AR25-048 Staff Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3. Surrounding uses to the east and west include a number of AR zoned parcels that were developed as rural residences and vacation homes along the Little North Santiam River, similar to the subject parcel. To the north and south are mostly TC (Timber Conservation) parcels in use as commercial timber stands, personal forest properties, or national forest lands. The predominant feature in the area is the Little North Santiam River which makes up the northern boundary of the subject area. 4. The applicants are requesting a determination into the number of legally established lots within the area made up of tax lots 500 & 600 in section 15BA of range 2 east, township 9 south. 5. Various agencies were contacted about the proposal and given an opportunity to comment. Marion County Building commented: “No Building Inspection concerns. Permit(s) are required to be obtained prior to the development of structure(s) and/or utilities installation on private property.” Marion County Septic commented the following: “A system repair was made at this situs address in 2024 under permit 555-22-007188. Per OAR 340-071-0130(11), any part of a system, including future repairs, located on a lot or parcel different from the lot or parcel on which the facility the system serves is located will require an easement. Additionally, it is recommended that any newly created parcel less than 10-acres have a site evaluation to establish septic viability/minimum septic requirements on the lot.” All other contacted agencies either failed to comment or stated no objection to the proposal. 6. Neither of the tax lots in the subject area were involved in a previous land use case and there is limited information about the dwelling that previously existed within the bounds of the subject property. As such, research into the deed history of the property was necessary to determine the legal configuration. The current description on the property deed contains two different legal descriptions, both of which combine to be the full area under review (roughly 3.36-acres). These two descriptions are separate and appear to describe a roughly 1.3- acre parcel and a roughly 2.03-acre parcel. The current property owners came into possession of the land via a quitclaim deed in 2004, when Thomas Kay III came into part of the ownership. Prior to that Hattie Bratzel Kremen, the first woman to be a district attorney in Oregon and former Marion County District Attorney, was the primary owner. In 1995, a survey was submitted to Marion County that surveyed the monuments for one of the two tracts of land described in a deed found on Volume 526 Page 234, recorded on September 2nd, 1959. This deed contained the same two property descriptions as the modern deed and was the ownership deed of Hattie Kremen up until her death. What the survey showed was the outline of the eastern portion of the subject area, roughly 1.3-acres in total, and follows the second of the two descriptions present on the deed. This shows two things: 1) the two descriptions have existed since before the adoption of partition and subdivision ordinances by Marion County on September 1st, 1977; and 2) the property has been in the same configuration since September 1st, 1977, so whatever parcels are found to exist are legal for land use purposes. A look further back into the deed history was done to try to find the intent of including both legal descriptions on one deed. It is possible to include multiple property descriptions on one deed to simplify conveyance of multiple properties, but that intent wasn’t explicitly clear by the language on this deed. Reviewing the chain of ownership, the descriptions were included on the same deeds for the sale of the subject area in two prior conveyances: a sale deed on February 17, 1959 (Vol 520 Page 273) and a deed recorded on February 5th, 1957 (Vol 497 Page 280), when the property was sold by Enoch and Gertrude Skirvin to Peter and Ardith Busasco. The Skirvin’s bought the property initially in two separate pieces. A warranty deed from March 23rd, 1956 (Vol 486 Page 53) contains only the property description of the eastern 1.3-acres as it was sold from Fontabelle H Smith to the Skrivin’s, proving they came into ownership of the property as separate parcels. Lastly, the development records of the property were reviewed to see if the development was conducted in a way which would indicate if the parcels were viewed as separate or a single piece. A site plan from a septic permit acquired after the fires (555-22-007188) shows the former dwelling, septic system, and remaining pump house were located entirely within the boundaries of the 1.3-acre perimeter description, meaning the development wasn’t done in a way to indicate that the property owners felt like the property lines had been dissolved.