New County Rules Allow Auxiliary Dwelling Units, RVs as Second Dwellings

The Clackamas County Board of Commissioners voted last month to allow the use of ADUs and RVs as secondary dwellings in parts of the Mount Hood Corridor.
The amendments to county zoning rules passed by a vote of 3-2 during the board’s May 8 land use hearing, with Chair Tootie Smith calling the package a step towards solving what she described as an affordable housing crisis in the county.
Opposing commissioners raised concerns about allowing RVs as permanent residences, echoing criticisms from representatives of the Hoodland and Government Camp community planning organizations.
Under the new regulations, ADUs, or auxiliary dwelling units, and RVs can be added as secondary permanent dwellings on certain existing residential properties within Rural Residential zones, such as the Mount Hood Corridor.
ADUs are defined as permanent dwellings that include a kitchen, bathroom, and are permitted and connected to utilities, principal planner Martha Fritzie told the commissioners. She noted that ADUs can be either detached buildings, internal conversions or extensions of existing houses.
Fritzie also noted that the definition of RVs, or recreational vehicles, included vehicles or trailers designed for human occupancy.
Under the new regulations, property owners who want to add an ADU will need to receive a building permit and have a minimum lot size of two acres, among other rules. ADUs can not have more than 900 square feet of usable floor area under the rules.
To legally add an RV as a secondary residence, property owners are required to provide permanent essential services including water, sewage disposal, and electrical.
Under the new rules, types of secondary dwellings are prohibited from being rented out on a short term basis on platforms such as Airbnb and VRBO.
The county put out a survey on the amendments and received over 600 responses, with over 70% of respondents supporting the ADU regulations as proposed. On the RV issue, however, respondents were more divided, with many of the comments consisting of concerns about existing and potential RV code violations.
“If County Code Enforcement will be the entity that needs to address compliance with requirements, then compliance may turn out to be virtually unregulated -- Code Enforcement is understaffed and lacks resources to address its current responsibilities,” wrote one commenter to the county’s survey.
At the May 8 Land Use hearing, Clackamas County resident Adam Boyce testified in favor of the changes, saying that although he considers his family middle class, they have found buying property in the county to be out of reach. He said the proposed regulations could benefit his family by increasing their housing options.
Boyce said arguments about code enforcement “sidetracked” the conversation about affordable housing and called the proposal inclusive.
“If we refuse to create viable options for affordable housing like healthy and legal long term RV living, we will end up with more unhealthy and illegal RV living,” Boyce said at the hearing.
Others testifying in favor of the proposal said it would allow them to care for elderly parents and family members on their property, instead of perhaps being forced to send them to assisted living facilities.
The proposal came as state laws on land use have changed over the previous three legislative sessions. State law previously had prohibited ADUs outside urban growth boundaries such as the rurally designated Mount Hood Corridor.
In April, the County Planning Board voted 6-1 to recommend most of the proposed regulations, but declined to recommend the RV provision.
Planning Board Chair Gerald Murphy asked the commissioners for more time to properly assess the impacts of allowing RVs as permanent dwellings. Murphy said it wasn’t clear whether or not RVs used as permanent residences would be included in the assessment of property taxes.
Smith responded to criticisms that people living in RVs would not pay their fair share of development fees and property taxes by pointing out that it costs the county tens of thousands of dollars to rehouse and re-employ homeless people. She also said she felt levying taxes and fees on people who can’t afford housing was not productive or compassionate.
Smith acknowledged that she felt the proposal was not perfect, and expressed willingness to strengthen the regulations governing RVs at a later date.
Smith insisted that creating a legal pathway for the secondary residences would alleviate the county’s affordable housing crisis and help keep families together. She said the measure was designed out of compassion and necessity, and slammed some of the criticisms the commissioners received as “absurd.”
“This is to prevent homelessness,” she said. “Wouldn’t it be better if we were able to help people before they got homeless, before they suffered from mental illness, and before they took drugs?” Smith asked. “I’m sorry if there’s not enough compassion in the electorate to see that we’re trying to solve a very harsh problem with very few solutions.”
Commissioner Ben West called the measure a creative way for the local government to help housing affordability by loosening what he called restrictive land use policy statewide, though he acknowledged that living permanently in an RV was not the ideal solution for many people long term.
“We can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” West said. “We have to get people a safe place to live, and hopefully some stability to get them out of that, and maybe one day own their own home.”