looking forward - oregon property owners association€¦ · and oregon property owners association...

Looking Forward

A publication of Oregonians In Action Education Center

and Oregon Property Owners Association

Volume 26 Issue 1

Oregon’s New Property

Laws - What The Heck

Just Happened?

2

The Looking Forward is

Produced by:

Oregonians In Action

Education Center staff.

Printed by:

Lynx Group, Inc.

Salem, OR

Oregonians In Action

Education Center

PO Box 230637

Tigard, OR 97281

Phone: 503-620-0258

OIA Education Center

Board of Directors,

Officers & Staff:

Executive Director:

Dave Hunnicutt

Directors:

Mike Gougler

Kristi Halvorson

Ken Leahy

Ted Urton

Officers:

Kay Finney

President

Mitch Teal

Vice President

Lynn Stafford

Secretary/Treasurer

Page 3: OIA Has ChangedIts Name - We’re Now theOregon Property OwnersAssociation!

Page 4: The 2019 LegislativeSession is Over - What theHeck Happened?

Page 10: Forest LandownersBeware - The LegislatureJust Made it Harder to BuildOn Your Property

Page 13:View From Scholls

Inside This Issue

www.oregonpropertyowners.org

3

OIA Has Changed Its Name -

We’re Now the Oregon Property Owners

Association!You might be looking at this new publication and wondering “who is the Oregon Property Owners Association

and why am I getting their newsletter?” The answer is because we have exciting news - Oregonians In

Action is now the Oregon Property Owners Association, and this is the new (and hopefully improved)

Looking Forward which you’ve received for years!

For decades, we have mailed the Looking Forward to thousands of Oregon property owners across the state,

detailing the work our charitable non-profit organization does for Oregon property owners. But despite our

track record and decades of work, one of the main questions we get is “what exactly is Oregonians In Action

and what do you do?” We get that question partly because our name is not very descriptive.

The OIA Board has talked in the past about changing our name to better identify our mission and the focus of

our work. In December, the OIA Board of Directors unanimously approved the name change to Oregon

Property Owners Association. We hope that our new name will give people a better idea of who we are and

who we represent, and make it clear that our work is for all Oregon property owners.

What does the name change mean for our mission and work? Absolutely nothing. Our focus hasn’t changed.

We’ll still work tirelessly to represent Oregon property owners in the legislature, in the courts, and with the

media, just as we’ve done for over 30 years. We’ll still continue our fight to reform our state land use and

property laws, to defend every Oregonian’s right to own and use property, and to make people aware that

private property ownership is a foundation of our nation and our economic system.

From rural to urban, farmers to developers, companies with thousands of acres of holdings to the husband

and wife with a single family dwelling – we work for all Oregon property owners in every city and county

in our great state.

We’ve also created a new website to replace our existing OIA website. You can find our new website at

www.oregonpropertyowners.org. We love the new site – it’s informative, up to date, and has some really

great information on Oregon property ownership that should be useful to everyone who owns or is looking

to buy property in Oregon. Check it out!

So if you start hearing people talking about some new group called the Oregon Property Owners

Association, you’ll know that it’s OIA – same great organization, same people, same mission. And if you

get a chance, spread the word to all Oregon families and businesses – there’s one organization that can

help you with property related questions and defend your property rights – it’s the Oregon Property

Owners Association!

4

The 2019 Legislative Session is Over -

What the Heck Happened?

At long last, the 2019 Oregon Legislature adjourned on June 30. The session was dominated by big issues

– taxes, climate change, rent control, criminal law etc. and cooperation between legislators was almost non-

existent. But despite emotions, high drama, and big issues, a number of land use/property bills were able to

get through the legislative process and pass.

“As usual, land use bills flew under the radar,” said Dave Hunnicutt, President of the Oregon Property

Owners Association (OPA). “Land use law in Oregon is complicated, filled with acronyms and jargon that

only a few people understand, and isn’t the type of issue that dominates the newspaper or social media

headlines. That means that land use laws aren’t at the top of the list for any legislator. But that doesn’t mean

that changes don’t happen.”

