By QUINTON SMITH/YachatsNews
A judge said Tuesday that a Yachats businesswoman’s complex of four yurts and a recreational vehicle on 20 acres of forest land violates zoning ordinances.
Lincoln County Circuit Judge Sheryl Bachart agreed with Lincoln County’s argument that the housing created by Linda Hetzler and her husband, Thomas Smith, is not permitted in a timber conservation zone and connecting the structures to a single septic system is a health hazard.
Bachart approved the county’s motion for a summary judgement seeking to remove the yurts and trailer from the 20-acre property off Starr Creek Road just north of Yachats. Hetzler indicated she would appeal Bachart’s decision.
The year-long dispute between Hetzler, Smith and the county started when they erected housing on a 20-acre parcel she and her husband bought in 2021 and connected the structures to a septic system serving a former manufactured home. There are seven people living there now, she told the judge Tuesday.
Hetzler and Smith started construction of a building — with permits — on an adjacent 15-acre lot. Both properties are zoned as “timber conservation” meaning that they are allowed one residential dwelling.
The differences in arguments by assistant county counsel Douglas Holbrook and Hetzler during Tuesday’s 40-minute hearing were stark.
Holbrook focused on how zoning rules did not allow more than one residence on the property, that the yurts and travel trailer were not legal residences, that the property does not qualify for any other type of housing, and that the strain on the septic system is a health hazard.
Hetzler, who was representing herself and husband, argued that the people living there were doing agriculture work and therefore the compound could qualify as a temporary forest camp. But – unlike the county – Hetzler did not offer expert testimony or affidavits from others saying how the housing was OK and only said she had talked with officials in other counties about her issues.
She also criticized the county planning department for not working with her to help solve the issue – although it had said from the beginning the complex was not allowed under current zoning rules.
“I feel I have bent over backwards to work with the county …” she told Bachart. “It’s become a power struggle with accusations of lying and cheating. I’m committed to the community and the people who live here. I’m not an axe murderer. I’m not someone trying to commit fraud.”
Hetzler said the property had been logged 40 years ago, ignored since then and was overgrown with alder trees that needed thinning when they bought it. Her goal was to sell firewood and other products.
Bachart asked “what’s temporary” when it comes to the housing.
“I’m not sure,” Hetzler replied.
“What kind of time frame are we looking at?” Bachart asked.
“I’m not sure,” Hetzler said again. “Living in a yurt is not something you want to do for a long time … but generally until the property is cleaned up and made safe.”
Hetzler and Smith own the popular Drift Inn restaurant and motel in Yachats.
County fires back
In the county’s 14-page motion – and in affidavits filed by three building officials – Holbrook said the complex does not fall under state or county rules allowing a temporary forest camp, and that Hetzler admitted previously that the residents worked in her restaurant.
The motion called them “bootlegged dwellings” not allowed in zoning for timber conservation properties.
“In this case, the defendants have flagrantly violated DEQ septic rules and therefore don’t legally have anything like a forest work camp,” the motion said. “It is a farce to believe what the defendants have built is anything more or less than a residential rental investment — in a place and way that it is a violation of local and state law, including fire code, building code and the landlord tenant act.”
“The dwellings are illegally placed … and are creating a public health danger by severely over taxing the septic system,” the motion said. “They have defiantly built without permits for plumbing, septic, and lied on their electrical permit to say the electrical circuits were going to be accessory structures not dwellings …”
In summarizing its request to have the buildings removed, the county said Hetzler and Smith “have ignored warnings and the law, and have added to their investment real estate holdings in at an impermissble place and in an impermissible way.
“These are not ‘temporary’ nor related to any bonafide commercial forest use,” the motion said. “There is no indication of compliance with the laws regarding temporary forest labor camps and significant evidence of defendant’s non-compliance with the laws regarding temporary forest labor camps. The overtaxing of the septic is of great concern to the plaintiff, and there is no way to mitigate that without removing the unlawful dwellings.”
Bachart, who patiently asked questions of Hetzler during the proceedings, said she wanted to rule on merits of the case, not because Hetzler was representing herself, had missed required response dates on motions and provided no affidavits or witnesses in support of her arguments.
