Planning Commission recommends denial of applicants' request to redesignate agricultural land for rural residential use

The Clackamas County Planning Commission on Feb. 23 recommended denial of applications Z0315-25 and Z0316-25, a pair of requests to change a roughly 15-acre property from agricultural designation and Exclusive Farm Use zoning to a rural residential Farm Forest 10 (FF10) designation and zone. The motion to deny passed on a recorded roll call after debate, with five commissioners voting to deny, one opposed and one abstention.

Staff and the Department of Land Conservation and Development told the commission they do not believe the application meets the state'law standard for an "irrevocably committed" Goal 3 exception, which would be required to redesignate the site from agricultural to rural exception lands. Martha, the county project manager, told the commission that County Council's memo and a DLCD letter received the morning of the hearing both concluded the record lacks evidence that adjacent uses have made the subject property impracticable for farm use, a central requirement for the exception.

The applicants sought to allow a single dwelling on a parcel the staff described as "just shy of 15 acres." Staff noted there are two principal pathways the applicant could pursue short of the Goal 3 exception: (1) a dwelling in conjunction with farm use under the farm-income test (the record cites an $80,000 gross revenue threshold in 2 of the prior 3 of 5 years for high-value soils), or (2) a non-farm dwelling pathway if soils remapping via DLCD finds a preponderance of lower-rated soils (staff said remapping requires >50% class 4'8 soils to qualify for the nonfarm option).

The applicant's attorney, Ty Weinman, argued the record mischaracterizes neighboring activity as "farm use," saying, "Farm activity is not farm use," and pointed to on-site observations and new submittals aimed at showing surrounding parcels are not in current farm use. Land-use planner Peter Finley Fry testified about his experience with conditional-use dwellings on EFU land and criticized what he called overly remote, desktop-based evaluations of farm use.

Kelly (DLCD's regional representative) said DLCD reviewed the additional materials and reiterated DLCD's position that the irregularities submitted focus on the subject parcel rather than demonstrating that nearby development has made the property impracticable for farming. "We don't think the criteria for an irrevocably committed exception to Goal 3 is met," she said.

After public testimony and commissioner questioning, Commissioner Satter moved to deny the two files; the motion was seconded by Louise. The roll call recorded one "no" vote from Commissioner Wilson (opposed to denying) and one abstention from Commissioner Lee; the motion otherwise passed. The Planning Commission's action is a recommendation. Staff said the Board of County Commissioners will hold a de novo hearing on March 31 at 11 a.m.; the board will accept new evidence and testimony.

What happens next: the Planning Commission recommendation will be transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners, which will rehear the matter anew. The record on which the board will decide includes the exhibits the county posted and the letters from County Council and DLCD referenced in staff's presentation. The staff contact for the file is the project manager listed in the hearing materials; the board's hearing notice will be mailed ahead of the March 31 date.