OIA/OPA had a number of successes this session, including:

House Bill 2001: HB 2001 was the most talked about and controversial land use bill of the session. The

bill allows a property owner in an Oregon city with at least 25,000 residents to remove/remodel a single

family dwelling and replace the home with a duplex, triplex, fourplex, cottage cluster (small homes along

the edge of the lot with a central courtyard) or townhomes. If the city population is between 10,000 and

25,000, the property owner is allowed to replace a single family home with a duplex, and the city can allow

more.

continued on page 5

House Chamber, Oregon Capitol

5

The bill does not require a homeowner to do anything. In fact, a homeowner is free to replace an existing

single family home with a brand new single family home. The choice is entirely with the homeowner, not the

local government. For that reason, OIA/OPA supported the bill, as it allows a homeowner to have more

flexibility to use the property, not less.

continued from page 4

continued on page 6



House Bill 3024: HB 3024 amends the replacement dwelling statute for dwellings in exclusive farm use

(EFU) zones, the most common zone for privately-owned rural land in Oregon. In 2013, OIA led the charge

and convinced the legislature to approve significant changes to the replacement dwelling provisions of ORS

215.213 and ORS 215.283. Prior to 2013, the owner of EFU zoned property could only replace a dwelling

that was standing or had recently been destroyed.

The 2013 legislature changed the replacement dwelling law to allow a property owner to replace dwellings

that once existed on the property, but had been demolished, had become dilapidated, or had been converted

to some other type of use, even if those changes had occurred years ago. These changes greatly expanded the

use of the replacement dwelling provisions to site houses on parcels that had a home at some point in time

that had been removed.

The bill also contains new language making it harder

for Metro (the Portland-area regional government),

and larger Oregon cities like Eugene, Corvallis, and

Salem to overestimate future housing density

increases as an excuse for not expanding the city’s

urban growth boundary (UGB). As people continue

to move to Oregon’s cities, the demand for housing

has skyrocketed. If cities don’t have enough land to

build the needed housing, housing prices go up and

become unaffordable for most people. The new

language will make it harder for “no-growth” or

“slow-growth” cities to claim density levels that have

never and will never occur as a way to refuse to

expand the UGB. This is a win for all Oregonians.Rotunda, Oregon Capitol

6




continued on page 7

Unfortunately, the 2013 law was complicated and ambiguous, and proved to be difficult for property owners

and county planners to understand. In fact, earlier this year, the Oregon Supreme Court issued an opinion

interpreting the 2013 law in a case in which each decision maker prior to the Supreme Court had interpreted

the 2013 law differently from the previous decision maker.

In short, the 2013 law, while well intentioned and a good law, was confusing and needed to be fixed.

HB 3024 greatly simplifies the 2013 replacement dwelling statute. Like the 2013 statute, the bill allows a

property owner of EFU land to replace a dwelling that had once existed on the property, but is no longer on

the property. But the demonstration that the owner must meet in order to receive approval to replace the

dwelling is greatly simplified, and much easier for the owner to meet. The changes should make it much

easier for property owners and county planning offices to understand and apply.

Senate Bill 2: SB 2 allows ten eastern Oregon counties – Harney, Malheur, Lake, Baker, Grant, Wallowa,

Union, Sherman, Gilliam, and Wheeler – to explore alternative economic uses in their rural areas, in the

hope of generating potential economic development and diversification for each county.

Senators Peter Courtney (D), Cliff Bentz (R), Bill Hansell (R), Sponsors of SB 2

7



Unlike cities and counties along the I-5 corridor, where growth pressures have continued for over three

decades, eastern Oregon cities and counties have experienced the opposite scenario. Many eastern Oregon

counties have smaller populations today than they did in the mid-1900’s. Small populations and long

distances from major metropolitan areas have led to few opportunities in the major growth areas of the US

economy.

continued on page 8


In every other state, local officials would have the ability to think outside of the box and try new and creative

ideas to promote growth and opportunity in rural areas. But in Oregon, our state land use laws, which were

conceived in the 1970’s and based on a 1970’s economic development model, hinder a rural community’s

ability to try new and imaginative ideas. SB 2 starts the process of changing that dynamic and allowing rural

Oregon governments to do something different.

Under current law, LCDC prohibits counties from conducting an economic opportunity analysis (EOA) for

their rural areas. An EOA is an important tool that local governments can use to direct resources towards

areas and types of development that might bring jobs and growth to the community.

Children touring a New Zealand gold mine. Eastern Oregon has

enormous mining reserves. Will we see this in our state?

