By Debbie Raney
Burns Times-Herald

The decision to allow a non-farm dwelling to be built on land in the Princeton area designated for agricultural use, EFRU-2, is back in the hands of the Harney County Court.

A Dec. 19, 2007, decision by the court to uphold the Harney County Planning Commission’s determination to allow Randolph Hogrefe to build a home on 10 acres was appealed by neighboring landowner Thurston (Rusty) Inglis. The appeal went before the Land Use Board of Appeals, and on April 16, was remanded back to Harney County.

On June 4, a remand hearing was held at the Harney County Courthouse, permitting parties involved to submit new and/or additional evidence to the record.

The majority of the arguments presented by both Hogrefe and Inglis revolved around whether the acreage in question is suitable for agriculture. Tyler Smith, representing Hogrefe, offered as new evidence a soil report from the Harney County Soil and Water Conservation District that stated the soil was type 6, which said Smith, will only grow vegetation that livestock will not graze.

Smith also submitted a statement from a Simplot soil and fertilizer expert saying the cost to make Hogrefe’s land productive would be cost prohibitive. Photos submitted by Hogrefe were submitted showing sections of the property with heavy alkali deposits. Smith told the court that when making a determination of whether a tract of land was suitable for agriculture, only a portion had to be deemed unsuitable.

In another argument, Smith said the construction that Hogrefe is contemplating would not make a significant impact on Inglis’ livelihood or any of the neighboring farm land. He said the dwelling Hogrefe proposes to build would be further away from the cattle and horses than Inglis’ own house and out-buildings.

Using photos to support his argument, Inglis rebutted Hogrefe’s claim that the land in question was not suitable for agriculture. The pictures were of like-land, owned by Inglis that raises crested wheat grass, as well as other native grasses. Inglis told the court that his property is type 6 soil as well, with “alkali slicks.” He said that in his opinion the alkali content of the land was a moot point because he has proven that it can be converted to productive land. In other argument, Inglis’ legal council, Jack Hofman, commented on whether allowing Hogrefe to build on his 10 acres would set a development pattern.

He said that the court needed to project the worse-case scenario and assume that any property in the 2,000-acre study area that could be divided, would be.

Inglis countered Hogrefe’s claims that there would be no significant impact on his ranch or livelihood by saying that his cattle are acclimated to his dogs and pickups and are use to his operation.

Public comment was taken from proponents and opponents of the conditional use permit. Statements made covered topics including the availability of “buildable” land, inconsistency of land-use decisions and Harney County’s comprehensive plan.

A seven-day period to allow Inglis and his council to review the new evidence submitted by Hogrefe was set by the court. Following the review period, which will end today, June 11, Hogrefe and his council will have seven days to rebut. A decision will be rendered by the court on June 18 at the regular county court meeting at 4:30 p.m.