Board adopts LUDO and comprehensive‑plan text changes after hearing; commissioners narrow manufactured‑home and oak protections

At a second hearing on May 21, 2025, the Wasco County Board of Commissioners considered Planning Commission recommendations to amend the Land Use and Development Ordinance (LUDO) and the county Comprehensive Plan to reflect mandatory state updates and local housing policy follow‑ups.

What staff proposed

Kelly Housley Glover, Wasco County Community Development Managing Director, summarized the package of changes recommended by the Planning Commission. Staff said the package primarily updates rural residential clear‑and‑objective standards required by Oregon legislation and administrative rules, adds allowance for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on rural residential lands under state criteria, modifies how accessory structures are sized relative to primary dwellings, and removes some previous zone prohibitions on single‑wide manufactured homes while adding objective criteria (roof pitch, manufacture date) for placement in some zones.

Staff also emphasized infrastructure constraints: septic-system capacity and on‑site wells are regulated by the North Central Public Health District Environmental Health Services and the Oregon Water Resources Department respectively; staff advised applicants to consult those agencies during site planning. Staff noted the county is declaring the ordinance an emergency to meet a July effective date for the new statewide clear‑and‑objective rules and will submit adopted changes to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) per statutory timelines.

Public input and board questions

Speakers and commissioners discussed three topics at length: oak‑stand protections in rural zones, roof‑pitch and aesthetic limits on single‑wide manufactured homes, and the “manufactured‑home age” test and an alternative asset‑value pathway included in the Planning Commission’s draft.

• Oak protections: Commissioners and several residents said they supported oak preservation but sought clarity. Staff said the oak language was not a new protection but an attempt to translate prior discretionary protections into clear‑and‑objective standards and that the county already uses mature‑oak metrics (diameter at breast height, DBH) in an overlay zone (OZ‑8). Staff said the intention is to prevent clearing of established oak stands to site new homes, not to impair routine fuels reduction or property maintenance.

• Roof pitch and manufactured homes: Public comment urged easing constraints that would exclude many single‑wide or older manufactured homes; staff said the Planning Commission had considered alternatives and had chosen a 3:12 minimum roof pitch and a 15‑year manufactured‑date cutoff as the clear‑and‑objective standard, with a discretionary asset‑value pathway for older units.

• Septics and ADUs: Staff and commissioners repeatedly emphasized infrastructure constraints: septic systems are sized by DEQ/Environmental Health to bedroom counts, so adding an ADU may require an upgraded septic system and replacement drainfield; applicants must work with those technical agencies.

Board action

After deliberation the commissioners amended the Planning Commission recommendation in three specific ways and adopted the ordinance:

1) Replace blanket language that would have prohibited removal of “any Oregon white oak” with precise, mature‑oak language drawn from the county’s OZ‑8 language (DBH‑based threshold) so that the code protects mature oaks rather than seedlings or scrub growth; 2) Remove the Planning Commission’s proposed requirement that single‑wide manufactured homes have a pitched roof (the board directed removal of the pitch requirement from the code); and 3) Change the manufactured‑home age standard from 15 years to 25 years and remove the discretionary “asset‑value” pathway the Planning Commission had proposed.

The board moved to adopt Ordinance 25‑001 (the LUDO and comprehensive‑plan text amendments) with those amendments; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

Why it matters: The package implements state clear‑and‑objective rules for rural residential development while adding local decisions intended to expand housing options (allowing ADUs in rural residential lands under the required state criteria) and to clarify protections for oak habitat. The board’s changes relaxed aesthetic/roof‑pitch limits and widened the acceptable manufacture‑date for placed manufactured homes, which commissioners said will increase housing options while retaining some objective standards.

Next steps and appeals

Staff said the ordinance will be submitted to DLCD consistent with ORS and OAR requirements and that the adopted changes will be effective after a 21‑day appeal period unless appealed; staff also flagged that the county intends to meet a July 1 implementation milestone for the statewide clear‑and‑objective standards.

Ending

Commissioners thanked staff for work on a complex package and directed staff to prepare the final ordinance submittal and a summary for public distribution. No further board action was taken at the meeting.