Yamhill County continues contested farm-dwelling hearing to May 28 after new evidence surfaced
May 21, 2026 | Yamhill County, Oregon
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Yamhill County Board of Commissioners opened a contested land-use hearing May 21 on docket FD-01-26, an appeal of the planning director’s approval for a principal dwelling provided in conjunction with farm use, and continued the matter to 10 a.m. May 28, 2026, in Room 32 of the Yamhill County Courthouse for deliberation at the point of staff recommendation.
Planner Tiffany provided the staff report, describing the subject parcel as roughly 84.6 acres in Exclusive Farm Use (EF-80) and listing surrounding land uses, permitted agricultural buildings and prior approvals. Applicant Ray Markham described the family’s long history on the property, the recorded access easement (surveyed and recorded in 2009), infrastructure investments of about $300,000, and evidence submitted with the application, including IRS tax transcripts and Schedule Fs to document farm income for the requisite period. Markham said, "We've already submitted substantial evidence, in support of our application," and asked the board to uphold the planning director’s approval.
Appellant Clark Ellingson, representing Forey Land LLC, told the board he submitted evidence based on applicable land-use law and raised concerns including a roadway curve the fire marshal had flagged as not meeting standards; he said he would address items if the board found them relevant. Ellingson stated he prepared additional photographs and materials and distributed them at the hearing.
After discussion about how to handle the newly submitted materials, counsel and staff advised two options: leave the record open under the 7–7–7 schedule (which could extend the calendar) or continue the hearing to the staff-recommendation stage next week so the absent chair could participate. The board opted to close the hearing for oral testimony and continue at the staff-recommendation stage at 10 a.m. May 28, 2026, giving parties the opportunity to submit written rebuttal under established processes if requested. The action was procedural; no final decision on the application was made on May 21.
The continuance preserves parties’ rights to present further evidence through the county’s established filing periods if they request the record remain open; the board scheduled deliberations when both all commissioners and submitted materials can be reviewed.
Planner Tiffany provided the staff report, describing the subject parcel as roughly 84.6 acres in Exclusive Farm Use (EF-80) and listing surrounding land uses, permitted agricultural buildings and prior approvals. Applicant Ray Markham described the family’s long history on the property, the recorded access easement (surveyed and recorded in 2009), infrastructure investments of about $300,000, and evidence submitted with the application, including IRS tax transcripts and Schedule Fs to document farm income for the requisite period. Markham said, "We've already submitted substantial evidence, in support of our application," and asked the board to uphold the planning director’s approval.
Appellant Clark Ellingson, representing Forey Land LLC, told the board he submitted evidence based on applicable land-use law and raised concerns including a roadway curve the fire marshal had flagged as not meeting standards; he said he would address items if the board found them relevant. Ellingson stated he prepared additional photographs and materials and distributed them at the hearing.
After discussion about how to handle the newly submitted materials, counsel and staff advised two options: leave the record open under the 7–7–7 schedule (which could extend the calendar) or continue the hearing to the staff-recommendation stage next week so the absent chair could participate. The board opted to close the hearing for oral testimony and continue at the staff-recommendation stage at 10 a.m. May 28, 2026, giving parties the opportunity to submit written rebuttal under established processes if requested. The action was procedural; no final decision on the application was made on May 21.
The continuance preserves parties’ rights to present further evidence through the county’s established filing periods if they request the record remain open; the board scheduled deliberations when both all commissioners and submitted materials can be reviewed.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
