Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends denial of annexation for US‑30/Millard Road parcel after ownership and notice disputes
Summary
The commission declined to support an annexation recommendation for a pair of US‑30/Millard Road properties after an attorney for an owner argued the recorded consent and application cited by the city had expired and notice requirements were not met.
The Planning Commission on May 13 recommended denying the annexation application for two adjacent Columbia County parcels at US‑30 and Millard Road after the owner’s counsel argued the consent and application on file were expired and statutory notice was deficient.
Staff presented the background: both parcels had previously filed consents to annex and had connected to city sewer during a local improvement district effort, and staff identified the contiguousness and available utilities that typically support petition annexations. One parcel is commercial (former Bing’s Restaurant / Family Fun RV) and the other is a single‑family parcel; staff said the only city zoning option for the commercial parcel would be highway commercial.
During the hearing, counsel for JH Rental LLC (which the attorney said is the sole owner of the highway parcel) argued the recorded consent and application the city relied upon dated to 2009 and thus had expired under Oregon law; the attorney said the consent is valid only for one year unless a separate waiver was executed. The presenting attorney also asserted the city’s notice did not comply with ORS requirements because the local newspaper cited in the staff report (the Chronicle) had ceased publication in 2024 and could not have carried the required legal notices.
Staff acknowledged the application and consent on file originated from prior owners and said it would consult legal counsel on the statutory questions raised. Commissioners debated whether to “do nothing” (defer) or to recommend denial; given the record and legal uncertainties raised in opposition, the commission voted to deny the application as submitted and directed staff to consult the city attorney and prepare a recommendation packet for the council as needed.
The matter will proceed to City Council with the commission’s recommendation; staff noted the council’s public hearing is scheduled in early June and that the commission’s recommendation is advisory.
