Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Conveyance Quitclaim topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Douglas County packet recommends removing reversionary clause on Sutherlin parcel

Douglas County Board of Commissioners · April 15, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Land Department asked the board to prepare a quitclaim deed removing a 2001 reversionary clause on parcel R122297 (303 Taylor St., Sutherlin) that had tied the property to "low-income housing" use; the deed names Judy H. Peterman as grantee and lists consideration as $nil.

Douglas County’s agenda packet includes a Land Department recommendation to prepare a new quitclaim deed removing a reversion clause contained in a 2001 Bargain and Sale Deed between Douglas County and Umpqua Community Development Corporation (UCDC) for parcel R122297, located at 303 Taylor St., Sutherlin.

The quitclaim instrument in the packet states the county, as grantor, releases and quitclaims any interest it may have in the property to Judy H. Peterman, the named grantee, and notes that the true and actual consideration for the conveyance is $nil. The packet cautions that buyers should verify land-use status with city or county planning departments and includes standard statutory notices about farm and forest practices and lot legality.

Exhibit A in the packet identifies the property as Lot 5, Calapooia Crossing (Recording No. 2002-24670). The quitclaim language says the deed is executed to extinguish the restriction, condition and reversion rights set forth in an earlier instrument recorded under Instrument No. 2001-27610.

The land item appears on the agenda for board consideration; the packet does not record a vote or final board action. The materials provided contain the quitclaim text and the parcel description but do not specify the reason the Land Department is seeking removal of the clause beyond the recommendation to prepare a new deed.