Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Planning Commission Membership topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Yamhill council holds first reading of ordinance to allow out‑of‑city planning commissioners

6444052 · October 24, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Yamhill City Council held a public hearing and completed the first reading by title of draft ordinance 25.03, which would allow the council to appoint planning commission members who live outside the city limits; the measure drew at least two 'nay' votes so a second reading is required on Nov. 12.

The Yamhill City Council held a public hearing Oct. 8 and completed a first reading by title of draft ordinance 25.03, an amendment to municipal code 1.16.0.2 that would allow the council to appoint planning commissioners who live outside the city limits. The hearing drew no public comments and council discussion focused on preserving local control and ensuring quorum for future land‑use hearings.

City officials said the change would give the council more flexibility when vacancies make it difficult for the planning commission to reach a quorum. “By passing this, that doesn't mean that we have to appoint somebody outside. That means we have the ability to appoint somebody outside,” the mayor said during the discussion. Council members noted the change could be useful when the commission is short‑staffed and the city faces a major land‑use decision.

Opponents on the dais raised concerns about appointing members with limited ties to Yamhill. “I would rather go door to door and bug people … rather than have two people outside the city that have literally no ties to the city other than they know people,” Councilor Corrigan said. Council members also noted that appointed commissioners can be removed by the council if an appointee proves unsuitable.

Because the vote on the ordinance was not unanimous, the council completed only a first reading; state law and city procedure require two separate meetings for adoption when the first reading is not unanimous. The council set a second reading for its Nov. 12 meeting, at which the ordinance would receive a final vote if advanced.

No members of the public spoke during the hearing and the record shows no written correspondence submitted on the draft ordinance.

The council read the ordinance into the record as: “draft ordinance 25.03, an ordinance updating and amending municipal code 1.16.0.2 relating to the membership of the planning commission.”

A second reading and potential vote is scheduled for the Nov. 12 council meeting.