Oregon City agrees to mediate neighbors—dispute over state-funded group home in Ainsworth Estates

Oregon City commissioners on Tuesday directed the city manager to begin mediation between Ainsworth Estates homeowners, the state and the builder over a proposed five-resident group home on Lot 9, after hours of neighbor testimony about traffic, parking and whether the project complied with subdivision covenants and local historic-review procedures.

The move came after residents said the state purchased Lot 9 in March and submitted plans later in April; neighbors said they were told by some staff and consultants that the state's design would not be subject to the neighborhood's architectural or historic review. "We were told that it would have to meet all of our CCRs, it would have to follow all the city codes and that, we would be notified and we would have a say," resident Charlene Warnock told the commission. "You all knew, yet you proceeded with the project anyway."

Neighbors and homeowner representatives described multiple concerns beyond building appearance: narrow lot frontage (neighbors cited roughly 29 feet of street frontage), vehicle and staff parking, where a transport vehicle or bus would be stored, and the safety of a narrow walking route to nearby transit. Mary Anne Winchester, a title officer and neighborhood committee member, told commissioners the deed of trust for the lot says the purchaser must "abide by the CC and Rs," and questioned whether the state's ownership structure and the deed terms were inconsistent with the subdivision rules.

Speakers also emphasized that many homes in the subdivision underwent a staff-level historic-review process before permits were issued; several residents said the state project had not gone through the same reviews. "We were told the plans were signed off by our CC and R's," Matt Warnock said. "At first there was a question on the existence of the ordinance, but our attorneys confirmed its adoption in the recording by the city." Others who spoke, including homeowners who previously built under the historic-review rules, said the proposed building appears larger than other homes and lacks on-site garage parking.

City staff and the city attorney explained some of the limits of land-use authority in this context: residential facilities for five or fewer are treated as single-family residences for zoning purposes under state rules cited in the meeting, which narrows some of the city's discretion to impose additional land-use limits. City staff also advised that the historic-review procedures are embedded in the subdivision's CC&Rs and that covenant enforcement is typically a private matter for homeowners, though the city may have narrow legal theories to act in some situations.

After public testimony, Commissioner Aleck moved and Commissioner Holliday seconded a motion instructing the city manager to begin mediation among the homeowners of Ainsworth Estates, the developer/builder and the state to try to resolve the issues raised by residents. The motion passed on roll call. Separately, commissioners asked the city manager to request from Clackamas County a listing of all licensed residential facilities for five or fewer people in the county to assess whether Oregon City hosts a disproportionate share of such placements.

The commission recessed to executive session for legal advice during the item and returned to take the mediation direction and the county data request.

What happens next: The city manager will schedule and convene mediation among the parties and report back to the commission; the city will also request county data on small residential facilities and provide it to the commission when available.