Friends of Linn County
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.
Current officers are:
President: Irina Just
Vice-President: Tony Hayden
Secretary: Ken Bolf
Treasurer: Jim Monroe
Other board members are: Jan Boucot, Jim Just, Katie Kohl, and Cory Koos.
If you support our mission, please support our work and join us in being involved in our communities.
For help with a land use issue in your neighborhood or community, please contact us.
Current Issues
FOLC WINS M37 VESTING CASE
In a decision released Thursday, July 16, Circuit Court judge Glen Baisinger reversed a decision by the Linn County Board of Commissioners finding that Eugene and Viola Glender’s right to develop a 15-unit subdivision under Measure 37 had “vested.”
Friends of Linn County and neighbor John Mouillé challenged the county’s decision. They were represented by Crag Law Center attorneys Sean T. Malone and Ralph O. Bloemers.
At issue was whether “substantial costs” had been incurred toward completion of the project under the analysis set forth by the Oregon Supreme Court in Clackamas County v. Holmes, 265 Or 193 (1973). The Court found that, even at the lowest figure for construction costs, the expenses incurred by the Glenders prior to the passage of Measure 49 did not represent a substantial portion of the total project cost, including the cost of constructing the houses.
Judge Baisinger’s decision is available here.
The circuit court decision has been appealed to the Court of Appeals by both the property owner and the State of Oregon. The State appealed because they believe that none of the Glenders’ alleged expenditures should be counted towards vesting. Judge Baisinger excluded all but ~ $60,000, and the State would like to ensure that none of those expenditures would be counted. Judge Baisinger’s decision left open the possibility that some homes could be vested – but at the same time that possibility is belied by the fact that the $60,000 in expenditures would not permit any homes to be vested under the case law.
Attorney Sean Malone will be representing Friends of Linn County and John Mouillé on the appeal.
The State will be filing an opening brief on May 4th. This will be followed by a brief from the Glenders/Irvines. We, along with the state, will then file a response brief with the court. We will be trying to preserve the judgment below and the state will be trying to ensure that no expenditures from the Glenders are considered in the vested rights analysis. We will not take a position adverse to the State because if they are successful it would only put us in a better position. We will be focusing our arguments on rebutting the Irvines’ and Glenders’ attempt to overturn the court’s ruling.
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.
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.
On June 9, the Planning Commission denied the Parks Department application on a 4-3 vote. The Parks Department has appealed the denial to the Board of Commissioners. The Planning Director expects that the appeal hearing to be held in September or October.
On December 9, 2009 the Linn County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to overturn the Planning Commission’s denial and approve the application of its Parks Department to establish a park on 175 acres of farmland at the I-5/Highway 34 interchange.
The RV park is the key and most controversial element of the proposed park. Owners of several existing local, private RV parks complained vociferously that competition from a publicly operated RV park would put them out of business. While the original proposal envisioned as many as 196 RV hookups, the Board imposed a condition of approval limiting that number to a maximum of 100.
The local farm community also voiced strong opposition, arguing that farm land is irreplaceable and that farming, Linn County’s biggest industry, deserves and needs the county’s support and protection.
The Board of Commissioners has three elected members: Roger Nyquist, Will Tucker, and John Lindsey. Lindsey’s seat is up for election next November.
It should be obvious to everyone – even our county commissioners – that investing public funds in an RV park when we are facing climate change, peak oil, a financial crisis, and the need to ensure our food security is as foolhardy as can be. Come November, the voters will have a chance to voice their opinion. In the meantime, FOLC, in partnership with the Linn County Farm Bureau, area farmers, and local business people, are considering appealing the county’s decision. 1000 Friends of Oregon has expressed willingness to consider providing legal help through its Cooperating Attorney Program.
Pete Boucot, a declared candidate for Lindsey’s seat, is leading the opposition to the Board’s plans. The county borrowed over $1.25 million from its road fund to purchase the property. Boucot objects this is an inappropriate use of the county’s road funds. Boucot also points out the commissioners have been silent on how or when the road fund is to be paid back or where the funds to develop the park are to come from.
The county’s decision approving the park has been appealed to LUBA by the Linn County Farm Bureau and 18 neighboring farmers. Friends of Linn County arranged pro-bono representation through 1000 Friends of Oregon’s Cooperating Attorney Program. Petitioners are represented by attorney Jennifer Bragar of Garvey, Shubert, Barer in Portland.
Petitioner’s brief has been filed and is available here.
The Department of Land Conservation and Development asked for and received permission from the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) to file a state agency brief, available here.
The county’s response brief, prepared by attorney Todd Sadlo, is available here.
Oral arguments before the LUBA panel were held on May 20. A decision is expected by June 9.
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 has appealed the county’s decision to LUBA. The NITA is available here.
The Petition for Review has been filed and is available here. Oral arguments were held on Thursday October 8, 9:00, at LUBA’s offices in Salem.
On November 9, 2009 LUBA issued a final opinion and order remanding the county’s decision. LUBA explained:
Despite the fact that petitioner argued that OAR 660-006-0010 and 660-006-0005(2)require that the county consider the cf/ac/yr data from NRCS and despite the fact that both petitioner and planning staff provided similar cf/ac/yr figures for the property, the county’s decision does not consider, in any express way, the cubic feet per acre per year data required by OAR 660-006-0010 and 660-006-0005(2) in making its decision in this matter. Based on that failure, remand is required.
As of February 23, 2010, there’s been no word of any action on remand.
Walker exceptions to goals 3, 4, and 14
Frank Walker & Assc. filed an application is for a comprehensive plan map and zoning map amendment for a 10-acre property zoned Farm/Forest, located at the south end of Pine View Road adjacent to the city limits of Brownsville. Walker is seeking to change the zoning RR-5, which would allow for the property to be partitioned and for one additional house. Approval of the request would require an “irrevocably committed” exception to statewide planning goals 3, 4, and 14.
FOLC believes the applicant has failed to adequately explain why that uses allowed by goals 3 and 4 are impracticable on the subject property; and that he requested exception to Goal 14 cannot be approved because the subject property is not committed to urban levels of development. Even if an exception go goals 3 and 4 were to be approved, an RR-10 designation rather than the requested RR-5 designation should be applied.
A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on January 14, 2010, following which the Planning Commission recommended that the application be approved. The Board of Commissioners held a hearing on February 3, at which FOLC submitted this letter. At the hearing, the applicant relied on a 2007 Curry County case to argue that no Goal 14 exception was required. FOLC submitted this letter in response, pointing out that the applicant had misread the Curry County decision.
The Board of Commissioners will reconvene to deliberate to a decision at 10:00 on March 3.
Update: The Board of Commissioners has put off making a decision, instead asking the applicant to provide more information justifying the requested exceptions.