Yamhill County leaves contested Measure 49 clustering case open after neighbors and DLCD flag legal concerns

Yamhill County commissioners on Feb. 5 left the record open in a contested Measure 49 land‑use hearing after neighbors, an appellant’s attorney and the state Department of Land Conservation and Development raised legal and factual objections.

Planning staff opened the evidentiary hearing and summarized the application: the applicant seeks to partition a roughly 37‑acre property into a 2‑acre and a 35‑acre parcel by transferring Measure 49 home‑site authorizations from a smaller, steeper ‘‘sending’’ parcel to the larger ‘‘receiving’’ parcel under the clustering option (planning docket PAZ‑01‑24/SD‑03‑24). Staff noted applicable criteria from Measure 49 final orders (including Echo122333) and county land‑division rules.

Applicant Mark Wilkuts, who identified himself and his Newberg address for the record, explained that the sending parcel’s steep slopes and limited buildable area make on‑site dwellings impractical and that the receiving parcel had previously supported hazelnut orchards and other crops. Wilkuts said the sending lots are ‘‘buildable’’ but would be ‘‘crammed in’’ and that preserving wildlife habitat and safety concerns motivated the transfer.

Appellant counsel representing Robert S. Jennings argued the applicant had not met Measure 49’s suitability standard: the receiving parcel must be shown to be less suitable for farm or forest use than the sending parcel. The attorney told the board the applicant also had not supplied required deed evidence to prove ownership for purposes of Measure 49 transfers, had not demonstrated when prior claim authorizations began (a 10‑year expiration clock), and may be attempting to create more parcels or dwellings than Measure 49 allows. The attorney asked the board to deny the application.

Multiple neighbors and descendants of local farming families gave testimony and submitted photographs and letters. Vidalia Twenge Jennings and other speakers described multi‑generation farming on Finnegan Hill, cited crop yields and historical orchard production, and warned the proposal would fragment productive farmland, strain limited water resources, raise wildfire and traffic risks, and set a precedent for further subdivision. Several neighbors noted a Feb. 4 DLCD letter comparing site suitability and advising the county that the application appeared to fail Measure 49 criteria.

Planning reported that the county sanitarian found no conflicts and approved site evaluations but said DLCD’s recent comments identified steep slopes (30–60%) on the sending parcel and recommended the county decline the request unless the applicant proves the receiving parcel is less suitable for farm or forest use. The Soil and Water Conservation District provided standard guidance on water‑quality and weed responsibilities.

In rebuttal the applicant said he had discussed the transfer with DLCD staff previously and had been guided through similar transfers; he also said the sending lots are in a wildlife/forest deferral and that road improvements to county standard had been completed. Commissioners noted conflicting DLCD correspondence and asked for documentary clarifications.

On a motion from planning staff, the board unanimously agreed to keep the public record open: written evidence and testimony may be submitted to the planning department until 5 p.m. on Feb. 12, rebuttals until a subsequent deadline, and the applicant may file final written argument (no new evidence) by Feb. 26; the hearing will reconvene March 5 at 10 a.m. in Room 32 at the courthouse. The county did not take a final vote on the application Feb. 5.

What’s next: The record is open to allow both neighbors and the applicant to submit additional evidence, including deeds and documentation that DLCD requested; the commission will resume the hearing March 5 and consider staff recommendation and any new materials then.