On July 29, 2025, trustees of the Village of Khamsin Hill put a motion on the floor to approve Ordinance 25-26, adopting the Village of Khamsin Hill Comprehensive Plan 2025. The motion to move the ordinance for discussion was made by Mike and seconded by Ken; the transcript provided does not record a subsequent roll-call vote.

The comprehensive plan is a 20-year land-use guide and therefore, trustees said, needs accurate maps, clear explanations of controversial items and better public engagement. Trustee Janet and other trustees questioned several elements in the draft, including a contested “town center” designation, apparent errors in mobile-home data carried forward from the 2012 plan, formatting issues in Appendix B and a lack of attention to certain corridors such as Route 47 and Playground Road.

Trustees said the planning commission had recommended keeping a town-center placeholder by a traffic circle and adjoining farmland by a 4–3 vote but some trustees wanted that language clarified or removed. Trustee Janet said the planning commission “split 4 to 3 to keep it, but they wanted to explain it with a little context.” Trustee Kim said the draft needs clearer wording so it does not appear to target an area where sanitary and water capacity is not available.

Planning staff (referred to in the discussion as Mr. Brown) and trustees also discussed apparent data errors in the draft that originated in the 2012 document. One trustee said the planning commission “could not figure that out either” and suggested flagging the figures as likely sampling errors rather than presenting them as definitive counts.

Several trustees asked for additional public outreach or workshops before final adoption. One trustee said, “This is a 20-year planning document. . . . We don’t really take time, it seems like, to fully engage the public in the process,” and suggested either soliciting more public input before the September meeting or holding another public hearing. Other trustees voiced concern that the plan focuses heavily on the south border — where current development activity exists — while giving little attention to northern corridors and the Route 47 corridor.

Trustees also raised technical and policy concerns. One trustee asked how a conservation-style density (described in the draft as roughly 2.5–3.5 homes per acre in certain design approaches) would work given sanitary and water constraints tied to the Wasco Sanitary and Water District. That trustee said the document must show where sewer and water service would be available before recommending concentrated density patterns.

Board members noted non-substantive issues that need correction: typos, inconsistent electronic/print formatting, and appendix binding and pagination that affect presentation when downloaded or printed. Several trustees asked staff to coordinate corrections with the planning commission and the plan’s authors so the record accurately reflects prior workshops and the commission’s intent.

Action recorded in the provided transcript was a motion to move Ordinance 25-26 to the floor for discussion (moved by Mike; seconded by Ken). The transcript excerpt does not include a vote or final disposition. Trustees discussed possible next steps, including targeted edits, additional public workshops and clarifying map boundaries and utility assumptions before final adoption.

Absent any recorded vote in the provided excerpt, no formal adoption or rejection is reported here. The board’s discussion indicates follow-up work and possible additional outreach or hearings before the plan’s final adoption.

A copy of the draft comprehensive plan and the planning commission’s materials were referenced repeatedly during the discussion; trustees asked staff to return with corrected maps, clarified explanatory text on the town-center designation and a clear notation about data points deemed erroneous from the 2012 document.

Looking ahead, trustees suggested the village could (1) instruct staff to prepare a revised draft addressing the mapping and data issues and (2) schedule either additional workshops or a further public hearing to gather more community input before any final vote.