Who are Friends of Linn County?

Friends of Linn County (FOLC) is a nonprofit charitable organization working to preserve, protect and enhance the function and economic vitality of Linn County’s farms, forests, towns, and cities.

FOLC helps people to participate effectively in local land use decisions to further the values so eloquently voiced by Aldo Leopold:

All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. . . . The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.

Our work informs and educates the public and public officials about the relation of land use to broader environmental and societal issues, including climate change and peak oil. We work to expand the scope and increase the effectiveness of land use laws and to see that they are fully and consistently applied and enforced. We work to protect and preserve rural communities, economies and ecosystems and advocate for urban communities that are diverse, healthy, pleasing, and energy efficient - while meeting the needs of all people, equitably.

FOLC envisions an educated, informed, and empowered citizenry actively involved in creating self-reliant, resilient, and ecological sustainable communities and economies. We work for a vibrant and ecologically aware participatory democracy.

For help with a land use issue in your neighborhood or community, please contact us.

Current Issues

Linn County RV Park

Linn County is proposing to develop an RV park on 175 acres of farm land located at the southwest corner of Highway 34 and Seven Mile Lane at the I-5 interchange. The land is zoned EFU and has historically been used for grass seed production.

Linn County paid $1,250,000 - over $7,000 an acre - for the Roth property. The money was “borrowed” from the county’s road fund. For comparison, a nearby piece of comparable farmland recently sold for $5,000/acre.

According to the plans, 90 acres of the property would be developed with 196 RV sites. There would also be restrooms with shower facilities and other amenities.

The Seven Mile Lane/Highway 34 intersection, through which the RV park would be accessed, is already failing to meet state and local mobility standards and is designated a “Safety Priority Index System” crash site.

Converting precious farm land to a nonfarm use - and especially by Linn County itself - is a bad thing to do as a matter of policy. As a matter of law, FOLC believes that approval of the proposed RV park  requires an exception to statewide planning Goal 3 and Goal 4 and findings of compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060).

The initial public hearing was held on April 8, 2008, continued to May 13, continued again to October 14, continued again to January 13, and then continued once again until April 14, while negotiations between Linn County and ODOT continue.

UPDATE 6/2/09: The Planning Commission hearing was held on May 12, 2009, 7:00, at the Old Armory Building in Albany. Final sign-off by ODOT had not yet been obtained, but county roadmaster Darrin Lane expects eventual ODOT approval of a signal at the Seven Mile Lane/Hwy 34 intersection - traffic generated by full build-out of the park (including the RV park) would satisfy signal warrants. The Planning Commission heard testimony on all issues from all comers, including citizens protesting the loss of farm land and owners of private RV parks complaining competition from a county-run RV park would put them all out of business. FOLC submitted this letter.

The Planning Commission gave up trying to squelch any testimony other that that addressing traffic, drainage, and compatibility issues.  FOLC submitted a memo to the Planning Commission on the issue of the proper scope of the hearing. That memo is available here.

The Planning Commission closed the hearing and will deliberate to a decision on June 9.

FOLC will continue to work with the Linn County Farm Bureau and other concerned citizens to stop this project. It should be obvious to everyone - even our county commissioners - that investing public funds in an RV park when we are facing peak oil, a financial crisis, and the need to ensure food security is as foolhardy as can be.

Accessory farm dwellings

State law authorizes accessory farm dwellings - additional dwellings for farm help - as a “use allowed by right” if they are necessary for the farm operation. As long as the additional dwellings are on the same property as the primary dwelling, they may be permanent, stick-build homes (if the accessory dwelling is on a separate lot or parcel, it must be a manufactured dwelling and must be removed if the lot or parcel is sold).

Linn County has historically treated accessory farm dwellings as conditional uses rather than “outright” uses. In the 1980s and 1990s, the county required that they be manufactured dwellings and often imposed conditions of approval, including removal of the dwelling, going beyond the requirements of state law. However, regarding uses allowed “outright” under ORS 215.283(1), counties may not be more restrictive than state law. Brentmar v. Jackson County, 321 Or 481 (1995). Linn County continues to enforce its more restrictive policies.

FOLC believes that Oregon’s land use laws make it too difficult for farmers to get dwellings while making it far too easy for commuters to get dwellings on farm and forest land. Linn County’s practices impose a hardship on farmers who depend on farm help for their operations. Farmers are forced to spend time and money defending their rights that they would much rather spend working their fields, providing food for our communities and contributing to our farm economy.

FOLC is working to change these Linn County practices and to prompt the county to amend its land use code to be consistent with state law.

To that end, FOLC has appealed to the Planning Commission the Planning Department approval of PD08-0181, Cox, which requested reauthorization of an existing accessory farm dwelling.  The accessory dwelling is sited on the same parcel as the primary dwelling. Under state law, the accessory dwelling is a permanent dwelling and no reauthorization is required.

While the county approved the request to reauthorize the dwelling, we believe the county exceeded its authority in making any decision at all. Instead of making Mr. Cox pay a filing fee and obtain county approval, the county should have simply told him no county review or approval was necessary.

