By QUINTON SMITH/YachatsNews
Lincoln County officials have gone to court seeking a judge’s order to force the removal of four yurts and a travel trailer from a 20-acre property that a Yachats businesswoman is using to house employees and their families.
The request for an injunction comes after seven months of back-and-forth between Drift Inn owner Linda Hetzler and the county planning department and lawyers for both over the growing compound off Starr Creek Road just north of Yachats.
The county filed its injunction request Sept. 22; no date has been set for a hearing. Hetzler and her husband, Tom Smith, have until Oct. 29 to respond.
The county contends that four yurts and a travel trailer hooked to an existing septic system are not allowed under county and state building codes and zoning ordinances. It also says the structures do not meet fire or electrical codes and that all the work has been done without permits or inspections.
The county is seeking a judge’s order to force Hetzler and Smith to remove the structures and disconnect from the septic system. The county is also asking it be reimbursed for attorney fees and staff costs.
Assistant county counsel Douglas Holbrook told YachatsNews, for example, that the yurts violate fire codes because there are no windows or fire-resistent roofing. There are been no electrical inspections for any of the living quarters, he said, and the four structures should not be hooked up to a septic system allowed for just one dwelling.
“They have lots of problems there,” Holbrook said.
Hetzler told YachatsNews she plans to fight the county’s request, saying that the injunction request has incorrect statements and property descriptions. But more importantly, she said, someone has to fight what she believes is a planning department that hinders development, especially housing.
“They think their job is to stop things,” Hetzler said. “The county building and planning department needs to be called on the carpet. Builders and contractors are afraid to upset them; I am not.”
35 acres in all
Hetzler and Smith bought two parcels on East Line Road totaling 35 acres in 2021 for $550,000. The west lot of 15 acres had no structures and the east lot had an old manufactured home with a garage built by its former owner.
Hetzler and Smith have started construction of a building — with permits — on the 15-acre lot.
The properties are zoned as “timber conservation” meaning that they are allowed one residential dwelling. The previous owner obtained a conditional use permit from the county in 1995 for the manufactured home and garage on the 20-acre parcel.
In its court filing, the county said staff went to the property in March and found people living in four yurts and that there were also two recreational vehicles on the property. All were connected to electricity, the filing said, and all were connected to the septic system designed for the former three-bedroom manufactured home that Hetzler and Smith had removed.
The county said Hetzler and Smith did not apply last spring for permits to enlarge the septic system, but applied for one later that was denied because of the illegal buildings.
The county’s filing said it wants Hetzler and Smith to bring the 20-acre property into compliance with the 1995 conditional use permit for just one dwelling and comply with “the building/electrical, fire and septic laws by removing the extra dwellings from the property, but defendants have refused.”
Workforce housing
Hetzler is the owner and operator of the popular Drift Inn restaurant and motel and an adjacent hardware store in Yachats. She has owned houses rented to employees and says the East Line Road compound is another attempt to solve the coast’s well-known workforce housing struggles of some of her 80 employees.
The hilltop property at the center of the dispute is zoned as “timber conservation” — meaning it is set aside for forest use and to protect it from the encroachment of development. It can have just one residential dwelling on it.
That zoning designation is part of Oregon’s 50-year-old land-use planning system designed to put most housing in cities and protect farm and timberlands from over-development.
Hetzler said eight people — four employees and their families, including children — live in three yurts and trailer while a smaller yurt houses laundry and showers.
Hetzler said she went ahead with placing the yurts and travel trailer on the property last year when she grew impatient with getting answers from the county planning department, wanted to provide housing for her workers, and after conflicts with planning department director Onno Husing.
After being turned down for building permits, Hetzler and her former attorney tried to make the case that her employees living on the property would also be performing timber-related work during their off-hours or during the slow tourist time during the winter. Their interpretation of state rules say that forest work — thinning trees, cutting limbs and making fire wood — can allow her to create a temporary “forest” camp.
In its filing, the county said the “un-permitted” yurts and recreational vehicles are dwelling units and are not allowed as a “temporary forest logging camp” under Oregon land-use laws.
Hetzler vowed in August that she would not remove the yurts or trailers and challenged the county to take her to court.
- Quinton Smith is the editor of YachatsNews.com and can be reached at YachatsNews@gmail.com
Good for the county. I don’t care how well intentioned these people are or how bad the need for housing, you don’t just go ignoring the law willy-nilly because you want to do so.
