Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Ft13 05 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Yamhill County approves resiting of forest‑template dwelling despite opposition from nearby landowner
Summary
After a public hearing, Yamhill County commissioners voted to approve a request to confirm substantial construction and resite a previously approved forest‑template dwelling on an AF‑40 parcel used as a vineyard; staff recommended approval and the motion passed unanimously.
The Yamhill County Board of Commissioners voted July 2 to approve a land‑use application to confirm that substantial construction had occurred and to permit resiting of a forest‑template dwelling on a parcel zoned AF‑40.
Planning staff told the board the parcel contains an established vineyard and that the applicant seeks confirmation that work toward a home originally permitted in 2005 (docket FT‑13‑05) satisfies the county's substantial construction policy. The applicant also requested to move the previously approved homesite roughly 100 feet to the south; staff said the original conditions for fire‑siting and construction would remain in place.
Why it matters: The request required the board to apply the county's substantial construction policy (board order 00‑514) and specific zoning criteria (sections 403.03P, 403.09, 403.10 and 403.11 of the Yamhill County zoning ordinance). Planning staff recommended approval after reviewing site improvements the applicant reported — including a septic system, well, a gravel driveway over 1,000 feet long, and electrical service including a transformer and meter — and concluding the proposed new homesite did not eliminate existing forest land.
Planning staff summarized the resiting review: the proposed location is intended to provide a full 30‑foot primary fire break and a complete 100‑foot secondary fire break in every direction from the home except where the secondary break is interrupted by the Bueno Vista Drive right‑of‑way. In recommending approval, staff said the resiting does not appear to cause loss of forest land because it shifts the approved site from one undisturbed area to another on the property.
The applicant's authorized representative, Chandler Wilcott, said the applicant supports the planner's recommendation and was available to answer questions. Property owner Chris Maze Pink testified in support, saying the proposal "conforms with all the criteria needed for the application." Opponent Jesse Lang argued the proposed homesite would "eviscerate" the established vineyard by placing the house in the middle of the farm and raised concerns about impacts to accepted farming practices and wildfire risk.
Planning staff responded that the proposal moves the allowed homesite between undisturbed areas and does not appear to eliminate forest or agricultural land under the applicable standards. After a brief deliberation, the board voted to approve the staff findings and recommendation. The hearing record was then closed.
Procedural note: Ken Friday provided the board's required advisements on hearing procedures, standards of approval, and appellate rules under Oregon land‑use law before testimony began.
What comes next: Staff will finalize the written findings and the county's decision will be added to the hearing record. Any party seeking to preserve an issue for appeal must raise it before the record is closed; the board closed the hearing after making its decision.
