Clackamas planners continue rezoning hearing after staff urges denial of Goal 3 exception

The Clackamas County Planning Commission on the evening it opened public testimony on files ZO315-25-CP and ZO316-25-ZAP but continued the hearing to Feb. 23 to allow the applicant and staff time to exchange more evidence.

The application—read into the record from the hearing notice—sought a comprehensive plan map amendment to change the site’s designation from agricultural to rural and a corresponding zone change from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Farm Forest 10 (FF-10). The change would allow a minimum parcel size of 10 acres and, unlike the applicant’s original 5-acre proposal, remove the need for an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14. The applicants (who identified themselves in testimony as Mike and Mary Payton) told the commission they bought the roughly 15‑acre Sandy-area property in 2023 and want a home and modest family-scale farming uses there.

Principal planner Martha Fritze told commissioners staff received three outside comments (from 1000 Friends of Oregon, the Department of Land Conservation and Development, and county engineering) and that the two statewide-interest groups recommended denial. In her oral report, Fritze said the applicant submitted an amended request that morning to change the zoning request to FF‑10, which “eliminates the need for the Goal 14 exception,” but that the proposal still requires an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3 (agriculture). Fritze said the staff’s analysis found the application did not meet the high standard for an irrevocably committed exception to Goal 3 because it did not show adjacent uses had made farming on the subject parcel impracticable.

“On the whole, staff finds the requirements for an irrevocably committed exception to Goal 3 are still not met with the new information that was provided,” Fritze said, noting aerial photos and other evidence showing past hay production and farm uses on adjacent parcels.

The applicant’s planner and attorney disputed staff’s reading of the legal standard. Land use planner Peter Finley Frey said he and the property owners had site visits and a soils analysis showing that just under half the parcel is mapped as high‑value soils while the remainder includes lower‑value classes; he argued parcelization, nearby residential and hobby‑farm uses, traffic, and potential pesticide drift make commercial farm uses impracticable on a 15‑acre parcel. “This property cannot be farmed for commercial profit,” Frey told the commission, adding that the owners intend family‑scale farm activities that are not commercially viable without a dwelling.

Owners Mike and Mary Payton described the neighborhood as largely occupied by homes with horses and small livestock rather than active commercial farms and said they purchased the parcel believing it would support a dwelling and modest farmstead. The Paytons confirmed a recreational vehicle seen in an aerial photo is stored on the property for occasional use and said no one currently resides there.

Commissioners asked detailed questions about the state’s farm‑dwelling income rules, farm tax deferral, the vintage of aerial imagery, the soil report the applicant supplied, and the presence of an ag building permitted in 2024. Fritze replied that under EFU a dwelling is not an outright permitted use and that the common path to a dwelling on vacant EFU land is a “dwelling in conjunction with farm use” that shows qualifying farm income for two or three of the previous five years; she also reiterated that staff found adjacent parcels are engaged in farm uses, which weakens the applicant’s claim that the subject parcel is irrevocably committed to non‑farm uses.

After discussion about process, both the applicant and staff asked for time: the applicant wanted to submit additional factual material and staff requested time to review any new materials and allow opponents an opportunity to respond. Commissioner Michael Wilson moved, and Commissioner Lee seconded, to continue the public hearing to February 23 at 6:30 p.m. The motion passed on a roll‑call vote, 6–1, with Commissioner Murphy casting the lone opposed vote. The commission left the record open and instructed parties to provide materials in a timely fashion so staff could review them before the continued hearing.

The continuation means the planning commission will finalize a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners at a later date; the board will hold a de novo hearing where new evidence may again be submitted. Commissioners and staff also noted potential alternative procedural routes, including exploring a nonfarm‑dwelling analysis if soils mapping and other facts justify it.

The hearing record includes soil sampling referenced by the applicant, the presence of an ag building permitted in 2024, written comments from DLCD and 1000 Friends of Oregon recommending denial, and a traffic review by county engineering that did not identify a transportation safety problem. Staff recommended denial based on (1) failure to meet the irrevocably committed exception criteria under Goal 3 and (2) inconsistency with some county comprehensive plan policies for the rural plan designation. The commission will reconvene Feb. 23 to receive supplemental materials and continue testimony if parties choose to provide it.