When it comes to family or friend, I’d break any law that’s been created if in doing so it kept a family off the streets in a warm place that was safe. I mean come on get it together people; when did y’all become so damn cold and careless?
This right here. Yes. Humanity over red tape.
Nothing cold and careless about it. She did it illegally – and I might add unsafely. Helping people doesn’t mean you break laws. She’s got a hotel. She could put them in in 2 or 3 rooms until legal housing can be found. But no, she chose to go the illegal route and now those people will be uprooted. It’s commendable she gave her employees housing, but she went about the wrong way. Those laws were set up so people don’t do things the way she did. Sorry, uphold our laws.
Amen, Agree
I agree people are better off in temporary housing than on the street.
It seems that there are other issues and exceptions that you ignored. Perhaps they cannot all be addressed here.
No doubt its their property. They bought the land why the heck can’t we put what we want on our own property? It’s not disturbing other residences. Quite frankly I think too many people enjoy being a Karen and would rather see people suffer instead of helping to house those who cannot afford a place due to the economy’s downfall plus inflation cost
You are so right!!
If you don’t stop them, you will have contractors tearing up property and people will not obey your laws and figure if they fight you long enough, they will stay and prosper at your expense.
These yurts do have windows it can be seen in the photograph. Oregon makes for some very unpleasant conditions with mold in shoddy low income public housing as well as private apartment developments. I have been in yurts that stood over 20 years and they are much more waterproof. As a life long renter I wish I had been afforded a clean rental worth my payment all these years but sadly my apartment in Salem had cigarette butts beneath the carpet, the other Salem apartment got fleas from woodchip landscaping and hid it until we were all exhausted trying to treat them, Portland apartment increased rent %150 at 6 months which was signature for portland and I had to move, Corvallis rental was overly micromanaged by a hoa that wouldn’t let the owner paint the chipped garage doors so she sold rather than deal with the headache of their rules, good luck finding a job and an affordable apartment in Eugene and what is here on the coast besides finding something with help from family or your workplace? What if you don’t have family here or work full time in our service industry and you plan to do that for many years into the future? Many people would have a better situation for their mental health if they had a clean new efficient home like these yurts. Doesn’t Oregon promote sustainability in building code? What is the county doing to provide housing? Nothing from what I have seen in the before and after of 20+ years of economic growth. It also appears permits were obtained for the building if I’m reading correctly it just seems like the county is pointing out they tried to delay permitting and were unsuccessful so insist they didn’t initially want to give permits and made the owner jump through hoops. To what end is the county pursuing this? Do they intend to provide housing for the taxpayers who’s fees they recieve and steward? Is kicking workers out of their homes in winter their intention? How are my taxes safeguarded by public servants when my colleagues in our robust Yachats and Waldport workforce are pushed into being unhoused? Do they intend on actually legally dealing with the workers and considering their rights? Monday I went to work in Yachats and I heard an alarm going off from one of the massive houses unoccupied on the hill beyond 2nd street. 8 hours later it was still going off. In the beginning of the day I thought one of their neighbors is going to be irritated and call around to figure out who’s gone or at work and get the alarm turned off but it’s obvious it’s just a huge unoccupied vacation rental or 2nd home surrounded by the like that service workers cannot afford to live in. The best we can hope for is a livable wage to clean it for our tourists or wealthy part year residents. That it went all day means noone was bothered because the other grossly over glazed hillslide situated houses are also empty. So it has haunted me “if a tree falls in the forest and noone can hear it because we can’t afford to live here and there is nowhere to live and nothing to live in did it really fall? I’d love to see in writing how much the county is spending on litigating this. Do they intend to create a new housing subdivision in Yachats city? Is the county hunting for solutions or just pointing fingers at the rest of us that don’t carry the taxpayer purse? I think the yurts look nice to live in and I am sure the current occupants think the same. A place of your own without having to share walls with others who work nights and weekends or opposing schedules? What a dream! I wish I had land to put a yurt on preferably somewhere close to work and from someone who I trust with making payments too. If there were a safety concern what better than to have a life long certified contractor and former forest service employee watching over the land. The only thing better would be to have an available affordable home I could buy from my wages and enthusiasm and support from our paid public servants.
