Over a year ago the
County Board of Commissioners asked for a review of
Clatsop County Land and Water Development and Use Ordinance (LWDUO) #80-14.
The existing LWDUO was adopted September 30, 1980 and though it had been revised several times during its 28-year history, it was in need of a complete rewrite.
Planning Department staff and
County Counsel have been working with the Planning Commission since March of 2008 when the draft revision was complete.
This Wednesday, September 24 a joint work session will be held between the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners.
The meeting will be at 5:00 PM in the
Boyington Building.
The public is invited to attend but no public testimony will be taken at this time.
An overview of the revision project will be presented. The report is filed with details to streamline the development and land use review process and decision-making process. Also the consolidation of zoning rules and the development standards are addressed. There is an emphasis on maximizing the county resources.
This initial draft will continue to be refined and adjusted as the Planning commission continues to meet with County Counsel. Once this editing process is complete the new code will be ready for review and public discussion at public hearings. Notices will be mailed to all County property owners, leaseholders, affected government agencies, and other interested parties about one month before the first Planning Commission public hearing. Following the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the Board of Commissioners will conduct a second public hearing on the new code before taking final action to adopt the new land use ordinance.
The process is long with the editing not expected to be complete before the end of 2008. Notices of the Planning Commission’s hearing will not be mailed before January 2009 and the Board of Commissioner’s not before April or May of 2009.
3 comments:
I wish you would have shared the difficulty you must have faced when drafting these rules.
Talking with county commissioners from other counties I've noted the almost tragedic impact of the rule changing that has occured...from SB 100 and all that followed, to Measure 37, to Measure 49.
I don't think we, as your constituents, realize how emotionally draining it must be to tell people that the promises we made as a county, years ago, are promises that we can't keep, today.
When I visited the Big Look Task Force meeting in Tillamook recently, there was an interesting division among elected officials. County and city officials were very concerned about the impact of state regulation. State officials, and there were three state representatives there, were unconcerned. In fact, they tended to smile at the concerns of the folks who had to face their constituents. Face, as in, face-to-face.
Perhaps you can't write about the actual people you are having to work with. Maybe there are confidentiality concerns.
But if you could share how hard it must be to tell people who planned on the state and the county standing up and doing the things they promised they would do at the time people purchased their real property, versus the reality of what property owners in this county face from the state today, maybe folks in the county would get a better idea of how hard it is to fell like an honest partner with folks who spent money to buy property when so many forces; whether it's the State or local environmentalists,and judges are forcing decisions that the county never planned for, or asked for.
.
Reply: "Land Use Code Revision"
The current county project is a complete review and rewrite, where necessary, of the
Clatsop County Land and Water Development and Use Ordinance (LWDUO #80-14) whitch is the
County's zoning ordinance. This ordinance was adopted in September of 1980 as a result
of State Senate Bill 100. Under Senate Bill 100 every county and city was required to
adopt zoning and land use regulations and to develop land use planning called a
Comprehensive Plan. Since the County ordinance's adoption over 100 amendments have been
made but little or no contradictory and conflicting language has been removed. It is an
arduous undertaking.
An example of one change is to the flood plain standards; as currently written a
geo-hazard study is required for any project of 200 square feet or more. Even a deck is
subject to this requirement. The suggested revision would be to expand the exemption
from 200 to 600 square feet. The expense of a geo-hazard study is substantial and cost
prohibitive to many individuals.
Many changes are grammatical or house-keeping in nature. Section numbers are not
consecutive, void section are being removed, or definitions are being updated. This
initial workshop between the Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners is only
one of many meeting to come. Once the revisions have been refined they will be brought
before the public for review and comment. It is a long over due and necessary project .
I appreciate the insight you gave about the roles of local city and county officials in
Oregon's Land Use as the front line enforcers of State regulations. Yes, it is
emotionally draining to face individuals who seek to use land they have owned for
decades, sometimes for more than one generation. Measure 37 was passed by the voters of
Oregon as a way people could develop their land according to how it was zoned when they
acquired it. Measure 49 reversed Measure 37, stripping those who had received wavers of
what they had re-gained.
The Board of Commissioners has so far, heard three Measure 49 appeals for vested rights.
A vested right is one of the remedies allowed under Measure 49 for individuals who
received Measure 37 wavers. During on of these heard a state official from the
Department of Justice blandly sat reciting the State''s inflexible interpretation of
common law tests and requirements for vesting. And yes there was a smile on her face and
an attitude of indifference towards the impact of what she was saying. Vesting is
common law not statutory law. It was up to the Board to weigh the information and render
a decision it found appropriate. The Board followed the spirit and intent of a vested
right and what they saw as fair to the individual property owner. The Board felt it was
its job to bring some degree of fairness to the process. I agreed with two of the
Board's decisions but not the third. Ultimately, the Counts will decide if the decisions
we have made will stand.
It is a difficult , emotionally draining and lengthy process.
Thank you for your comment.
Patricia
I would like to respectfully request that the anonymous poster identify him/herself to avoid the impression that the discussion is in anyway choreographed and not in earnest on the part of Commissioner Roberts.
Thank you
Post a Comment