Bachart said her ruling depended on a “very narrow legal issue” as to whether the complex violated zoning and septic rules, that it was clear to her that the complex is not a temporary forest camp and that the county’s exhibits showed the yurts and trailer “meet the definition of a dwelling, clearly.”
With that she granted Holbrook’s motion for a summary judgement, and directed him to prepare an order that she could sign within 30 days.
The county is also in the process of bringing its fines for code or zoning violations into line with new state of Oregon penalties.
Under the new rules – which county commissioners are expected to approve Wednesday – the county is proposing a four-fold increase in fines. A one-time violation by an individual could bring a fine ranging from $220 to $2,000 a day; the fine for corporations could range from $220 to $4,000 a day.
- Quinton Smith is the editor of YachatsNews.com and can be reached at YachatsNews@gmail.com
The county is in the midst of a housing crisis. To say that it is an emergency is not a stretch. Employers are already hard pressed to find workers, especially in Yachats, where nine out of 10 people who work there do not live there. Even if there was property available to rent, the average worker cooking, waiting tables or washing dishes could not afford to live there. This is a creative solution to house workers inexpensively, and places no more strain on the septic system than if it were a family living in one house. Linda and Tom should be applauded for their efforts, but instead are penalized. And now, seven people will be homeless, and most likely forced to move out of the area. Way to go.
Well said. It’s a bit of a stretch for the county to be calling small square footage tents to be residences instead of temporary emergency worker housing. Do they equate to the ‘residences’ that those county staff prosecuting this case live in?
And the county also is incorrect in saying that there is an actual ‘health hazard’ as the current septic system is designed for 8+ people. Creatively the yurts could/should be considered ‘detached’ bedrooms and be thankful that Tom and Linda have housed more people than the county staff. The yurts do not have to be removed when they are disconnected from the septic system as they are legally allowed as storage sheds/tents that they are. No stone throwing needed … just more housing.
You would be over the moon if you had a son or daughter with children who were paying to live in an unpermitted compound up in the woods … as a condition of their low-paid employment?
Back in my day, we called that a “company town.”
(You do see the GreenGuard in that photo, right? That’s an unfinished dwelling right there. Not ready for human habitation.)
If it meant they weren’t sleeping in their car, or worse on the street, as so many in Yachats are, yeah … I’d be “over the moon.” There’s heat, water, septic… community. Where do you suggest the seven people living there go?
The irony of out of state transplants commenting … housing is unaffordable due to out of state people with lots of cash moving here and driving up the market so locals can’t afford to live.
People of means travel to enjoy a nice vacation in yurts, tree houses, train cars, tiny homes (fancy sheds) RV parks, state parks and primative campgrounds using outhouses and in the real far out terrain bury their waste … and all of these are acceptable. But the minute it’s called home its a problem.
It appears that its only acceptable when people charge per night people that have a home and don’t need it for anything more than fun. These laws are nothing more than blatant proof that when it comes down to it, money is all that matters.
I think the yurts and trailer should stay. They are on a septic tank and private property. People need places to live.
Reasonable regulation based on substantive grounds is necessary to for a functional society among people who are not well educated in multiple disciplines, such as civil engineering and reforestation. The owner may have converted the property into a riparian zone to reduce property tax, which is a common tactic. But in exchange for such tax break, comes the added responsibility to benefit the environment, by compliance with tighter use regulations. Unfortunately, Lincoln County has a long standing approach of railroading its citizens with an iron fist, instead of finding reasonable and appropriate balances for the actual circumstances. Consider the commissioners’ response to past toxicity of Devils Lake. Their decisions were not founded in substantive environmental and public health concerns, but in simply maintainimg and exercizing power. Hmmm, doesn’t that sound familiar? Solution? Exercise your power to vote and effect change.