Hear, hear! Well said. I moved here from Savannah, GA where everything is WAY too expensive because of gentrification. I loved the beauty, and the cost. It wasn’t so bad. Then Covid hit and everyone got greedy and stupid. I mean, who hell raises the cost of having a place to live when they know there is nobody working because of a global pandemic? Nobody asked for this! You cannot plan for a pandemic!
Well said, could not even think of all this pain by all and hope something good comes from it all. It’s so sad it had to even come to this. Good luck to all.
This is the kind of neighbor I want.
I’ve noticed that the county and state have become more strict over the last few years. I live in Lincoln County as well and also purchased 35 acres on 2 parcels back in 2017. My property has been logged many times in the past and as recently as the 1990s. I wanted to log the back 5 acres on each corner of the property where my property meets the national forest. This would have allowed me to have the funds (as I live completely off of my veterans disability) to pay for the logging roads and cat trails from previous logging projects graded and maintained so I could make use of them to get around my property. The state forestry service continues to deny me the ability to log to have this done. So I have to walk my property completely on foot to get around. Just this year, I received a letter from the county saying that I am now unable to build on this property unless I am building in a location where a building or structure was previously standing. So now I have 35 acres that I cannot log, or build on to improve this land in any way that would improve my quality of life or increase the value of my home and property.
Why didn’t you check the rules before you bought the property? I feel for the homeless but there is no excuse for not following the rules. Like someone said, how much would these same people flood Lincoln County with complaints if others started developing their own property despite the rules and start blocking beach access or coastal views or any other issues. It doesn’t matter where or why – follow the rules or change them. Violating them for these reasons and it being considered okay just opens the door for the violations that would not be okay. You don’t get to decide. Follow them all or no one follow them and then don’t complain. These aren’t Karen’s. They are people who don’t want society to be a free for all. Work within the rules. She wants a fight? Then she should have gone to the board of county commissioners to start the fight instead of going this route. There are other options besides doing this. I hope she loses. She’s wrong even if she’s doing it for the right cause. Like someone said, give up a room or two. But that would interfere with her rights to make money, right? Folks, before you buy property and claim foul because can’t do with it what you want, how about you check before you buy. You have no one to blame for that than yourselves. And those claiming the rights to do what they want with your property? How about I move in and do what I want with my property? Bet you’ll be crying foul in no time. NIMBY.
Hopefully no one has to be in the position that they need housing and not have anything available.
glad a employer has the back bone to put a foot down so the employees that are working in that community are not stuck in a tent, under a bridge or sleeping on the street sidewalk in front the businesses .
I believe if the county forces these tenants off, thats their only option. The only other option is to leave Yachats, making the workforce those amazing establishments like the Drift Inn possible, vanish. We need to support our community and those who make it possible as well as our tourists.
Are you offering to foot the bill to put people up? No? Then why should others? The other option is for her to offer up some of her rooms especially given it’s off season or for others to do the same. But no, that’s not going to happen because that would interfere with them making money. And people need to stop fighting cities and Lincoln County for increasing expenses on tourists like short-term rentals, food and beverage taxes and the like. It’s amazing how people cry that Lincoln County is wrong and that we need these places for tourism and yet those same people are upset when the cities and county look at raising taxes. You can’t have your cake and to eat it too. Want to help the homeless? Then stop fighting places to put them that the cities are being forced to provide because they might be next to you. I’m just so tired of the hypocrisy.
The need for housing is so important – affordable housing.
What about a grant so that they can do the permits and the necessary updates for electronic and sewage. What about the County building properties for the homeless utilizing funds from the government for housing getting people off the streets.
A young man died several years ago falling asleep in a dumpster, and was killed. Does no one see that he lost his life avoiding the cold, for no shelter existed he could afford? What did the county do for the mom, the twin brother? The sister? Nothing. No one said a word. Just marked as tragedy and moved on. Not all of us did. That could have been anyone of our children. I say let’s build affordable housing, and allow other to inflect ideas and donate property to get this done.
Let’s save lives this year, not cost them.
Amen. Affordable housing is one thing, but we don’t even have housing to make affordable. Of course they live here; it’s their only option. Devastating to know the county finds the one making a change is the problem.
