Guest Ranch before county

David Herman's plans to build a guest ranch on 155 acres he purchased along Indian Ford Road is being opposed by neighbors. A public hearing on the request concluded May 7 before county hearings officer Lori Kliewer.

The proposal includes 10 proposed cabins from 800 to 1,000 square feet, a lodge/kitchen building, an ice rink, tennis courts and swimming pool, according to county staff.

Neighbors claim that commercial use will "ruin the neighborhood," which is currently made up of expensive homes and hobby ranches.

Last year Herman said if his project is approved, he hoped to build a 12,000 square foot guest ranch/event center in trees on the property which would be used for events like weddings, corporate retreats, and special occasions.

The project may have been modified as it moved through the county hearings process, but the total square footage of cabins and lodge remains at 12,000 square feet, according to the staff report.

According to the staff report the key issue is whether the property, purchased by Herman from the heirs of Charles and Ibby Whiteside, who bought the ranch in 1949, is a "livestock operation."

According to county zoning ordinances, a guest ranch "may be established in conjunction with an existing livestock operation that qualifies as a farm use... (a facility) incidental and accessory to an existing and continuing livestock operation..."

Witnesses on behalf of Herman testified that cattle had been pastured on the property since Herman purchased it. Herman lawyer Liz Fancher testified that the property had been used for grazing for decades.

The county staff report said the property is "part of an overall larger ranch operation that the applicant conducts, which includes other properties under the control or lease of the applicants company."

Herman, who lives in Portland, also owns the Lazy Z ranch and other properties in the Sisters area and around the state.

Asked after the meeting if there is a difference between a livestock operation and a pasture, Fancher said a livestock operation "is a use" under county law and a pasture is not, though a pasture is used by a livestock operation.

In opposition, neighbor Lei Durdan argued that the intent of the legislature in allowing guest ranches was to allow ranchers to have a "sideline business" to supplement their income, "not to allow someone to acquire EFU property and install a guest ranch that would dominate."

Durdan's lawyer, Chris Eck, suggested that Herman "did not acquire this small, unproductive property ... for $1.5 million..." to run a few head of cattle, that it was instead part of a plan to develop the property for commercial use.

Herman's lawyer Fancher countered that the "intent of the law is that the property be a ranch; this has been a ranch ... the guest ranch will be on a small part of the property, the cattle operation will be on the larger part."

County planning staff concluded that the property consisted of an existing "livestock operation" during the months of April through November, with the property being rested the rest of the year.

The meeting was continued until May 14 for additional written testimony, with Herman having until May 21 for "the last word," according to hearings officer Lori Kliewer.