Lane County delays decision on rural housing code changes after public concerns about riparian protections

The Lane County Board of Commissioners on Oct. 14 held a public hearing on Ordinance 2507, a package of amendments to Lane Code Chapter 16 that would add clear-and-objective approval pathways for housing in certain rural residential overlay zones as required by House Bill 3197 (2023). Staff described amendments to riparian regulations, coastal shoreland overlays, beaches-and-dunes standards, Willamette River Greenway rules, and several definitions used to implement those standards.

Senior planner Rachel Serslev and senior planner Kevin Gilbride told the board the project’s stated purpose is to provide clear-and-objective standards where required by state law while preserving existing discretionary approval pathways for development that cannot meet the new objective criteria. Staff emphasized the work does not change the county’s shoreland or greenway mapping and that the proposed amendments were intended to clarify and reorganize standards so they can be applied objectively for housing proposals in rural residential zones.

During public testimony, land-use attorney Mike Reeder raised objections on behalf of a property owner near the McKenzie River and repeated written comments submitted by other stakeholders. Reeder argued some proposed riparian-code edits effectively remove explicit references to the rural comprehensive plan inventory of protected Class 1 streams and thereby could expand the set of protected areas without undertaking a formal Goal 5 inventory process. “Staff is attempting to skirt the Goal 5 process of adopting a new Goal 5 program for riparian areas and stuff it in this legislative cleanup,” Reeder said. He urged the board to consider the change in a different procedural context rather than as a code-cleanup item.

Staff replied that the new code language retains the same riparian-setback definition and that there is no change to the county’s Goal 5 inventory. Kevin Gilbride told the board the rewritten subsection still references the rural comprehensive plan’s designation for Class 1 streams and that the amendment does not alter which streams are protected. Staff also reiterated that clear-and-objective standards are often more rigid than discretionary criteria and that the ordinance preserves the existing discretionary type-2 processes for applicants who need them.

Planning staff reviewed prior outreach and the Planning Commission record: staff held stakeholder meetings, a Planning Commission hearing on July 29 and a continued hearing on Aug. 5, and the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval to the board. Staff said they had received written comments from landowners (including a letter from Aaron Noteboom) and from LandWatch Lane County and noted an endorsement email from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

After public testimony and staff responses, several commissioners requested more time to review late-arriving materials. The board voted to close the public hearing, keep the record open for additional written submissions through Oct. 28, allow staff a one-week response period to materials submitted by that date, and continue deliberations and possible action at 1:30 p.m. on Nov. 4. The motion passed on a 5-0 vote.

Staff told commissioners the county faces legal and practical urgency to adopt clear-and-objective standards because HB 3197 requires local governments to provide objective pathways; staff and county counsel also warned that continued delay risks leaving the county with code provisions that may be challenged as not clear-and-objective, which could expose the county to legal risk and to state-level action restricting development if standards are found deficient.

The board did not take final action on Ordinance 2507; the matter will return for deliberations on Nov. 4 with an open-record period for written comments ending Oct. 28 and a staff reply window to follow.