Number one, YachatsNews did not tell “the whole story.” Yurt, tents and recreational vehicles do not fall under the uniformed building code and are not required to have building permits. Although people live in them, they are not considered a dwelling, which is a legal term falling under the uniform building code. We did get an electrical permit and after inspecting twice they “red tagged” us stating that we cannot have electrical in a tent, which is incorrect. The folks in Salem in charge of electrical codes said that was incorrect. We applied for an “application to connect” septic permit after I called a sanitarian in another county to get advice on how to be legal because Lincoln county just said there were no legal avenues. I also called the regional Oregon Department of Environmental Quality representative for our area that overseas a Lincoln County system and he told me if they won’t let me connect to our existing septic system I can just apply for a permit to expand the tank. So I did that and they told the local Lincoln county sanitarian to put the permit application on the bottom of the pilot, not take action on it. I’ve done a ton of research on this and we are allowed to have a temporary forest camp for management purposes of a timber, conservation zoned parcel of land.
I also discovered there is an avenue for the county to authorize other property as a “temporary park” for times in housing crises, to provide temporary housing without a time limit. The building code folks in Salem have been incredibly helpful. They wrote a letter regarding the statutes, and we sent it to Lincoln County planning department and county commissioners but they won’t authorize it. There’s two statutes, one can be authorized by the county planning director, who is Onno Husing, the other one can be authorized by the county commissioners themselves. All my efforts talking to the county, and the county commissioners have resulted in people not just shying away, but actually running away. They said this is a legal matter, and they will not take action or even reply to any of my questions anymore. I have spent thousands of dollars on lawyers to assert our right to house house three families. It’s insane, especially given our housing problems. I never thought I would be in this kind of position having to defend a right. The county planning department has indeed gone downhill. My husband and I have worked with the Lincoln county building department for 35 years. The last eight years of working within the planning department’s demands have been ridiculous. Numerous times I have had to go above their heads and point out that their requirements are unnecessary an incorrect. Their wielding power against the citizens of Lincoln County is pervasive. They use terms such as, “Not gonna happen” or “There’s a new sheriff in town” instead of citing legal code. They are supposed to be public servants. They are supposed to be working for us. What happened to a government “By the people, of the people, for the people.”
Then go to the state. Go to Governor Kotek who filed the emergency order. Go to your senators, Gomberg, anyone but don’t do what you did. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Well said Linda. They are just trying to ruin the lives of others. Gone are the days of working hard and being able to pay rent. I will never understand the evil mentality of causing more problems for human beings instead of finding solutions. How about actually helping people to have a decent life where they don’t end up without a roof over their heads. I wish you the best and I stand behind you 100%
Thank you Linda for the additional information and for all the work and funds you have put into this to simply provide a livable alternative for your employees nd their families. I remember asking one of your outstanding waiters where he lived some time ago and his reply, “I live in my car.” The No. 1 issue for Yachats continues to be workforce housing, in my opinion. Thank you for providing an alternative to living in your car or on our streets.
If the county used those resources they’re wasting on going after her to actually solve our housing shortage this would all be a moot point. Sounds like this woman is just trying to help out her employees, we all know how hard it is to keep good employees here on the coast due to not having affordable housing. Let’s cut down on vacation rentals, not waste time, money, and energy on this silliness.
Wait a minute … can Yachats really support businesses that have to build dormitories for their employees? Is it that Yachats needs more housing or that Yachats doesn’t need more businesses for the tourist trade? I’ve nothing against tourism or tourists, but is it really necessary to cram more and more people in for the sole purpose of grabbing tourist dollars? How about if Yachats paid more attention to those of us who actually live here? We are a small town – much of what makes us what we want to be is our smallness.
Do we really want big huge parking lots? How about barely minimal housing communities to house workers here to work for tourism dollars? Oh yeah, let’s just cram as many workers in as we can get – who cares if we have schools and health care and all the attendant necessities – so long as a few people make lots of money?
Let’s examine what is really best for our citizens … let’s become more exclusive. What if we had a few shining jewels, like maybe three or four hotels and three of four restaurants? Enough with the touristy thrown together schlock shops and pseudo gourmet trendy eateries. Yachats should be better than this.
