Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Growth Boundary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grants Pass proposes small urban‑growth‑boundary swap; Josephine County requests public hearing
Summary
City officials described a proposed exchange of roughly equal acreage into and out of Grants Pass’ urban growth boundary to better align developable land; county commissioners asked the city to arrange a publicly noticed evening hearing in mid‑May so the board and public can review and comment.
City of Grants Pass staff briefed the Josephine County Board of Commissioners on a proposed adjustment to the city’s urban growth boundary (UGB) that would trade roughly 40 acres in and 40 acres out of the current UGB, city staff said.
City staff told the board the affected parcels lie in an area the county designated as urban reserve during a 2014 UGB expansion process and that the proposal aims to shift development potential from parcels constrained by slope, wetlands or other features to parcels better suited for housing. City staff said property owners included in the proposal are supportive of being brought into the UGB.
Commissioners expressed concerns and asked for a public hearing before any formal county decision. Several commissioners said they had received constituent concerns about farmland preservation, wetlands, wildlife impacts and the timing of the city’s outreach. Commissioners asked the city to host a county public hearing in the evening in mid‑May and to provide notices; city staff said 20 days’ notice would be used for county noticing and that the city would coordinate public notice and logistics.
Board members also raised specific land-use questions, including whether parcels proposed for change include Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land or fall under state planning goals. City staff said the properties the city proposed were already part of an urban reserve identified in 2014, were contiguous or adjacent to existing city limits, and that staff had not proposed including EFU lands outside the previously established reserves. Staff emphasized the modest scale of the swap and said the change is intended to improve development efficiency by prioritizing parcels less constrained by environmental or topographic features.
Next steps: the board asked staff to set a county public hearing on the proposal (evening, mid‑May) and to circulate formal public notice; the city will coordinate noticing and provide materials for the county hearing. Commissioners said the hearing should allow public comment and that the board will deliberate after receiving testimony.
Ending: The board did not vote on the UGB adjustment at this meeting. Commissioners requested a formal, noticed public hearing to hear city presentations and public comment before any county decision.
