Harney County Court sets special session Jan. 21 to decide appeal of Gilmore non‑farm dwelling permit

Harney County Court held a work session Jan. 9 to review options for handling an appeal of a planning commission decision that approved a conditional use permit for a non‑farm dwelling (file 2418) submitted by Jim and Sue Gilmore.

Planning Director Brandon McMullen told the court staff had provided the full record and recommended that the court decline to hear the appeal and enter an order affirming the planning commission's unanimous approval. "Staff finds that all the findings and the planning commission's decision are supported by the facts and substantial evidence and information submitted to the record by the applicant," McMullen said.

The recommendation followed a planning commission review that included an initial hearing Sept. 18, then three seven‑day periods that left the record open so participants could submit additional information before the commission voted to approve the application.

The court discussed the procedural options in Harney County's zoning ordinance, subsection 9.03, including: decline to hear and affirm the lower decision; accept the appeal and decide on the record with or without argument; conduct a de novo hearing; or hold a hearing limited to specific issues. County counsel Dominic advised the court that if it chose anything other than declining to hear the matter it would need to keep deliberations to the record unless it scheduled additional hearings to receive new evidence. "I would not recommend having this decision be today," Dominic said, recommending the court reserve formal deliberation for a public meeting where an executive session for legal counsel could be noticed if litigation issues arose.

Court members asked for clarifications about appeal paths and timelines. Staff told the court the 150‑day statutory timeline tied to the application began Aug. 29, 2024; that timeline gives an appellant the right to ask a circuit court for a writ of mandamus if a final decision is not rendered within the statutory period. McMullen and counsel also described the possibility of further appeals to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) after the county court issues a final order.

Participants agreed to schedule a special public session on Jan. 21 at 5 p.m. for the court to make a formal decision on how to proceed with the appeal. The court also agreed to include notice of an executive session on the agenda so members could consult private legal advice about litigation exposure if needed; any final decision would be taken in open session.

No formal vote on the appeal was taken at the work session. The court did direct staff to provide its members with the planning record, the planning commission's written findings and the commission hearing recording and presentation materials (the planning director said a PowerPoint and an MP4 recording are available). Those materials will be reviewed by the court members before the Jan. 21 session.

File number and next steps: the land use file is 2418; the planning commission approved the permit unanimously; staff recommended affirming that decision; the county court will convene publicly Jan. 21 to decide whether to decline to hear the appeal or pursue one of the alternatives in the ordinance. If the county court affirms the planning commission and enters a final order, the appellant may appeal to LUBA or pursue other judicial remedies consistent with state law.

Documents and recordings cited by staff are part of the administrative record and were made available to the court and to the public upon request.