The Drift Inn has been a historic staple in Yachats since 1929, and currently locally owned small family business for the last 21 years. Hardly a “touristy thrown together schlock shop”. It is a gem of a place that is eclectic, artfully curated, and employs 60 plus local folks. The owner is incredibly involved in the city and instrumental in putting on various festivals, and donates extensively to local volunteer groups. She has housed employees in her personal home and in the hotel. Several of the employees that she houses work at other businesses in Yachats as well as the Drift, so she is housing other local businesses employees as well.
These yurts are cozy, warm, and well organized. It’s shameful that some of the community, like yourself, would turn families out of their homes in the winter. I am astounded at the lack of empathy both for a long time beloved business and for all of the people that it supports.
Tourists are coming to the coast in ever increasing droves, and nothing is going to change that. I count myself lucky to live full time in such a beautiful place where people come to vacation.
Well said. I 100% agree.
This town is tourism, so it’s a good thing you don’t have anything against tourism or tourists. This town uses every hotel room and short term rental during peak times (did you step outside for the eclipse to see the crowds or look around during king tides)? This town has always centered in tourism. Housing costs are high across the state and across the entire country. There are houses for sale in Yachats; they’re expensive like everywhere else. Yachats is remote and desirable and just like in other desirable remote locations low wage workers have two choices: commute to work from other larger cities with housing options or get creative. This town needs Drift Inn. If the workers want to live in yurts let’s make it safe and get out of their way. And let’s stop trying to change the town we chose to move into. Posts like this drip of entitlement – you’ve got all the money you need, you’ve got your affordable home and now you want Yachats all to yourself. The rest of us to make a living and we’re facing a nationwide housing crisis. Let’s support these families that are supporting our lovely town.
Yachats is one of the best place to live and our county refuses to let people live here. With the city being flooded with hotels, AirBnB’s and vacation homes, how is anyone able to live here? Where else can these people go? It sounds like to me, she was trying to make an opportunity for her workers to enjoy the life this coastline has to offer. Inspections should be done, but the county should either limit the number of vacation lot/ properties, or give her a break. Everytime I’ve gone into the Drift Inn, I’ve only seen extremely positive, hard working people. Most under the age of 30! Yachats and Lincoln county have refused to take action. Eventually, someone will take action or the city will have little to no workers!
In 2020, during the pandemic crisis, I was evicted from my own home, a parked motorhome on private land where I paid rent and did yard work, for well over a year. I was hooked up to water and electric, bought my own propane and had the sewer guy come pump once a month. I had a garden that provided food and a full time job the entire time I was in Yachats — five YEARS. Also, just off of Starr Creek. I was hurting no one and supporting myself.
But Lincoln County decided living in my motorhome was not allowed. (They also evicted another senior lady at the same time, in Waldport, I think.) So, why was it better for me to live in my car, with no bathroom, no shower, no way to refrigerate or cook food? I had to quit my job and never found another one, to move out of state.
Law’s are there for our protection. Soon Yachats will look like downtown Portland. Unsafe and unclean. If they really cared they would build one structure that was legal. And if you care so much you can help with that. Those structures are no place to have children. It’s always people that will not be accountable that want no rules.
What a ridiculous mess. Those who are gainfully employed and comfortably housed are focusing on keeping others less so .. .
That’s tax dollars well spent, kicking people to the street at the start of winter. This is a symptom of a much bigger problem. And one of the things that is creating it is the NIMBY attitude towards less fortunate people. There just isn’t enough places to live in this world right now. Yet we have so much empty land. The argument will be that we need to preserve land, and I agree that land conservation is very important. But I believe giving people a home is more important. There must be a compromise.
Yes, and the footprint they made with 4 yurts close together is sustainable and Earth friendly. It’s easier to build a mega mansion thay consumes 1000s of tons of carbon to build. I’m disenchanted with our antiquated laws for land use.
This is another effort by a business owner to get around the laws of our county for her own gain. Why should the law abiding residents of the community have to deal with this? The roads are not improved and yet must deal with the increased traffic. It’s like having a homeless camp in your neighborhood.
If you need housing for your employees, do it legally in a location zoned for it.
It seems absolutely ridiculous that the County, who is tasked with fighting homelessness, is so determined to kick these families out of their housing. Once again penalizing someone actually trying to help instead of doing their jobs.
I am sorry but you are being a complete scofflaw. Land use and zoning laws exist for a purpose. So do laws that prevent fires from killing people due to jerry rigged electrical systems or to prevent groundwater from being contaminated by overflowing septic systems. Timber conservation zones exist to preserve forest, not to put up housing developments.
