Umatilla County commissioners uphold denial of Garton—s land‑division request over wetland concerns

UMATILLA COUNTY, Ore. — The Umatilla County Board of Commissioners on Wednesday upheld the county planning commission—s decision to deny an appeal by Calvin B. Garton to split a property near Pleasant View into three parcels, saying the record shows likely wetland areas and the applicant did not provide a required wetland delineation.

Bob Walder, the county—s community development director, told the board during a public hearing that staff found the proposed parcel configuration did not show adequate buildable area after required setbacks and that desktop resources — including the National Wetlands Inventory and county soil surveys — indicate water features or hydric soils on the site. Walder said state Department of State Lands staff advised the county that a qualified wetland professional should prepare a delineation and that the county had added that agency—s response to the project record.

Garton, who identified himself as the property owner and an applicant, disputed the mapping and said he had walked and staked the high‑water mark and submitted aerial photos and field measurements. He told the board the two lots he is asking to sell this year would support standard septic systems and that prior DEQ septic tests and soil probes on the site showed "standard" results. "I can put standard drain fields on both of these first two lots," Garton said.

Garton also criticized county staff and planning procedures, saying a planner had "absolute authority" and that the required configuration reduced his property value. "A lot is worth a $100,000 there... She wants to steal a $100,000 from me," he said during his testimony.

County staff and a commissioner countered that desktop mapping is not definitive and that the only way to be certain where wetlands are located is a field delineation by a qualified professional. Walder explained the three criteria used in field delineations — hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology — and noted that National Wetlands Inventory mapping was digitized decades ago and can be inaccurate in the field.

The property in question is shown in the record with proposed parcel sizes of roughly 2.06 acres, 2.02 acres and 4.02 acres. Planning staff described the application history in detail: the applicant submitted the type‑2 land division request in March 2024; staff issued completeness letters asking for additional information, including a wetland delineation; DSL responded in April indicating likely additional wetlands and recommending a professional delineation; the planning commission held an evidentiary hearing Sept. 26 and voted unanimously to deny the request; and the applicant then appealed to the board of commissioners.

During the hearing, county staff and the board explained options available to Garton: he may withdraw and reapply if he wants to propose a different partition configuration or proceed to appeal the denial to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Garton said he planned to appeal the board—s decision.

A commissioner moved to uphold the planning commission and planning division—s findings and deny the partition request; the motion received a second and passed on a voice vote. The board—s decision to uphold the denial is final for county review and may be appealed to LUBA.

The hearing record and staff materials included a Department of State Lands wetland notification response, a county soil survey, and environmental health reports noting local soil conditions. The board closed the hearing and adjourned immediately after the vote.