Hearing on farm-dwelling appeal continued after neighbors, applicants present conflicting evidence

A Yamhill County hearing on an appeal of the planning director’s approval of a principal dwelling in conjunction with farm use (docket FD-01-26) was continued to staff recommendation after competing testimony from the applicant and the neighbor who filed the appeal.

The hearing opened with procedural statements and state-law advisories read by Caleb. Planner Tiffany summarized the site: an approximately 84.6-acre parcel zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-80), roughly 1,700 feet from McMinnville, with an existing permitted pole barn. The board then heard the applicant, Ray Markham, and supporting testimony from Bernadine Markham, and the appellant, Clark Ellingson, who represents Fourieland LLC.

Ray Markham told commissioners the family purchased large holdings in 1957, partitioned the land in 2009 with a recorded access easement, and later subdivided parcels in 2023 that preserved that easement. Markham said the application included required IRS tax transcripts and Schedule Fs, plus a soil-science report and roughly $300,000 in infrastructure investments to support farming. "We submitted all the evidence that was required," Markham said, asking the board to uphold the planning director’s approval.

Bernadine Markham, Ray’s wife, urged the board to consider the family legacy and caregiving needs of aging, disabled relatives on an adjacent five-acre life estate. She described the household’s farm operations (chickens, quail, and some cattle), disputed the appellant’s claims of heavy traffic or frequent livestock along the access easement, and said egg sales—conducted by delivery rather than on-site—help support her disabled in-laws.

Appellant Clark Ellingson said he based his appeal on land-use law and evidence tied to access and safety. Ellingson handed out photographs and documents he said were relevant to fire-marshal standards for the access curve and questioned whether all evidence supporting the applicant’s income claim was sufficiently corroborated. "If you consider it relevant, I'm happy to address 100% of it," Ellingson told the board.

Commissioners and staff noted that some materials distributed by the appellant had not been provided to the applicant earlier in the day. Staff described two options: leave the record open (which can extend the schedule because of the formal seven-day comment periods) or continue deliberations for one week and reconvene at the staff recommendation stage, allowing the applicant to rebut today’s materials. After discussion, the board agreed to close testimony for now, allow rebuttal on the record today, and resume deliberations at staff recommendation at 10 a.m. on May 28, 2026, in Room 32 of the Yamhill County Courthouse.

In rebuttal, the applicant and supporting witnesses contested the appellant’s photographs and arguments about foot traffic, dogs, and the relevance of the referenced corner to the appellant’s property. The applicant reiterated that the fire marshal previously approved the access curve and that partitions and approvals in 2009 and 2023 supported the current application.

A procedural clarification confirmed the Schedule F threshold used for the farm-dwelling income test: $40,000 gross income over a two-year period. Staff told the board there is no routine follow-up check-in once a dwelling is approved, though the county could lose a deferral if the agricultural use ceases.

The hearing record was closed for the current session and continued to the staff recommendation on May 28. The board’s decision will address whether the planning director’s findings meet the applicable ORS standards and ordinance criteria identified at the opening of the hearing.