I live in the valley but I drive to Yachats and stay a few times every year for vacation. It’s my favorite coastal town, and it’s no secret that the people that run business there face challenges keeping employees due to lack of housing. Every time I go for another visit I wonder if my favorite places to eat will still be open. It seems like this little tourist town would get more support from its city or county government to address this issue. It would be in everyone’s best financial interests. Seems like a no brainer to me, but what do I know, I just go spend my money there and leave… at least I will until all the good restaurants have to close down because they can’t house their employees. What’s going to support that city and county government when all the tourists money is gone?
That is Oregon for you. I was forced off my 5 acres in Multnomah County because I didn’t comply with new Forest Service rules. I had been living on the property doing the same agricultrial thing for 25 years before they, Serria Club inspired rules changed things. I have no nice words to say about Multnomah County planning idiots. We had to move out of the state to a state more sane with their zoning rules.
Composting toilets anyone? This is ridiculous 🫤
Excellent response. Need balance between heavy handed government and reckless citizens. What I read seemed heavy handed.
Very very very sad. This was a creative solution to a housing crisis that is plaguing America. Supposedly America is the greatest country and people are violating laws to get here. But it is hard working USA citizens who own businesses and cannot afford “standard” housing ….and are then penalized whopping legal fines for creative housing solutions. This is very very very sad. And to think educated leaders have all the legal knowledge yet they lack loving hearts nor do they offer creative solutions. What is the object of a formal education? Not to serve others obviously and further to destroy the spirit of community. America is doomed. Its a sad place to live. Prayers for this senior woman and spouse inspired from within to create housing solutions for others. God be with you.
Everyone here has wonderful advice. May I suggest bringing in a port-a-potty to replace septic problems. Good luck with your appeal. I would also remind these commission members that you are a member the voting public, and so are all your friends. They serve us, not the other way around.
Is this a joke? Here’s some information for the Lincoln County commissioners and the judge – there is no affordable housing in south Lincoln County or anywhere else in Lincoln County. Linda employs many people, and the only reason they have housing is because of Linda. Lincoln County should be thanking Linda and offering to help her find a workable solution. Instead you force the people living on the property to go where? How do you expect businesses to continue to operate if they can’t find employees? Commissioners, we have a housing crisis in our county for many years, and all three of you have been aware of the crisis for years. Please tell us your plan to address this crisis now, not in another 10 years. How do you expect business to thrive in Lincoln County if there is no affordable housing? Do your job and come up with a plan to fix the problem of lack of affordable housing in the county you represent. Shame on you Lincoln County officials for subjecting Linda to judicial processings and fines.
The simple answer is stop voting for the people running this state
That’s nonsense. There are rules and laws benefiting everyone. Using the shortage of local housing as a pretext for illegal land uses would open up, excuses for anyone to camp anywhere, including the national Forest.
Zoning, fire code, and sewage disposal requirements are there for the reason of protecting the environment , the community, and property occupants themselves.
Maybe you missed the part that the septic system already on site was originally designed for the exact amount of people living here.
Welcome to Multnomah County …
It’s truly sad that it even came to this.
Yep, I guess the county thinks that these people living in tents and crapping on the ground is a “safer” and “healthier” alternative.
I live here and I am deeply offended by your interpretation of the “facts.” First of all, we don’t live in tents, second, we actually use the toilets which are connected to a septic system that was built for the exact amount of people who live here now before the property was purchased. Please consider your words and what motivated you to speak them.
Very well said. My sentiments exactly.
I would like to state for the record that I did not write this.
I have had people comment to me on what they think I wrote and I don’t appreciate being put in that position.
May I suggest that YachatsNew adopt a policy that those commenting on articles be required to use their full names or choose anonymous?
The idea that anyone can build anything anywhere is completely obnoxious and contrary to rational land use planning. What a waste of money. Too bad county planning can’t bill her for all the time they’ve wasted on this. Ditto for the court system. I hope the county forces her to pay their legal fees.
The septic system was already permitted for a mobile home that had already been there. Thus, the draconian county administrators and commissioners have established a defacto limit of family size, such that two parents patents and five children is excessively large for an already permitted residential site.