8



Unfortunately, for rural Oregon, LCDC demands that rural counties stick to two industries – farming/ranching

and forestry. These are great industries and form the backbone for our rural areas. But as we’ve seen in

eastern Oregon, the community cannot survive on ranching alone. Combining ranching with other industries,

like mining, recreation, or energy production is something that each rural county should be allowed to

explore, whether that fits in with the desires of western Oregon or not.

House Bill 2844: This bill allows farmers to build small-scale processing facilities on their farms without

having to satisfy local siting standards, like landscaping and parking requirements.

continued on page 9


The 1999 legislature made it clear that farmers could build facilities to process their own crops, along with

crops grown from around the area. By doing so, the legislature made farming more profitable, and allowed

a group of neighbors to build a single facility that they could all share. What a concept.

Unfortunately, the 1999 bill contained compromise language that gave local governments the authority to

impose “siting standards” on processing facilities, without defining what “siting standards” mean. Recently,

a couple of counties have begun demanding that farmers comply with stringent siting standards in order to

put processing facilities in their barns. These standards include landscaping requirements, parking requirements

(both cars and bicycles), and ADA accessible facilities.

HB 2844 allows small scale processing

in barns like this.

In 1999, OIA led the charge to create Oregon’s

first processing bill. Prior to that time, LCDC

prohibited counties from allowing farmers to

build processing facilities in exclusive farm use

zones. LCDC believed that farmers should take

their crops to town to have them processed,

which made little sense to anyone except LCDC,

and was largely ignored by the farming

community.

9




Senate Bill 287: SB 287 allows for the siting of “farm breweries” in exclusive farm use zones. Current

law allows a property owner to create a winery or cidery in an EFU zone, but does not allow for

breweries. SB 287 changes that, and allows Oregon’s craft brewing industry to produce beer using crops

grown on the same farm as the brewery. OIA/OPA worked with Rogue Brewery in Newport to introduce

this bill, and it passed with strong bipartisan support.

There were many other OIA/OPA bills that passed this session that made positive changes to Oregon land

use/property law, and some bad bills that we worked to stop or weaken. For more information on these

bills, go to our website (www.oregonpropertyowners.org) – we’ve posted separate videos explaining

each bill, how they work, and who is impacted by them.

Oregon grown hops. SB 287 will allow small scale breweries in EFU zones.

There is nothing wrong with any of these siting standards if the building being constructed was for a retail

business open to the public. But the buildings in this case are processing facilities used only by farmers for

processing their own crops. They aren’t open to the public. So why would the county demand they be

designed in the same way that a local supermarket is designed?

HB 2844 makes clear that small scale processing facilities (buildings with less than 2,500 square feet of

area devoted to processing) do not have to comply with county siting standards. This is a good win for rural

property owners.

10

Forest Landowners Beware - The Legislature

Just Made It Harder To Build On

Your Property

The bill makes changes to ORS 215.750, also known as the “template dwelling” statute. For over 40 years,

Oregon’s Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) has made it difficult for owners of

farm and forest land to build a home on their property. Allowing a property owner to build a single home to

live on their property is considered a basic right in 49 other states, but not in Oregon.

Instead, Oregon has enacted a complex set of statutes and rules making it difficult for rural Oregonians to

live on their own property. On forest zoned properties, the primary method for obtaining approval to build

a home on your land is through an application for a “template dwelling.”

The “template dwelling” statute is found at ORS 215.750. The name is derived from the statutory requirements.

In order to receive approval for a template dwelling, the county will place a 160-acre template on top of a

map of the property, and count the number of neighboring parcels and dwellings that are located within the

template. If there are enough parcels/dwellings wholly or partially within the template, then the owner will

qualify for a dwelling.

The purpose of the template dwelling statute is to enable additional development in areas zoned for forest

use that are already divided into smaller parcels with houses. These areas are less likely to be used for

commercial timber activity, so allowing additional development is not considered harmful.

continued on page 11

Cabins like this one will be harder to

find thanks to House Bill 2225.

For rural Oregon property owners, there was a bad

bill that was approved by the Oregon Legislature

earlier this year. That bill is House Bill 2225. HB

2225 applies to rural property owners –

specifically, owners of land zoned for forest uses.

Since over eight million acres of private land in

Oregon are zoned for forest use, HB 2225 impacts

a significant number of Oregonians.

11

NIMBY’s opposed to template dwellings are those who live in rural areas and want to stop their neighbor

from doing the same thing. It’s fine for them to live in the rural area, but no one else should be afforded the

same right.

