ADJ25-008 Staff Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

While the standard setback for ADU’s located in the rear yard is 5 feet in the Salem UGB, for other UGBs the assessed setbacks are the same as non-inhabited accessory structures. This different standard uses the height of the proposed accessory structure in an equation to determine property line setbacks. That equation can be simplified to the following: Height of Building (in feet) – 9 (feet) = Setback (in feet) In this case, “height” is defined in MCC 16.49.134 as “the vertical distance above a reference datum measured to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof”. The proposed structure has a pitched roof, so the average height of the highest gable, or what is essentially the middle of the point of the where the roof slopes—not the peak height. Using this measurement point, the height of the proposed structure is about 10 feet, so in other UGBs and for other accessory structures in the Salem UGB the setback would be roughly 1-foot. The farther distance of ADUs to property lines is intended to help maintain privacy, prevent shading out neighboring lots and to allow for emergency access from all sides. Considering the neighboring property’s unusual shape that limits development potential directly behind the subject property (reducing impact potential), combined with the fact that the 1-foot setback would comply with the development standards for any other type of accessory structure with the Salem UGB and ADUs in all other UGBs in Marion County, there is sufficient evidence that the proposal would maintain the intent and purpose of the provision to be adjusted. The criterion is met. 7. While the proposal meets the criteria outlined in the Marion County Code for an adjustment, and this proposal will help the applicant with resolving the open code violation for an unpermitted ADU, there are several additional code violations on the property that must be resolved before the applicant can execute an approval of this application. Marion County Code section 16.35.060 in part reads: “No permit for the use of land or structures or for the alteration or construction of any structure shall be issued and no land use approval shall be granted if the land for which the permit or approval is sought is being used in violation of any condition of approval of any land use action, is in violation of local, state or federal law, except federal laws related to marijuana, or is being used or has been divided in violation of the provisions of this title unless issuance of the permit or land use approval would correct the violation.” At present, the current proposal will only resolve one of the code violations active on the property, so a plan for bringing the entirety of the parcel into compliance is necessary for approval of this application. In a phone call with the applicant, they volunteered a deadline date of September 1st, 2025, as the day by which they will have fully resolved the open code violations of (1) RV habitation and (2) solid waste accumulation, as well as the continued unlawful habitation of accessory structures, that were specified in the comments from Marion County Code Enforcement as still present on the property. In a following phone conversation, Marion County Code Enforcement agreed to the proposed timeline by the applicant, and stated that further flexibility could be acceptable, subject to their approval. With this timeline established, there is a sufficient path to measure and ensure code compliance on the parcel through a condition of approval. The condition shall be written such that the applicant must gain full compliance for all open code violations other than the unpermitted ADU prior to approval of any building permits on the property. 8. Based on the above findings, it has been determined that the request satisfies all applicable criteria and is, therefore, APPROVED. Brandon Reich Date: August 14th, 2025 Planning Director/Zoning Administrator If you have any questions regarding this decision contact Alexander Seifer at (503) 588-5038 Notice to Mortgagee, Lienholder, Vendor or Seller: ORS Chapter 215 requires that if you receive this Notice, it must promptly be forwarded to the purchaser.