Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners readopt housing ordinance after LUBA remand, say existing intergovernmental controls address cumulative‑impact concerns
Summary
After a remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), the county adopted supplemental findings saying existing cooperative agreements with special districts and permit‑level reviews ensure infrastructure and water‑quality capacity will not be exceeded as smaller lot standards and new housing types are implemented.
The Clatsop County Board of Commissioners readopted Ordinance 24‑14—an update that reduces some minimum lot sizes and adds additional housing types in unincorporated communities—after addressing a narrow remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA).
County staff explained LUBA’s remand centered on one legal question under OAR 660‑006‑022(030)(8): whether the county’s code and processes ensure cumulative development will not create public‑health hazards, violate water‑quality standards or exceed soil or water carrying capacity. LUBA did not require a full cumulative‑impact modeling exercise; instead it allowed the county to demonstrate that existing mechanisms protect capacity.
Planner Gail Henriksen and county land‑use counsel presented supplemental findings that rely on long‑standing cooperative agreements (adopted with the 2003 rural community ordinances) with water, sewer and fire districts; an agency review form used with development permits; on‑site septic OAR standards; lot‑coverage and stormwater thresholds enacted in past code updates; and the county’s administrative review procedures.
The supplemental findings note that multi‑unit housing types typically use less water per dwelling unit than single‑family homes and that the county’s on‑site septic rules and separation requirements protect wells and streams. Staff concluded the amendments do not create unavoidable cumulative impacts because local districts must verify capacity at the development‑permit stage and because cooperative agreements require ongoing communication.
Opponents who spoke urged the board to delay adoption, seek more community‑specific analyses, and to produce data on buildable lots and water capacity. Board members and counsel said the remand asked for findings showing mechanisms for preventing capacity exceedances, not a blanket pre‑rezoning infrastructure study; board members voted to adopt the supplemental findings and readopt Ordinance 24‑14.
The board also noted it can revisit specific provisions or require additional studies in the future if new evidence emerges; the readoption restarts the 120‑day appeals window to LUBA.
