The Yamhill County Board of Commissioners opened a public hearing Oct. 30 on a home‑occupation request by J & S Restoration to operate a loss‑mitigation/restoration business from a new shop on a parcel in the Exclusive Farm Use (EF‑40) zone. After testimony from the applicant, supporters and multiple neighbors, the board voted to leave the record open for additional written evidence and scheduled a continuation of the hearing.

What the application requests
County staff described the proposal as use of a new accessory shop building for business offices and equipment storage for water, fire and smoke remediation, mold and odor control, board‑up and tarping, structural drying and loss documentation. Staff said the parcels around the site are a mix of small‑acreage rural residential and farm uses (hazelnut orchards, grass seed, hay, livestock), and the applicant says farm uses (Christmas trees and poultry) also occur on the lot.

Support and opposition
The McMinnville Area Chamber of Commerce and several local contractors and construction workers offered support, citing J & S Restoration’s community service and the company’s role in emergency response. "The expansion will enable J & S Restoration to better serve local residents and businesses in times of crisis," John Olson, CEO of the McMinnville Area Chamber of Commerce, said in the hearing.

Neighbors and an appellants’ attorney opposed approval on multiple grounds. Neighbors described increased truck traffic and dust on a single‑lane farm road, lights and equipment positioned close to residences, and concerns about stormwater and changes to drainage after recent paving and soil disturbance. “There’s been quite a bit of soil displacement…we are not sure how that's going to affect our well system,” neighbor Melissa Winkelman said.

Legal and technical concerns raised
Andrew Stamp, land‑use counsel for adjacent property owners, urged the board to apply recent legal guidance and county standards strictly. He cited the Oregon Supreme Court’s Voigt decision (addressing the relationship between home occupations and farm dwellings) and warned that the accessory building as constructed may not be “customarily associated with uses permitted in the zone.” Stamp also raised several technical issues he said were missing or incomplete in the record, including:
- Evidence that the property meets the farm‑dwelling income test (ORS/zoning thresholds) or that the new building is customary for agricultural uses in EF‑40;
- A clear accounting of employees and on‑site staff (state law and county practice limit home‑occupation employees on site); Stamp noted the application lacked a baseline list of who counts as employees on the site;
- Noise and hours of operation: the applicant had described 24/7 dispatch capability; Stamp said most approved home occupations have regulated hours and recommended that any dispatch or noisy operations not take place on site at night unless supported by an acoustical analysis;
- Stormwater/impervious surface: Stamp noted recent paving and what he estimated as up to roughly one‑third of an acre of new impervious surface; he recommended a drainage analysis to show where runoff is routed and whether downstream neighbors will be affected.

Applicant response
Applicant Javier Garcia (said to represent J & S Restoration) told the board the building has been permitted and inspected for drainage and firefighting water, that equipment is primarily used off‑site, and that he intends to be a good neighbor while operating emergency response work. Supporters and two local contractors testified that the business has operated without neighbor incidents in prior locations and that J & S provides needed community services.

Board action
At the hearing the board unanimously approved staff’s recommended schedule to leave the record open for further written evidence and rebuttal: written submissions open through 5 p.m. Nov. 6; rebuttal through 5 p.m. Nov. 13; applicant final written argument only through 5 p.m. Nov. 20; hearing to resume Dec. 4 at 10 a.m. in Room 32 of the courthouse.

Why this matters
The hearing highlights tension between small‑business home occupations and neighbors on small rural lots in EF zones. The legal standard for home occupations requires the use to be incidental and secondary to the dwelling and compatible with zoning criteria; when buildings, hours of operation, employee counts or site changes (impervious surface) appear to exceed typical home‑occupation footprints, neighbors and counsel press for stricter review or conditions.

Quoted
“There’s been quite a bit of soil displacement…we are not sure how that's going to affect our well system,” said neighbor Melissa Winkelman. Appellate counsel Andrew Stamp asked the board to require a drainage analysis and to treat 24/7 dispatch as an off‑site activity unless technical evidence shows no impact.

Next steps
The record is open for evidence through Nov. 6, rebuttal through Nov. 13, the applicant may file final argument by Nov. 20, and the board will reopen the hearing Dec. 4 to consider the full record and staff recommendation.