place at the time of purchase, just as today, do not allow for the building of a Destination Resort on these lands.
The Cyruses obtain permission from the county (CU-88-77) to build a golf course on the land. They also apply to build an RV park on the property, and mine 150,000 cubic yards of gravel (about 15,000 truckloads) from the flood plain of Whychus Creek. Plans for the RV Park and mining operation are both rejected by the County.
1989: Deschutes County approves the developers' plan for a cluster development on the Wild Horse purchased lands, with 65% of the land to be protected as open space (see document 89-70 here). The permit also states, “No part of the open space of the proposed development will be subject to further development.” The County Zoning statute at the time also states that no commercial or industrial uses are permitted in cluster developments.
Two subdivisions are platted: The Rim at Aspen Lakes for 19 lots plus designated open space; and Golf Course Estates at Aspen Lakes for 125 lots with a previously approved golf course counting toward open space requirements.(2)
1990: Nearly all the lots in the Rim subdivision are sold, the water system is built, and CC&R’s are filed for both subdivisions. These CC&Rs make no mention of future plans for a destination resort.
1991: Deschutes County writes regarding the Rim that, "...the open space associated with TP 89-712 could not be counted toward open space requirements for any other development not included in the cluster development covered by TP 89-712." (3]
1992: The Cyruses drop an appeal to LCDC over the creek mining decision. They sign a required cluster development open space Deed and Land Use Restriction written by the County defining activities that will be allowed on the Rim open space. This document requires the lands to remain in open space pursuant to County ordinances in perpetuity, with the only exception being if the lands are brought within an urban growth boundary.
Building permits are issued for the Rim at Aspen Lakes development.
Deschutes County creates its destination resort overlay map, including almost the entire county in it. (4)
1993: Although there has never been a legal county process for converting from a cluster development to a resort, the Cyruses rewrite the homeowner CC&Rs for the yet-to-be-completed Golf Course Estates at Aspen Lakes, stating intentions for a future resort that would absorb the development.(5)
1994: KMB Enterprises files for bankruptcy, the first of two bankruptcies related to the Aspen Lakes lands.
1995: The Cyruses obtain new financing for the Golf Course Estates at Aspen Lakes. Construction resumes on the 18-hole golf course and lots are sold at Golf Course Estates.
1996: The Cyruses attempt to swap 150 acres of Rim Open Space designated in the 1989 Conditional Use permit to the County for land adjoining the Cyrus farm about a mile and a half away. This bid to trade away the Rim's designated open space is successfully fought by Rim homeowners.
The Cyruses submit a revised plan for completing the Golf Course Estates at Aspen Lakes subdivision to the county.
1997: Deschutes County approves the revised Golf Course Estates plan, but requires an open space management plan and deed restrictions to be submitted.
Deschutes County approves the building of “temporary clubhouse facilities”, including cart storage, temporary office building and parking area.
Wishing to build houses on some of the permanent required open space, the Cyruses appeal the open space requirements, first to a hearings officer and then to the County Commissioners.
1998: The Cyrus plans for building on the open space are denied by a county hearings officer. But the developers appeal this decision to the Board of County Commissioners. Over the next seven months, the terms of the management plan for Golf Course Estates are rewritten by the Cyruses and accepted by the County. The developers claim this document opens opportunities to avoid the terms of CU89-70 by not completing all five phase of the cluster development, or (ii) by changing the land use laws applying to it. (1998 Golf Course Estates Open Space Management Plan)
2002: Aspen Lakes Golf Course LLC secures a permit from the county to make the "temporary clubhouse facilities" from 1997 permanent. The clubhouse is a 14,109 square foot building including parking for 180 and "retail, food services, and office uses."
2005: Seeking to capitalize on Measure 37 which briefly rolled back state planning restrictions, the Cyrus family files a Measure 37 claim on all of their Exclusive Farm Use properties within Deschutes County. Their claims demand the County allow rural residential five-acre homesites on their EFU zoned lands, or pay $29.5 million plus attorneys' fees if their claims are disallowed. The County Commission gives the green light to allow development, but this decision is appealed by neighboring property owners in court. Ultimately, the passage of Measure 49, which gutted much of Measure 37, led to the denial of the Cyrus's effort to convert farmland to homesites on their EFU lands.
Meanwhile, the Cyruses plan to convert the Aspen Lakes cluster development to a destination resort with “much higher density than RR-10 zone.” Plans including increasing home sites from 144 to more than 400. The resort plans also include a 150-room hotel and man- made lakes and streams sited on the Golf Course Estates open space. [Proposed Destination Resort with Aspen Lakes subdivisions]
2007: The commercial uses at Golf Course Estates expand again, with the opening of the retail golf shop and restaurant. Weddings begin to be held on the site, another commercial use prohibited by the original cluster development permit.
The Cyrus developers submit a request for a Deschutes County text amendment (TA 07-7), to change county code and allow them to convert the Aspen Lakes cluster development housing subdivisions to a destination resort. The proposed changes included loosening setback requirements, allowing larger lot sizes, removing the requirement to build overnight lodging first as a condition of development, and other provisions.