What concerns me about this whole “affair” is that the county seems to be more than willing to engage in uneven enforcement of the law. I brought a neighboring property to the attention of the county with regard to illegal land use and habitation and multiple health hazards and was told by the county planner that “They all die eventually”. So what has made him decide that the Hetzler property is in greater need of removal of non-compliant structures?
Money. If they can’t get money out of you, then, how would they recoup their costs and make their enforcement worthwhile? It’s a 2-tiered system of justice, Oregon has to vote differently.
Reading this made me very scared… it sounds far too controlling and venomous. The government whether state, federal or local, should always be there to serve its citizens. So many rules and regulations! Good lord, you can’t even “own” your own land anymore without having to ask permission to use it and then be charged a yearly fee just because you’re there. I understand the government has to protect us from ourselves on occasion, but this just seems mean.
No one has ever been able to do anything they want on their own land, at least in modern times. There are zoning and land use regulations and these folks are violating them badly, and many of you are trying to rationalize behavior that is anti-government, anti-environment and Wild West.
How would you like it if there was a vacant lot next to your home in a residential zoned area and someone decided to put up a motel next to you? Or a gas station? Or a store? Zoning regulations exist for a reason.
How depressing for all of us that have worked, or want to work in Yachats. It is hard enough in this unbalanced class system in the whole of the United States to find affordable housing and a job that pays enough for clean maintained housing. that people can’t even find one without the other is obvious how do you work if you have nowhere to live how do you rent a place if you have no income. The county is really pushing the publics boundaries just to get a few more inches of someone else’s space.
Thank you for trying Linda and Tom. People being homeless and living in their cars and on the streets, is not a health hazard?
This is a perfect example of how strict laws stifle creative solutions to real problems. My observation is that the land owners are trying to solve a real problem and the direct benefits to the county, the city of Yachats and it’s residents is real economic sustainability. Times are tough, many people want to work and be prosperous but can’t afford the high rent costs that most landlords want. This was a solution that was not threatening anyone and should therefore be allowed to continue if it benefits the overall needs of the community. And it’s clear to me it does.
Regaurdless of how one takes it, there are rules that have to be obided by especially when building on ones property. We moved here on our property in Waldport because there are rules that help protect our interest and knew it prior to our purchase. Yes, there are issues in alot of things now days with housing and all, but the rules have to be followed when it comes to building. You shouldn’t try to skirt around the rules because in the end it will catch up with you. Regaurdless of the situation, if action isn’t taken to address these kinds of actions, our area may go down the tubes. Too many big city/Californians taking over our prestine area.
There doesn’t seem to be an easy solution beyween the two points of view. Codes and regulations are created and passed to maintain safe, healthy and pleasant living standards. We all want a home. We want to be able to reasonably travel to and from work to afford for our home. Efficient systems are needed to make that happen. Less efficient systems can cause dangerous consequences such as injury, disease and lawsuits. That said, Linda and Tom are an example of good folk trying to do a good thing but stymied by years of over regulations that have made creative and generous actions illegal. If the city could work with the talent and creative energy that Linda and Tom offer, maybe a solution could happen. Offer to build a more sustainable septic system. Ask some contractors to donate some building labor, for their beloved Yachats. Of course there should be rules. It would be chaos if there weren’t. But work with each other. Then we all build this community.
It’s laughable to hear these two described as “creative” problem solvers, when the only problem solved is in service of their own interests. Simultaneously, they’ve managed to create more problems both for themselves, their neighbors, the county, and our coastal environment. There’s nothing creative about breaking the rules and then blaming the system. Wanna be creative? Attend town/county meetings and try offering up more than ‘let’s trash everything and go back to 40 acres and a mule days’.
This case reminds me of another Yachats business owner building things without permits. That said, you can’t just connect five dwellings to one 1,000 gallon septic system or build a brewery and restaurants without permits. This “village” is something else. I wish I could have been here when people were signing a petition to stop the low-income housing project on Diversity Drive. You can’t have it both ways people.
I live on the disputed property. I am wondering who decided that the septic system isn’t enough for us as there hasn’t been any issue.
I’ve also wondered why the state is allowed to rent yurts on non-buildable public property to thousands of tourists every year.
