Wasco County hearings open on broad land-use and housing code changes; staff urges clear-and-objective rules to meet deadlines

Wasco County planners on Wednesday opened a public hearing on proposed, wide-ranging amendments to the county’s Land Use and Development Ordinance and comprehensive plan that aim to implement state-required “clear and objective” standards for housing and to add optional measures planners say would expand housing choices.

Community Development Managing Director Ellie Housley Glover told the Board of County Commissioners the update mixes mandatory items required by state law with optional local measures. “The analysis of our data showed a shortfall of about 24 lots if no new lots are created,” she said, citing the county’s internal buildable land work. Planners also cited a Portland State University Population Research Center projection of 229 new homes needed by 2044 and an Oregon statewide housing needs figure near 620 homes for the same horizon.

Planning staff emphasized the distinction between what the county must adopt to comply with state statutes and rules, and what the county is proposing as local options. Senior Planner Sean Bailey summarized key proposed changes: add clear-and-objective standards for rural residential zones and FF-10 transitional parcels; allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in eligible rural residential zones consistent with state rules (900-square-foot cap, within 100 feet of the primary dwelling, on parcels of two acres or larger); replace the county’s current “75% of primary dwelling” cap on accessory structures with either a 20% lot-coverage limit or a 50%-of-primary-structure-footprint option for lots under two acres; and remove prohibitions against single-wide manufactured homes in certain zones while adding manufacture-date and roof-pitch limits.

Staff said clear-and-objective standards will convert some conditional or discretionary reviews into ministerial (type 1) reviews for qualifying housing, while preserving a discretionary pathway (conditional use or type 3 review) for applicants who cannot meet the clear-and-objective criteria. Housley Glover said the county applied for technical assistance from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and one of the drivers for the timing is a state-required adoption window for some plan elements.

Planners flagged several technical and environmental overlays that will be affected: geological hazard (new objective standards and limited exemptions for agricultural structures), scenic-river and scenic-waterway protections, and sensitive wildlife overlays (oak-tree protections, winter-range timing restrictions). The staff presentation noted Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife input on oak protection and the inclusion of diameter-at-breast-height measures in some standards; staff also described a pathway for applicants to submit arborist or wildlife professional reports when trees appear unhealthy or removal is needed.

On manufactured homes the planning material showed two possible thresholds the public considered: manufacture date limits (staff and the planning commission supported a 15‑year maximum with a discretionary exception for older homes that present equivalent-condition documentation) and a minimum roof pitch intended to address snow load and durability concerns. “We were asked by residents to remove the prohibition on single-wide homes but to add manufacture date and roof pitch standards,” Housley Glover said.

Sean Bailey explained why staff is recommending the accessory-structure overhaul: with the county’s existing 75% rule a small primary dwelling can effectively bar reasonable-sized outbuildings. Under the proposed lot-coverage approach, a two-acre parcel would have a clearer maximum accessory footprint than under the current formula, staff said.

Staff characterized some updates as mandatory under state law (definitions and the clear-and-objective standards for certain rural residential zones) and others as optional local policy choices (accessory-structure lot-coverage, adding child care as a permitted nonresource use, and a road‑disclosure notice for homes on nonmaintained roads). Housley Glover noted a narrow schedule for required actions: certain plan objectives and implementing ordinances must be adopted by mid-July to meet state timelines, after which the county would submit adopted changes to DLCD.

Board members asked staff for clarifications on the housing needs numbers and the geographic scope of constrained lots (public conservation ownership, overlays, hazard constraints) and suggested clearer language for the staff report; staff agreed to update the packet before the next hearing.

The board did not make a final decision Wednesday; staff closed the presentation and noted the public record remains open. The hearing is the first of two scheduled hearings on the proposed text amendments; the next Board of Commissioners public hearing on the amendments is set for May 21, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., when the board will hear additional public testimony and consider adoption options.

For residents considering development, staff recommended contacting Community Development early; staff reiterated that the county intends to preserve a discretionary review route for applicants who cannot meet the new clear‑and‑objective standards.