2008: The Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation & Development states this proposal would be counter to Goal 8 and ORS 197-445 [Cluster developments can't be converted to Resorts]. Deschutes County, recognizing that a county may not exempt a developer from state resort rules, denies the Cyrus' text amendment, firmly establishing that cluster developments may not convert to resorts.
2009: The Cyruses attempt an unsuccessful legislative proposal for Transferable Development Credits, which would have given exclusive exemptions from resort development rules on overnight lodging, on wildlife mitigation and on open space to just two developers (including the Cyruses). In exchange, the developers would have paid into a fund for South Deschutes County sewer connection fees or system improvements.
Deschutes County initiates a resort overlay map revision, intending to make clear what land is really eligible for resorts. The County plans to remove from the map all platted subdivisions, parcels of land under 160 acres and Irrigated Farm Tracts under one owner with greater than 40 acres of contiguous irrigation.
2010: Local lobbying by the Cyruses leads to a special "Cyrus Amendment" exempting them from the new map provisions, and keeping some of their lands in the resort overlay map. According to local media, this activity includes possible conflict of interest lobbying by Planning Commissioner Keith Cyrus (see "Critics decry path to possible resort," Bend Bulletin and "New Resorts and Good Old Boys," The Source), and a violation of the spirit and possibly letter of Oregon public meeting law by county officials and Matt Cyrus ("Deschutes Officials Fail Public Again," Bend Bulletin), in order to grant the Cyrus family a special entitlement for their otherwise illegal development plans.
2011: The Cyruses default on their Aspen Lakes development payments and go through a second bankruptcy. They pursue additional legislative proposals before the state legislature calling their development plans “the Cyrus heritage farm development”. As proposed in SB 982 and HB 3372, a heritage farm development on their lands, and only their lands, would consist of over 500 homes and overnight lodging units, sited on EFU, surface mining, and additional subdivided land.
2012: The Cyruses introduce SB 1584 and the "heritage farm" becomes a "heritage guest ranch", authorizing development of resort-style amenities by owner of heritage guest ranch. The bill again exempts development from specified provisions of land use planning statutes, statewide land use planning goals and acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations in order grant the Cyrus family a special entitlement for their otherwise illegal development plans.
2013: The Cyruses push for two more pieces of legislation. HB 3536, another "Heritage guest ranch" bill, seeking to contort the provisions of the 2009 Metolius TDOs to fit their project. Materials distributed to legislators misrepresent threats to the Metolius in order to justify such a ‘transfer’ of development opportunities.
Multiple agencies weigh in with concerns about the special exemptions to be granted to the developer. Of HB 3536, the state Department of Land Conservation and Development states, "Under this bill all local codes and comprehensive plans, as well as state statutes, planning goals, and rules which would otherwise apply to this development are waived." [DLCD letter re:HB 3536], The Oregon Water Resources Dept. stated concerns that the proposal would require issuance of a new water permit whether or not the water was available under the Deschutes Mitigation Plan water allocation cap. [OWRD letter re HB 3536] It would grant the Cyrus family exclusive authority to build 480 plus homes, an RV Park, security facilities, roads, utilities, and unspecified other ‘recreational’ facilities.
At the request of the Cyrus developers, Rep. John Huffman and DLCD convene a "work group" in Sisters to develop legislation for 2014, creating yet another special pathway for this one developer. The proposal centers on using a "transfer of development opportunity" from a failed Metolius resort proposal from 2009 as a way to create a resort on Cyrus lands. The work group is initially comprised of three developers, one realtor and state agency officials. No public notice is given for the first meeting, but 30-40 concerned Sisters residents attend and demand a voice. This was the genesis of OLAWA.
Footnotes
(1) ORS 197.445. Destination Resorts are “to satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens and visitors” and are themselves considered a “recreational facility”. OAR 660-015-0000(8).
(2) Limited Commercial Development including a pro shop, snack shop, and horse corrals are also approved by Deschutes County though the County requires additional approval for any other commercial development.
(3) County file 1-784, 12/17/91
(4) This county resort map includes many land use zones that are off limits for resort development--residential subdivisions, and the city of Bend's sewage treatment plant, for examples. The map also includes the two Aspen Lakes subdivisions and other Cyrus lands in Sisters. Many landowners come to believe that simply being in the map means a resort could be built on their property. In fact, "Lands that are shown on a county Destination Resort Eligible Lands Map are simply eligible for approval of a destination resort. Including a site on the Destination Resort Eligible Lands Map carries with it no guarantee that a destination resort can be approved on the site."
(5) Confusingly, these CC&Rs are titled “Aspen Lakes,” and attempt to include the Rim's designated Open Space (Tracts A and B), though nearly all lots in the latter have been sold to the public, and the Rim is a completed subdivision governed by a formal Homeowner's Assn., not the original developer. The new document also requires buyers at Golf Course Estates not to oppose future plans to annex the property into a resort or convert it to a resort. (Despite this attempt to override the Rim's 1990 original CC&Rs, along with the 1992 Deed Restrictions on the meadow open space, the original Rim CC&Rs continue to be the document of record, as evidenced by title company reports as recent as June 2013.
Help out |
Support our work. Learn more here.
|