I wish you all could see for yourselves the amount of improvement that has been done here. Apparently the work hasn’t been properly documented, I don’t know. If we were all lawyers instead of laborers, craftspeople and small businesses owners, perhaps the verdict may have gone a different way.
This court decision was because you can’t violate land use laws, no matter who you are. I am frankly amazed by how many commenters here are supporting a do whatever the heck you want scofflaw mentality. Oregon’s land use laws help keep this state beautiful. They are obviously coming into conflict with the need for more housing, but the answer is to amend the law in a responsible manner, not to ignore it.
Maybe y’all would like this illegal development next to your home? The owners want to profit from despoiling forest land with substandard shelters.
You should know they are likely getting reduced property tax rates because of the zoning. The “development” is being subsidized by other landowners in the county who have to pay for the roads, police, schools, and social services which the tenants will disproportionately require. You can bet they are bringing down the value of adjacent properties. The owners are brazenly flouting the law. I believe they were treated much too leniently by the county.
Have you been up there? There is no “next to your home” there. And, if all 7 occupants are kicked out, become homeless and decide to camp in the woulds there anyways, without the benefit of a septic system, there is little the County could do to remove them, what with the “Martin et al. v. City of Boise” court ruling. Isn’t this a better solution than that?
Lack of affordable housing or lack of living wage jobs? Employers are not paying living wages. Maybe some can or maybe some can’t, but if you can’t afford to live and work here something needs to change.
The whole concept of forest reserve properties somehow preserving rather low value lands in Oregon for low value forestry and agriculture is somewhat flawed, especially in the face of massive homelessness. We have the same problem here in southern Oregon, and we’re still running on a program that was set in the 1970s over the panic around the back to the land movement and establishing homesites willy-nilly under the far more permissive development structure of that time. That sure has gone full circle and bit the kinds of folks that voted in the land use laws, hoping to keep out what they considered an incompatible group of people.
It’s long past time to revisit those land use laws, and ask ourselves, especially in a Oregon that is drying out and getting warmer because of global climate change, what constitutes high value lands. Are we just simply trying to zone other people’s properties as the local park system? Doesn’t seem particularly fair. Obviously there needs to be some balance, because we don’t want to have massive sprawl either. But the system we have now is far too strict, again considering our housing issues, and just listening to those that have financial interests in their existing real estate holdings isn’t going to solve our problem.
The state’s allowance of ADUs is a step in the right direction, but perhaps we could rethink some of these rather strict rural development philosophies.
The county’s septic safety argument is baloney. The Hetzler‘s have a functional septic system. Meanwhile, tons of homes in Lincoln County have systems that have failed, sewage literally backing up into their home. Should those families get evicted? Seems that there are two sides in this dispute. One side is making the world better and one side is making it worse.
I am happy to hear they are making sure people aren’t ruining the environment by hooking too much up to one septic tank. If you want to have that kind of setup on your land then do it legally. Don’t try and short cut the setup and possibly have an issue because you haven’t done correctly! Too many out there think just because it’s their land there are no consequences to others if they screw up their own property. There is runoff and many other aspects they need to take into consideration. Thank you judge. We appreciate your decision.
“I feel I have bent over backwards to work with the county …” she told Bachart. “It’s become a power struggle with accusations of lying and cheating. I’m committed to the community and the people who live here. I’m not an axe murderer. I’m not someone trying to commit fraud.”
No, she wasn’t doing any of this and what she was trying to do is overall a good thing, but there are rules. You don’t like the rules, change the rules. Don’t just ignore them. That’s the point, folks and what most of you just don’t get. How about if I start breaking rules about speeding and stealing and so on? I’m not an axe murderer, I love my community, I just need to help feed people and get people to work. You all okay with that? I mean, folks need food and transportation and don’t always have either but how about if I just start doing that and breaking all rules?
Nobody changed the rules since the property was purchased. Should these second and third growth forest lands near growing towns be handled the same as remote forest lands, probably not. For now the rules are one single family resident. Don’t like the rules, tough, but live with the consequences when you ignore them.