I resent the implication that it is somehow inhumane to support rational laws that govern development and prevent developers and other people like hotel owners from putting up any structures they want anywhere. How would you like it if there was nothing to prevent the construction of a gas station or a grocery store or a solid waste dump next to your home?
I cannot believe how many people here are essentially advocating the law of the jungle, trying to justify it because there’s a need for housing. The county is going to easily win this case and everything that is being built illegally will be ripped down sooner or later. The owners would be better off putting their time and money into building legal housing for their employees.
Thr housing laws need to change and, if she is willing to lead the charge, I support her taking a stand. The Drift Inn has the best food in Oregon. I can tell her employees like their job and employer.
There is enough housing but it’s mostly being used for rich people to get richer. At some point (soon I hope) the tourist industry is going to have to take a good hard look at themselves. The forests that remain here and everywhere are beyond precious. More development is not the answer. My opinion.
I personally don’t consider yurts to be permanent structures, I consider them to be tents. RV’s aren’t structures at all, they’re vehicles. The only potential violation I see is the septic, and that could be corrected by making a communal bathroom or using holding tanks.
My dear friends and neighbors, I appreciate hearing all your thoughts about the world in which we all live work eat pray love. While I and my husband own and operate the Drift Inn, we have other businesses. One is the timber property of which we are speaking of here, it is called Goldilocks Station and is a registered business in the state of Oregon for the purpose of timber management. It is my intention to utilize waste vegetation on the property to create value added products. As some of you may know it takes multiple “arms” to run a business. Several of us have been working our tails off just prepping to get to the launch. We will be limbing merchantable trees, removing “pecker pole” trees, and brush removed for fire prevention, grinding them up with waste cardboard and our French fry oil to make wood pellets. We also are investing in a toothpick maker and will have a line of kabob sticks. All folks living on this property are and will be working in this new business.
As far as abiding by rules and regulations, I suggest you read our response to the county allegations and you will see that they are the ones not abiding by the rules and regulations. Not only are they not in this case but they also have not taken advantage of opportunities provided by the Oregon Legislature to provide emergency temporary housing relief on a broad spectrum. I also encourage you to embrace a government by the people of the people and for the people … as Abe Lincoln so eloquently stated.
Good for you Linda, it is patently obvious that there will have to be creative ways to house the workforce that is the lifeblood of the tourist industry in Lincoln County!. Who can afford rent on the coast these days??
I do not understand the big deal with people living in yurts and functional RVs. There is a whole community online of people who live legally in yurts and they are often also rented out for vacations. Many retirees live full time in their RVs. Yurts can also be inhabited full time and Pacific Yurts in Cottage Grove OR have been building them for decades…check out their website. You can find these amazing structures worldwide made by US, British and Australian companies. They are NOT ‘just tents’, they can be built with tolerance for high wind or heavy snow, and incidentally there are also plenty of them in the Oregon State Parks where they all have electricity installed, some yurts also have woodstoves with a specially constructed panel in the roof for the chimney. Many yurts are off grid and have composting toilets from companies like Sun Mar and systems that recycle greywater to use for irrigation. The fact that rules were created 50 years ago speaks volumes…for heavens sake, move with the times Oregon unless you want an even larger proportion of the working population to become homeless.
Amazing to me… all these comments and not one person suggested that if business is that good, and she is wealthy enough to own property, and she feels all prayerful and loving, why doesn’t Hetzler pay her employees a living wage? What, no housing available? She owns housing. She owns real housing, not migrant-camp tents.
Having your employer as your landlord is rather Dickensian. Seems there would be extra pressure to go to work no matter how sick you are, and how could one refuse their landlord-employer when, after you’ve clocked out, “Oh Raphael, just one more thing…”
She does pay a living wage, she is the only employer I have ever known to roll up her sleeves and try to solve a huge problem, and house employees. It’s above and beyond, and is admirable.
These attacking comments on social media with first names only or pseudonyms lack weight. State your identity. Own your opinions, don’t hide.
All the commenters on Linda Hetzler’s development on forest land have made valid points and clearly show the complexity of land use planning. This particular situation and comments are a microcosm of what went on statewide in Oregon in the 90’s which inspired public action in the 2004 with Measure 37 changing the Oregon Constitution for land use planning and in essence eliminating it.
