Lane County commissioners deny petition to vacate portion of 5th Street near Glenada

Lane County commissioners voted 4-1 on Jan. 14 to approve Order 2501-1408 and deny a petition to vacate a 60-foot-wide, 142-foot-long segment of 5th Street dedicated for public use in Section 35, Township 18 South, Range 12 West of the Willamette Meridian.

The petition, filed by two property owners described in staff materials as “the Nobles,” asked the county to vacate an unimproved right-of-way that abuts the petitioners’ land. Michael Blum, Lane County surveyor, told the board that the right-of-way “has never been improved for vehicular access” and that the parcel to be vacated is bounded on the north and south by the petitioners’ properties. Blum said the surveyor’s office complied with legal notice requirements under ORS chapter 368 and that a neighboring property owner, Julia Hess, filed an objection asking the board to preserve the right-of-way because she plans future development.

The board’s action followed staff recommendations. A staff member identified in the hearing as Mr. Early recommended denying the vacation unless there would be “no potential harm to other property owners or the public,” saying the petition “would only benefit one property owner and has the potential to cause harm” to nearby parcels. Dan Hurley, Lane County public works director, signed a written recommendation aligned with staff’s denial.

Why it matters: preserving the unimproved right-of-way keeps public access options open for neighboring parcels and for potential future land-use applications. Opponents argued vacating the strip now could cut off the only feasible, lower-cost access route for future development and for emergency access, while supporters of vacation said the right-of-way had been used informally and offered little public benefit.

Board discussion and testimony focused on current use, possible future development, and alternatives for access. Blum and staff told commissioners that Land Management Division staff had received a conceptual layout for a proposed development the objecting owner called the Sunbeam Forest Community, a 24-lot plan with small log cabins, but that Land Management had not received a complete land-use application as of the morning of the hearing. Staff also reported a property-line-adjustment application had been submitted for the parcel but was on hold pending further information. Blum said that any future uses would be subject to the rural residential zone provisions in Lane Code chapter 16 and other applicable code chapters.

Julia Hess, who identified herself as the owner of the yellow-highlighted parcel in the staff map, urged the board to preserve the right-of-way. “I do own the property in yellow, and I do want to develop the property. I have started the development. I did turn in a request to have it developed. It is delayed due to this,” Hess said during public testimony. She told the board that the pending applications are on hold because she could not be certain she would retain west-side access if the vacation were approved.

Commissioner discussion noted that vacating the right-of-way would convey ownership to adjoining property owners to the centerline and could permanently remove a potential access route. Commissioner Farr said he would vote against denying the vacation, arguing the strip “really has no need” for the proposed subdivision and that keeping it in county jurisdiction could make the small parcel unusable if the county later improved the road. Other commissioners said denying the petition preserved options for emergency access, future planning, and equitable treatment of neighboring property owners.

The motion on the floor—approval of Order 2501-1408 to deny the requested vacation—was made and seconded; the motion passed 4-1. Commissioner Farr cast the lone no vote. The order as approved denies the petition to vacate the specified portion of 5th Street.

Next steps: The denial does not prevent the petitioners from making a subsequent request in the future. Staff told the board that a future land-use application for development on the objecting parcel could change operational needs and that the county would reassess the right-of-way if new, complete applications are filed.