Unfortunately, the NIMBY’s have friends in the legislature. In fact, they were able to convince their friends

to introduce HB 2225. As originally drafted, the bill would have eliminated virtually all template dwelling

applications. In other words, it would have prevented forest landowners from building a home on their

property.



Your Property

Finally, the legislature authorized property owners to change

their ownership of two adjacent parcels so that each parcel

could qualify for a template dwelling. For example, if Mr.

and Mrs. Jones owned two adjoining parcels, they could

change their deeds to the property so that Mr. Jones owned

one parcel and Mrs. Jones owned the neighboring parcel,

allowing each parcel to qualify for a dwelling. Mr. and

Mrs. Jones could then sell the second parcel, gift it to their

children, etc., and the new owner could build a home on the

land.

The template dwelling laws were first enacted in 1993,

and have given many Oregon families the ability to live on

their land. Unfortunately, there are those who don’t want

people to live in rural areas. Typically, these are people

known as NIMBY’s, which stands for “Not in My

Backyard”.



The legislature also allowed property owners to work with their neighbors and use a property line adjustment

to qualify a parcel for a dwelling. A property owner could work with the neighboring owner to adjust the

boundaries between the two parcels so that each parcel could qualify for its own dwelling using the template

test.

12



Your Property

As you can imagine, OIA/OPA led the charge to defeat the bill as introduced. In fact, we were able to

convince the legislature to amend the most onerous provisions of the bill to blunt its impact significantly.

Despite those efforts, however, the bill still has a significant impact on forestland owners wishing to qualify

for a template dwelling.

The bill significantly limits the ability of property owners to use property line adjustments or deed changes

to adjoining properties to qualify for a template dwelling. In other words, when the bill takes effect, a

property owner whose parcel does not qualify for a template dwelling will not be able to use a property line

adjustment to change the parcel boundary with a neighboring parcel in order to qualify the land for a template

dwelling.

In addition, and using our example from above, Mr. and Mrs. Jones will no longer be allowed to change the

ownership of their two parcels so that each parcel will qualify for a template dwelling. They can still

change the ownership, but the change won’t be effective for the template test.

Fortunately, there is still time for forestland property owners to take action under the current law, not HB

2225. The bill establishes three separate applicability dates. In Clackamas, Jackson, Lane, and Polk

Counties, the bill takes effect on January 1, 2020. For Columbia, Coos, Curry, Deschutes, Douglas, Josephine,

Linn, Marion, Washington and Yamhill Counties, the bill takes effect on November 1, 2021. In the remaining

counties the bill takes effect on January 1, 2023.

That means that property owners in Clackamas, Jackson, Lane and Polk Counties that are interested in

establishing template dwellings should begin the process immediately. If you submit an application before

January 1, 2020 in those four counties, the “old” law applies, not HB 2225.

For property owners in the other 32 counties, despite having an effective date that is more than two years

away, it is advisable to get the process started now.


To Read House Bill 2225, Go To: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/

Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2225/Enrolled

13

If you want to understand the crazy impact that Oregon’s land

use laws have on average Oregonians, look no further than the

unfortunate case of Betty Schmidlin.

Betty and her husband Leonard own a 250-acre farm that

straddles the Washington-Columbia County border near

Vernonia. The farm has been in the Schmidlin family for over a

century, and has been farmed the entire time, both for a variety

of crops and as a working ranch, and usually as both.

In 2017, I received a call from Andy Duyck, the chair of the

Washington County Board of Commissioners. He told me that

the Schmidlins were growing older and were having trouble

running the farm all by themselves. They had a son who had

View From Scholls

volunteered to help run the farm, but he needed to live on the farm to help with the day-to-day operations.

Unfortunately, helping the Schmidlins would prove a little trickier than it should have been. The problem

was that Washington County had zoned the Schmidlins’ property as forestland, despite the fact that the

Schmidlins owned and operated a century farm. Years ago, OIA/OPA helped the legislature create a law to

allow farmers to build a second home for a relative who would help manage the farm operations. But that

law only applied in farm zones, and the Schmidlin property was zoned as forestland, not farmland.

