Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Eagle Creek resident asks Clackamas County to clarify whether converted 1920s house counts as a second dwelling
Summary
Eric Wilson told the board a 1920s building on a neighboring parcel retains bedrooms, utilities and a septic permit showing a two-bedroom home and argued it should be classified as a dwelling rather than storage; staff offered a post-meeting follow-up with the county’s code-enforcement director.
Eric Wilson, an Eagle Creek resident, asked the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners on Feb. 5 to review whether a 1920s building on a neighboring property is a dwelling rather than a storage structure and to clarify how many dwellings are allowed on the parcel.
Wilson said the older building — the original house on the property — was converted to “storage” after a replacement home was built in 2012 but that several features remain that, in his view, indicate residential use: two bedrooms reflected in a 1986 septic permit, a full bath with hot and cold running water, clothes-washing facilities, 200-amp electrical service, fiber internet hookup and working well and septic connections. “The bedrooms, kitchen cabinets, counters, eating area, full bath with hot and cold running water, clothes washing facilities, and utilities … are all accommodations for overnight stay,” Wilson said.
Wilson told commissioners he submitted supporting materials by email and photos showing vehicles and lighting at the converted building. He said the county’s planning and zoning code defines a dwelling as a building designed for residential occupancy and argued that, under that definition, the structure meets the criteria for a second dwelling on the lot.
Chair Roberts and staff thanked Wilson for the materials and identified Dan Johnson, director of Transportation and Development, as the county official who oversees code enforcement. Roberts asked Johnson to meet with Wilson after the meeting to provide an update. County staff also noted a prior code-enforcement action in 2021 and encouraged Wilson to discuss the documented steps the county has taken.
The board did not take formal action at the Feb. 5 meeting. Staff indicated they would follow up directly with Wilson and provide an update to the commission.
The matter remains a citizen complaint and an open code-enforcement question for county staff to investigate and report back.
