Rezoning proposal criticized.

Byline: Matt Cooper The Register-Guard

Many environmentalists oppose the creep of housing into Oregon's forests.

Now, a prominent Lane County environmentalist wants to build a house on forest land southwest of Eugene that the county has long designated for heavy-duty timber production, a driver of the local economy.

And he's run into a storm of criticism from fellow environmentalists and some neighbors.

Tom Lininger, a Lane County commissioner-elect in 2002 and board member with Oregon Wild - formerly the Oregon Natural Resources Council - said his environmentally friendly plan is right for the land and for the neighbors.

But land use watchdogs oppose Lininger, and some neighbors accuse him of twisting the rules in an effort to build a house in the forest.

Lininger, now a law professor at the University of Oregon, and his wife, Merle Weiner, also a UO law professor, want the county to rezone 80 acres they own off Lorane Highway from "F-1" - prime forestland - to "F-2," which would let them build a house there while engaging in timber practices. A county hearings official could rule in February.

Lininger's critics and supporters filled a hearing on the issue Thursday before a Lane County hearings official.

Springfield-based Rosboro Timber Co. owned the land and was clear-cutting it in 2004 when neighbors objected to aerial spraying of herbicides, Lininger said.

Rosboro opted against herbicides and, after the harvest, sold the property to Lininger, he said.

Lininger paid $488,000 in 2005 to buy 242 acres, according to the purchase deed. Then, he formally divided the land into three 80-acre parcels corresponding to their existing zoning.

The land in the east and west parcels has long been zoned for heavy timber production, or F-1. The land in the remaining parcel, to the south, has long been zoned F-2, and Lininger could build a house there.

But he doesn't want to, citing that parcel's value as wildlife habitat, its wealth of tall trees, the dangers of living on a slope and the expense of building on that parcel, which is farther from the road.

Instead, Lininger wants the county to rezone the western parcel from F-1 to F-2, so that he can build there and manage the land through laborious methods that would be easier on the earth and on neighbors, he said.

To win the rezoning, Lininger must show that the subject parcel's characteristics more closely fit a description of F-2 than F-1.

But he's countered at every turn by Bob Emmons, LandWatch president, who testified Thursday.

LandWatch Lane County tries to protect farms and forests from development sprawl. County rules set a series of criteria to determine whether land should be F-1 or F-2. The sides go blow by blow though each criterion.

Lininger states that most tracts around the 80-acre parcel in question are smaller than 80 acres, thus favoring a rezoning under one county rule. Emmons says Lininger, in comparing his land to other tracts, misinterprets this rule, and that the 80-acre parcel is big enough to warrant its F-1 zoning.

Lininger states that most land around the subject parcel is not used for commercial forestry, thus favoring rezoning. Emmons disagrees, saying most land around the parcel is large in size and used for commercial farm or forest uses, similar to the F-1 zoning on Lininger's land.

Lininger says the roads to the property are meant for houses, not commercial forestry. Emmons says Lininger fails to demonstrate that, and that Lininger's parcel does not have rural services - electricity, telephone, water - and so is not consistent with F-2 zoning.

Lininger says he isn't going to use the 80-acre parcel for commercial forestry. Emmons disagrees, saying Lininger in his own submissions to the county says he plans to grow at least some "commercial tree species."

Lane County Planning Director Kent Howe backs Lininger, characterizing the parcel Lininger wants rezoned as an anomaly - a chunk of forestland that is close to housing along Fox Hollow Road and the Peaceful Valley neighborhood.

The county's broad-brush approach to setting land use designations in the 1980s was fairly effective at separating land where people lived from F-1, heavy-duty timber production land, Howe said. But there were errors, and this is one of them, he added.

The parcel is an "island" of forestland surrounded by housing, Howe said. "If we had had more time and more staff resources, that would have gone to the F-2 zone," he added.

Land that is zoned F-2 is meant to be a buffer between F-1 forestland and housing, Howe said. The F-2 land is still good for timber, but its proximity to houses means that the land owner should use more labor-intensive forestry methods to lessen impacts on neighbors, Howe said, and that land owner should be able to live on the site in order to do that.

Lininger said he wants to tread softly on the land. He said that instead of herbicides to kill off weeds that would choke out tree seedlings, he has spent more than $10,000 installing "mulch mats" around seedlings.

The mats kill competing vegetation but require constant care, he said.

Lininger's plan has won support from some neighbors, who say they appreciate his opposition to dense housing, his environmentally friendly methods and the notion that having residents on the land will cut down on its illegal - and potentially dangerous - use by hunters, recreational drivers and others.

But others say Lininger is trying to get around the rules. They worry about marring the area's forested beauty, draining an already-scarce supply of well water and paving the way for more housing.

In trying to quell concerns, Lininger repeatedly points to his record as an environ- mentalist. "Who are we, and what do our lives to date indicate about our values?" he asked. "We're not out for money. We're out for privacy."