FOLC’s letter of appeal is available here.

At a hearing on January 13, 2009, the Planning Commission denied FOLC’s appeal and affirmed the Planning Department’s approval of the accessory farm dwelling - as expected.

FOLC appealed the Planning Commission decision to the Board of Commissioners. The hearing was held on February 18, 10:00 at the county courthouse in Albany. At the hearing, FOLC pointed out that the county’s policy is more restrictive than required or allowed by state law. Why would the Board not want to revise the Planning Department’s decision and bring Planning Department policies up to date and into conformance with the law? FOLC’s written testimony presented to the Board of Commissioners is available here.

The hearing was continued until February 25, 2009, 10:30, at which time the Board denied FOLC’s appeal and approved the application as submitted and processed.

An appeal has been filed with the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The NITA is available here.

The Petition for Review has been filed and is available here.

Oral argument is scheduled for June 1, 9:00, at LUBA’s offices in Salem.

The county and intervenor Cox have filed statements that they will not be submitting briefs or participating in oral arguments.

Property line adjustments

To ensure that farm and forest land is preserved for forest use, state law generally requires that counties establish minimum lot sizes of 80 acres in farm and forest zones. Counties cannot allow land divisions that result in substandard lots or parcels.

In a 2007 decision, the Oregon Court of Appeals held that counties could not approve property line adjustments that resulted in parcels smaller than the minimum size established for the zone, even if the parcels involved were already smaller than the minimum. Phillips v. Polk County, 213 Or App 498, 162 P3d 338 (2007); see also Fenn v. Douglas County, __ Or LUBA __ (LUBA No. 2007-175, 03/03/2008).

The legislature in 2008 passed HB 3629, which authorizes counties to approve property line adjustments which reduce the size of a parcel below the minimum size in the applicable zone or which further reduce in size an already substandard parcel, under specified circumstances. An adjustment then may be allowed if both properties were initially smaller than the minimum size of the applicable zone; or, if one met the minimum size requirement and the other did not, at least one resulting property meets the minimum standard of the applicable zone.

The Linn County Planning Department in October 2008 approved PD08-0203, Lynch, a property line adjustment that would increase the size of an RR-5 parcel from 0.99 to 1.99 acres and decrease the size of a F/F parcel from 56.86 to 55.86 acres.  The resulting 1.99-acre parcel would be split-zoned F/F and RR-5.

The Linn County Planning Department approved a property line adjustment that would result in two rather than one parcels in the F/F zone. The 56.86-acre property would be reduced in size to 55.86 acres. A new 1.99-acre unit of land would be created, split-zoned F/F and RR. That unit of land is also smaller than the minimum size of the F/F zone. As a result, one acre of resource land would effectively be removed from resource use.

FOLC’s written testimony is available here.

FOLC believes the property line adjustment approved by the county does not comply with HB 3629 and that county code provisions allowing such property line adjustments do not comply with state law. FOLC’s desired outcome is for the county to amend its Development Code to bring it into compliance with state law.

FOLC appealed the Planning Department decision to the Planning Commission. At the hearing on Tuesday evening, December 9, the Planning Commission upheld the Planning Department’s decision and approved the application.

FOLC appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to the Board of Commissioners. The hearing, originally scheduled for January 14, 2009, was then rescheduled for June 3, 10:00, in the Board of Commissioners meeting room at the courthouse on 4th Street in Albany.

In an unexpected development, the Board of Commissioners took it upon themselves at their meeting on January 14 to deny the requested continuance and approve the property line adjustment, despite the fact that none of the parties were present at the hearing because a continuance had been agreed upon.

FOLC has appealing the Board of Commissioner’s decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals.  The Notice of Intent to Appeal is available here. The Petition for Review is available here.

Oral arguments were heard on May 14. A decision is expected to be released between June 4 and June 11.

Morris “nonresource” rezoning

Robert Morris has submitted an application (BC09-0004) requesting plan map and zoning map amendments to change the zoning of a 15 -acre property from Farm/Forest to Non-Resource (NR-5) with a five-acre minimum parcel size. One home site would be an allowed use on each NR-5 zoned lot or parcel.

The property is located near the intersection of Rock Hill Drive and South Fifth Road,on the south side of Rock Hill Drive, about one mile south of the City of Lebanon.

The applicant will have to prove that the land is not agricultural land protected by statewide planning Goal 3 or forest land protected by Goal 4. While the soils are not predominantly class I-IV, the applicant still has to explain why the land is not otherwise suitable for farm use. To prove that the land is not forest land, the applicant has to explain why the land won’t grow trees.

FOLC believes that the applicant has not adequately addressed the criteria found in administrative rules. Other properties in the area with similar soils are being farmed. NRCS and other published soils data show that the soils will support trees.

County staff is recommending approval. The Staff Report is available here.

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 14 and recommended approval of the plan amendment and rezoning request.  The letter FOLC submitted is available here.

At the hearing before the Board of Commissioners on May 6, the Board of Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the application.

The Notice of Adoption was signed and mailed on May 29, 2009. FOLC will be appealling the county’s decision to LUBA.