Commission affirms planning commission, denies McKinney appeal over Hinton Homes subdivision access

Oregon City commissioners on Monday upheld the planning commission's May decision and denied an appeal from property owners Paul and Mary McKinney arguing a new Hinton Homes subdivision would prevent future access to their rear tax lot.

The appeal, filed by attorney Paul Schultz, argued that notices were defective and that condition language in the planning commission's orders required the developer to provide direct access to the McKinney parcel. The city's planning staff and the applicant, represented by Stacy Fowler for Hinton Homes, said staff's recommendation and the approved plat already satisfied the applicable subsection of the Oregon City Municipal Code (OCMC 16.200.060) and that alternative access routes exist.

The commission heard competing presentations over roughly three hours. Schultz said his clients received confusing notice and had limited time to prepare; he asked the commission to continue the hearing so consultants and staff could further evaluate alternate access and wetlands questions. Fowler and other proponents said the McKinneys were present at prior hearings, the plat as approved does not landlock the property, staff had reviewed alternatives, and providing access through the approved plat would require a further costly and time-consuming modification.

Staff summarized the technical issues on the record: the McKinney lot (tax lot 2702) lies northwest of the Hinton site; one possible access through the subdivision would cross mapped wetlands and would create through-lots that conflict with subdivision standards. Staff and multiple developers described an alternative access strategy tied to the adjacent Hazelgrove 4 parcel and other future partitions; that alternative, staff said, would avoid wetlands, offer a clear place to require future road dedication and provide a route for future subdivision of the McKinney land without requiring Hinton Homes to replat its already-approved final plat.

Several technical witnesses and neighborhood representatives testified. Paul Trahan, who has worked on the South End sewer project, presented a draft layout (shadow plat) showing how future development on adjacent parcels could provide a full-width street to serve the McKinney lot; he also noted the McKinneys currently own a 25-foot deeded strip (tax lot 2600) that fronts on South End Road and provides existing driveway access to the rear parcel. Staff and consultants noted there have been varying wetland-mapping products (National Wetlands Inventory; draft Shapiro maps) and that a formal wetland delineation would be required to determine precise impacts.

Legal counsel and staff reminded the commission about the 120-day statutory timeframe applicable to the application and that continuing the hearing risked running that clock; the city attorney described the matter as a discretionary call for the commission. After discussion the commission voted to affirm the planning commission and deny the appeal.

Motion and vote: the commission moved to affirm the planning commission decision (denying the appeal). The motion passed on a 2-1 vote: Commissioner Powell, aye; Commissioner Daley, no; Mayor (recorded) Popper/Power, aye.

Why it matters: the decision preserves the approved Hinton Homes final plat and places the question of detailed access for the McKinney parcel into future land-use proceedings or private negotiations rather than altering the developer's existing approval. Staff said future subdividers and property owners could still pursue access through other parcels or permit channels, and that established tools (easement agreements, state/federal wetland permitting or condemnation proceedings) remain available if future applicants cannot otherwise secure access.

Next steps and follow-up: staff recommended — and the commission accepted — that any party seeking a future street connection or a formal wetland delineation should pursue those technical studies now so subsequent applications can be evaluated on the complete record. The record includes the planning commission materials, the revised orders discussed in the hearing, and the shadow-plat materials prepared by staff and consultants; staff said it will continue to coordinate with adjacent property owners and applicants as future partition or subdivision applications are filed.

The commission did not set aside the planning commission decision or remand it for further findings. The McKinneys preserved the record for possible judicial appeal, the attorney said on the record.