How could the county zone a property for forest use that had been a working farm for over a century? Your

guess is as good as mine. As long as the property was zoned as forestland, however, the Schmidlins

wouldn’t be able to qualify for a farm managers dwelling. To solve the Schmidlins’ dilemma, we would

have to ask the County to change the zoning of the Schmidlin property from forestland to farmland. That

should be simple, right? Wrong.

To change the zoning of the Schmidlin property from forestland to farmland required the Schmidlins to

submit a land use application to change the Washington County Comprehensive Plan. For land use planning,

this is like asking Oregon voters to change the Oregon Constitution. In other words, it isn’t easy.


Dave Hunnicutt, President

Oregon Property Owners

Association

14

View From Scholls

But that’s what the Schmidlins had to do, all because the County had incorrectly zoned their century farm

years ago, and the Schmidlins needed to correct the zoning so that they could build a house for their son to

help them maintain the farm as a working farm.

In any other state, this would be easy. The Schmidlin family would hire a contractor, build a second home

for their son, and keep on farming. But Oregon is unique. In order to change the county’s Comprehensive

Plan for the sole purpose of rezoning the Schmidlins’ century farm from forestland to farmland, the Schmidlins

were required to submit a complicated and lengthy application addressing multiple sections of the County’s

Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance, and multiple sections of Oregon state law and LCDC administrative

rules/goals.



In addition, the Schmidlins had to ask the local fire department, local school district, and ODOT if it was

okay with them if the Schmidlins zoned their century farm as farmland. That makes sense, because who else

would you turn to if you were trying to figure out the proper zoning of a farm? Why the “farmland experts” at

the local school district, of course.

A few of the Schmidlin cows. Washington County charged the Schmidlins over

$20,000 to fix the County’s zoning mistake on their property.

15

By the time the Schmidlin application was complete, it was a multi-page novel of irrelevant data and

analysis that defied common sense. Had the Schmidlins been forced to use a private attorney, the fees for the

application would have easily exceeded $50,000.

Before I go further, let me make one thing clear. I am not complaining about the staff at Washington County

Planning. In fact, they were very helpful and worked hard to make sure that the Schmidlins knew what was

needed to complete the application and if there was anything missing that they thought the Schmidlins should

address.

The Washington County staff were stuck with the same silly requirements and overkill that the Schmidlins

were. But state officials decided years ago that Oregon was going to torture farmers (and county planners)

who dared ask to correct a local screw-up like this one. And the Schmidlins were going to pay the price.

And pay they did. Washington County charges an application fee based on the staff time spent processing the

application. Fair enough. The Schmidlins had a five minute hearing before the Washington County Planning

Commission, followed by a five minute hearing before the Washington County Board of Commissioners.

That didn’t take much staff time.

In fact, in both hearings, there was no opposition, and the Schmidlins’ application was approved unanimously.

Is it any wonder why? The Schmidlins’ request clearly fell into the “well, duh” category.

But because the approval required the Schmidlins to address an encyclopedia’s worth of meaningless and

irrelevant data, and Washington County staff had to read all the aforementioned data to make sure it was

sufficient to address the irrelevant and needless criteria, it took staff quite a bit of time to get through the

application.

So imagine Betty Schmidlin’s shock when she received the final bill from the county - $20,162! You aren’t

reading that wrong – Washington County charged one of its residents $20,162 to get a century farm zoned as

farmland! And all because of a screw-up that the County made years ago. Thanks Oregon land use law.

The worst part is, now that the Schmidlins are $20,000 poorer in getting the County to fix its error, will they

be willing (and have enough money) to submit a new application for approval of their son’s dwelling? I

guess we’ll see.

View From Scholls


Yes, I support OIA Education Center’s efforts to protect private property rights!

Name _____________________________________________

Address ___________________________________________

City, State ___________________________________

Zip ______________________________

Phone: ___________________________

Please mail check to: OIA EC, PO Box 230637 Tigard, OR 97223

Ore

gonia

ns

In A

ctio

n

Educa

tion C

ente

r

PO

Box 2

30637

Tig

ard, O

R 9

7281-0

637

Ad

dre

ss s

ervi

ce r

equ

este

d

NO

NP

RO

FIT

OR

G

US

PO

ST

AG

E

PA

IDP

OR

TL

AN

D, O

R

PE

RM

IT N

O. 1

608

Like us on Facebook:

www.facebook.com/OregonPropertyOwnersAssociation

looking forward - oregon property owners association€¦ · and oregon property owners association...

Documents