Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Records Parcels topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident says county clerical error left family unable to build on Shady Oak property
Summary
A Monroe resident told the Benton County commissioners a 2006 partition error produced two deeds sold separately in 2023, leaving the speaker and another buyer unable to build. The speaker requested a county meeting and cited Oregon Revised Statute 92.176 as a potential remedy.
Chris Perry, a resident of Monroe, told the Benton County Board of Commissioners on Jan. 7 that a 2006 unlawful partition created two units of land at 2600–360 Shady Oak Drive that were later sold as separate deeds in 2023 and that the division ‘‘did not meet the minimum lot size requirement’’ and lacked road frontage for one parcel.
Perry said he and a co-purchaser did a pre-development meeting with Benton County planning before buying and were told the parcel was buildable. He told commissioners the planning department ‘‘was evidently wrong, did not have all the facts.’’ He said the county later characterized the matter as a civil dispute, which he argued left two landowners pitted against one another.
Perry told the board the family has spent ‘‘an excess of $25,000’’ on survey and attorney fees and said the situation has left them living in a camper while they wait for a resolution. He asked whether county departments had met to find a solution and requested a county meeting to address what he described as a clerical mistake from February 2006.
Perry also noted a possible statutory remedy and cited Oregon Revised Statute 92.176, ‘‘validation of unit of land not lawfully established,’’ and said he believed the family satisfied the section’s conditions and asked whether the county could use that process to validate the unit. He said, ‘‘We really don't understand why we are bearing the brunt from mistakes made in the past in a situation we did not cause.’’
The speaker concluded by saying their remaining option could be to file a judicial partition, which would force sale of the entire property and could leave a second homeowner displaced.
No formal action was recorded on the record in response to Perry’s request; the minutes show public comment concluded and the meeting proceeded to the consent calendar.
Ending: The board did not record a formal response or a motion to convene a staff meeting during the remainder of the Jan. 7 agenda. Perry left contact information on the record and requested follow-up.
