Planning Commission - Feb. 23, 2026

Agenda

1. Call to order
2. Roll call
3. Public comment
   This is an opportunity for attendees to comment on an issue of concern to the Planning Commission, unless that item is on the agenda for public hearing. Public hearing items, if any, will include an opportunity for public testimony, which will be announced later in the agenda.
4. CONTINUED FROM 1/26/26: 
   PUBLIC HEARING: Z0315-25-CP & Z0316-25-ZAP ‡
   Martha Fritzie, Principal Planner, 
   mfritzie@clackamas.us
   Jennifer Hughes, Planning Director, 
   jenniferh@clackamas.us
5. STUDY SESSION: ZDO-293 FY 2026 Minor 
   Amendments ‡
   Marthe Fritzie, Principal Planner
   Mel Lord, Senior Planner
   MLord@clackamas.us
   Nick Hart, Planner II
   NHart@clackamas.us
   Jennifer Hughes, Planning Director
6. MINUTES ‡
   Jennifer Hughes
7. SCHEDULE REVIEW
   Jennifer Hughes
8. OTHER BUSINESS
   Jennifer Hughes
9. Adjourn

‡  Attachments

NOTE: (PH)=public hearing, (SS)=study session, (PM)=public meeting

Minutes

Commissioners present:  Gerald Murphy, Michael Wilson, Louise Lopes, Brian Lee, Ryan Founds, Jennifer Satter, Scott Cantonwine.

Commissioners absent: Tom Peterson, Tammy Stevens.

Staff present:  Jennifer Hughes, Planning Director; Martha Fritzie, Principal Planner; Darcy Renhard, Administrative Specialist II

Guests: Peter Finley Fry (Consultant for applicant), Ty Wyman (Attorney for applicant), Michael Paden (Applicant)

Commission Vice-Chair Murphy called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. 

Roll Call: Ms. Renhard called the roll.

Public Comment: No members of the public wished to provide testimony.
 
Commissioner Murphy opened the public hearing for the continuation of file numbers Z0315-25-CP and Z0316-25-ZAP, an application by Michael and Mary Paden for a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment to change the land use designation for the subject property from Agriculture to Rural and a corresponding zone change from Exclusive Farm Use to Farm Forest 10-acre. The applicant changed their zoning designation request on January 26th, which was the date of the first hearing on this proposal.

The record has been open since the original Planning Commission hearing on January 26th. Five new exhibits were submitted since January 26th. Exhibits 7 and 8 are the powerpoint presentation from the first Planning Commission hearing and other staff comments. Exhibit 9 is comments from County Counsel, Exhibit 10 is the applicant’s additional comments, Exhibit 11 is a letter of support from one of the applicant’s neighbors, and Exhibit 12 is a letter of opposition from DLCD.

Ms. Fritzie proceeded with an explanation of the different ways the applicant could get a dwelling on their property with its current EFU zoning. One pathway for the applicant is to apply for dwelling in conjunction with farm use. This was discussed at the first hearing when Ms. Fritzie explained that the property would need to be farmed and meet the income test of generating $80,000 gross annual income for the previous two, or three of the previous five, years. The other option that was not discussed at such length is to apply for a non-farm dwelling. Since the applicant has gone through the process of having the soils on the property reassessed and remapped, a little over 50% of the soils on the property have been determined to be Class 4 and 6 soils. Due to the reclassification of the soils, the property may be able to qualify for a non-farm dwelling, which does not require that the property meet an income test. There is a lot of other analysis that needs to be done, but the property would not have to be farmed.

The Planning Commission asked for input from County Counsel at the first hearing. County Counsel provided their comments, which are Exhibit 9.

Ms. Fritzie reminded the Commission that even if the goal exception piece of this application were to be approved, there are other criteria that need to be met--specifically the Comprehensive Plan policies. Staff does not believe that evidence has been provided to show that these criteria are met. Comp Plan policy 4.MM.2 is required for designation of new rural exception lands. The applicant argument in Exhibit 10 is essentially that these don’t have to be met, which staff does not agree with. The property meets the definition of rural lands as cited in the Comprehensive Plan, as it is outside of an urban growth boundary and unincorporated community. Planning staff and County Counsel concur that the proposal does not meet the standard for an irrevocably committed exception for several reasons. One of the arguments that the applicant appears to make is that a farm use on the property is impracticable because of speculative future circumstances. County Counsel notes that they agree with 1000 Friends and DLCD in that the application simply does not meet the burden of proof with actual evidence to demonstrate a farm use as impracticable. County Counsel and staff also make the argument that agricultural activities do not need to be of a commercial scale in order to qualify as a farm use, and that there is a difference between profitability and commerciality. There are farm uses on adjacent properties, so it has not been demonstrated how those uses make it impracticable to farm this particular property. The standard for an irrevocably committed exception is really the relationship between the subject property and the surrounding properties. The applicant focuses on the suitability of the subject property for farm use, which is not the standard. Both County Counsel and staff agree that this particular application has not met the standard for the irrevocably committed exception. County Counsel went even further and noted that the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has also indicated that in a situation where the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners decide that this does meet the standard of the irrevocably committed exception, then we must explain how approving this exception will not present the same risk to other adjoining resource land. In other words, if the County were to approve this exception, all of these arguments that the applicant is using for why the subject property is irrevocably committed by the neighboring exception land, then it would apply to all the properties around it. All of the surrounding property owners could then arguably come in and say that their property is subsequently irrevocably committed. LUBA has said that we have to demonstrate why or how this is not going to happen. Given these arguments, staff still recommends denial of both of these files because the proposal still does not meet the criteria for an irrevocably committed exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3, and it is also not consistent with all the required Comprehensive Plan policies.

