Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Citizen says May 13 ‘remodel’ decision created safety risk and vows LUBA appeal; commission amends minutes
Summary
A St. Helens resident told the Planning Commission the May 13 decision treating a waterfront project as a remodel ignored testimony that construction methods created an immediate safety hazard and said he will file a LUBA appeal; the commission voted to amend the minutes to add clarifying testimony.
A St. Helens resident told the Planning Commission that the body’s May 13 handling of a waterfront project treated the work incorrectly as a “remodel” and failed to record testimony that construction methods had created an immediate safety hazard.
Steven Toske, a citizen of St. Helens, told commissioners that contractor testimony before the commission had described construction methods that “could cause the immediate death and significant bodily injury of anyone on a construction site,” and that description was missing from the minutes of the May 13 hearing. “I’m going to be filing a LUBA complaint,” Toske said at the meeting.
The concern centers on whether the work met the development code’s definition of a remodel. Toske told the commission the project did not meet remodel criteria such as remaining within the same footprint and other code requirements, and he argued that the commission’s actions lacked the public procedure required for a variance or a different approval path. He said he had not received a notice of decision and asked the commission to ensure the record reflected the safety testimony and the legal procedure for the project.
The commission debated amendments to the draft minutes of May 13 to capture additional testimony. A motion to amend the minutes (moved and seconded at the meeting) passed on voice vote; the minutes will be revised to include additional testimony about the hearing. Commissioners also discussed whether the record incorrectly suggested the commission had delegated authority to a staff member to decide how to proceed; speakers asked that any minutes not indicate that the commission had devolved its authority.
Why it matters: A LUBA (Land Use Board of Appeals) filing would be a formal appeal of a land‑use decision and could halt or alter the project timetable while the appeal is resolved. Accurate minutes and a clear notice of decision set the timeline for appeals and preserve parties’ legal rights.
The transcript shows the commission agreed to amend the minutes to reflect additional testimony. The complainant urged a clearer record and a notice of decision so that legal deadlines and appeal windows are clear.
Meeting participants reiterated that the planning commission must follow the development code’s definitions for a remodel and follow required notice procedures when a decision triggers appeal rights. The commission did not take further formal action on the underlying waterfront project during the discussion recorded at this meeting.
The meeting record shows the resident’s expressed intent to file an appeal and the commission’s vote to amend the minutes to add the missing testimony.