Municipal planning agencies had started changing drastically in late 1960’s and became emboldened with power, although with some obvious valid reasons by seeing typical California urban sprawl eating up socially valuable ecological resources and especially class A farmland.
In 2004 the public voted and won by 60% Measure 37. This was a response to the often-seen arbitrary power of Planning departments dictating land uses. The mechanism of changing land use decisions with Measure 37 was requiring municipalities to compensate land owners with “just compensation” for loss of value in using their land as they preferred. Money talks and this measure threatened to shutter all building departments in Oregon to the point of having no land use requirements at all within the state.
There were minor adjustments and much litigation in Measure 37 for a couple years and in 2007 Measure 47 repealed and replaced Measure 39 with some minor concessions to the original statute, such as some allowances for development of properties owned 30 years prior by an owner. Measure 49 passed by 62% of Oregon Voters. Not exactly a landslide. The consensus at the time was that the original measure just overshot bringing planning departments into the world of reasonable land use evaluation.
The main point is that planning departments have a short memory. There is still probably 40% of the voting public that would again support a draconian elimination of land use planning such as Measure 37. There is possibly even a majority of voters that would currently support a less onerous but drastically changed landscape for land use review. This is because unfortunately many building departments have gone back to their emboldened agendas as if Measure 37 never had happened in 2004.
When land use laws are ambiguous or not properly in alignment with the overzealous agenda that some planning directors have, then other methods are sometimes used for compliance. Arbitrary bureaucratic complexity is sometimes employed to thwart challenging the system. High fees, delays and lack of communication including not returning correspondence or phone call are all tactics to avoid confronting the issues. Often it seems that planning departments forget who is working for who and employ a can’t-do attitude instead of real effort for a can-do resolution or at the minimum helping land owners navigate complicated legitimate processes available for land use evaluation. These may include such things as rezoning possibilities and guidelines, or conditional use permits, or some land use variances that are within the building departments discretion.
But planning departments have a short memory indeed. It took the better part of a half a century for a grass roots movement to change land use evaluation beginning with the perceived unfairness with some planning decisions beginning in the 1960’s and ending in 2004 with the passage of Measure 37. Now that planning departments have reverted to their old ways and it may take another half a century to rekindle the effort. But possibly less with people like Linda Hetzler leading the charge. Hopefully this time a more practical middle ground can be reached which can protect the environment and can reasonably protect property rights with more flexibility. Protection of both is important.
Reasonable is the operative word. Notwithstanding that Linda Hetzler’s property is not currently zoned for multiple structure multi-family habitation, a comparison of Linda’s proposed use with other possible permitted uses of timber property would add justification for a reevaluation of the property zoning. That would be a reasonable first step in meeting the needs of housing and the environment. Timber conservation land has many allowable uses, many of which would be undesirable to many. One of which is logging of course, including clear cutting and replanting and with the noise and storage of logging trucks and equipment. Agricultural uses which would typically include a pig farms or similar farming activities could be allowed as with music concerts with up to 5000 allowed persons with proper facilities, large youth camps and campgrounds, home occupation businesses with up to 5 resident workers but unlimited transient workers, mining exploration and mineral extraction with permits, solid waste disposal with permits, recreational uses such as rodeos or moto crosses as well as many more uses.
On the other hand, if the land was rezoned RR5 (rural residential 5 acres) then little of the above would be allowed while much of the forest could be preserved. That’s the “conservation” part of the timber conservation zoning equation that also considers ecological diversity and is in fact a non sequitur to logging. Those trees will still be there if folks finally run out of tooth picks.
Up to 7 residential units zoned RR5 may exist on this piece of land. So really with a property so close to this beautiful town of Yachats and with the need for housing far exceeding the need for mineral extraction, youth camps or logging concerns, then 4 yurts don’t sound so bad to me. Lincoln County should simply explore with a can-do attitude the option that this property could be allowed to be rezoned to a RR zone where the potential for negative noise and other possible noxious activities would be far less to the nearby Yachats population; And help chip away at the housing crisis that will never be remedied by the for-profit developers alone. Linda Hetzler is not asking for a permit for anything other than allowing non-profit housing at a lesser density than comparable rural residential properties enjoy nearby.
Eric Vance, builder