Ty Wyman, attorney for applicant – Mr. Wyman stated that there is no evidence that the surrounding properties are in farm use. Farm activity is not farm use, and nobody on the surrounding properties are using their land to make a profit. He argues that an irrevocably exception to his client’s property would not apply with equal force to the adjacent properties. This is a quasi-judicial application, so if the next property wanted to make their own quasi-judicial application then it would stand or fall on its own facts. It also makes the presumption that this property subsequently be developed. It may be, but there is no commitment to that. Mr. Wyman hopes that the Planning Commission will listen to the testimony of people who live next to the property and have visited the property.

Peter Finley Fry, land use planner for applicant – The State definition of farm use very black and white. It is to farm for the purpose of a profit. A commercial business operates for the purpose of a profit. It is unclear what the State is trying to achieve except perhaps to freeze the property into a no-change situation. Clearly this property has changed in character from when it was first settled and was a very large lot. Now it is a very small lot with a lot of dwellings around it. The situation has materially changed. There seems to be the same confusion between farm use and farm activities. He also reviewed all the approved County applications for a farm dwelling in conjunction with a farm use and meeting the income test. He did not see anything that he would consider a farm in any of those cases. They were all situations where it appeared that people were able to argue their way through the process without necessarily meeting the purpose or intent of the law.

Kelly Reid, DLCD – Ms. Reid is the DLCD regional representative for Clackamas County and Multnomah County. She reviews all plan amendments, but does not always provide comments. She understands that the applicant wants to build a home and live on the property and does not necessarily intend to farm the property. The first letter from DLCD indicated that a Goal 14 exception was also required, but the application has been amended so they agree with staff that it is no longer necessary. She would encourage the applicant to pursue a farm dwelling or a non-farm dwelling if they can meet the County standards for either of those. But they do not feel that the criteria for an exception to Goal 3 has been met. The materials submitted by the applicant focus on the characteristics of the property itself, but do not demonstrate that the adjacent uses or development patterns have created a situation that makes the subject property impracticable for farming. She noted that the farm income test was established in the early 1990s by the Land Conservation Development Commission upon direction from the State Legislature. It has been in place for over 30 years. Prior to that, the testing mechanism that was in place was a farm plan, or a promised farm plan. They found that many times the farm plan was never implemented once the property owner received permission to build a farm dwelling. This is why the income test was put into place.

Commissioner Wilson said that the economy has changed significantly over 30 years and maybe we need to find a way to take a better look at this.

Commissioner Lee asked if the property was high-value or low-value farmland. Ms. Fritzie answered that it is designated as high-value farmland. There are land use applications that do not rely on whether it’s considered high-value or low-value farmland under State law and that are truly just based on the soils. There is an opportunity to remap the soils and then have it approved through DLCD. If those remapped soils show that the property is predominantly Class 4 through 8 soils, a property owner could apply for the non-farm dwelling. Additionally, there is an opportunity to apply for a zone change based on arguments that rely  somewhat on the soils, but also on this idea that he property was somehow mis-designated as agricultural land or could not be farmed. That is a different process than the exception that this applicant has requested. If the applicant wanted to go that route it would not require a Goal Exception. Staff is not making a pre-determination on whether or not the applicant could meet those criteria, only stating that it is another route.

Commissioner Murphy asked what percentage of a property had to be classified as lower class soil to make it low-value farmland. Ms. Hughes explained that State Law mandates which mapping must be used in order to determine whether land is high-value or low-value farmland. There is an opportunity to remap the soils and apply for a very limited number of things, including a non-farm dwelling.

Commissioner Satter moved to recommend denial of the application for Z0315-25-CP and Z0316-25-ZAP to the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Lopes seconded the motion. (Ayes=5 Founds, Lopes, Cantonwine, Satter, Murphy; Nays=1 Wilson; Abstain=1 Lee) Motion is passed.

The hearing for file Z0315-25-CP and Z0316-25-ZAP was closed at 7:27 pm.