Multnomah County unveils plan to simplify zoning code, move faster on routine permits

Multnomah County staff and consulting firm MIG told the Board of Commissioners on Thursday that the county will pursue a multi‑phase update of its zoning code aimed at making the rules easier to use, compliant with state housing standards and less burdensome for routine projects.

The briefing, delivered by Megan Gibb, the countys Land Use Planning Director, and Matt Hastie, senior project manager at MIG, said the code is "very out of date" and can be "overly restrictive," often forcing property owners to hire professionals for simple work such as building a garage or a shed. Gibb said the project pairs a near‑term set of changes, staff hires to reopen a front counter and a longer comprehensive rewrite.

The project team described four phases: an audit, options and direction, rewrite and adoption. Hastie said phases one and two are nearly complete and the near‑term work — a six‑month package — will target what staff described as the three highest‑priority items: simplifying the countys lot‑of‑record verification process, revising rules around nonconforming situations and narrowing "full compliance" requirements that staff said often require applicants to demonstrate past actions fully complied with current standards.

"Our code is very out of date. It can be very overly restrictive and regulatory, and it makes it hard to do some of the simplest things like building a garage or building a shed in your backyard," Gibb said. Hastie added that "lot of record verification, that's a fun phrase" captures a uniquely stringent Multnomah County requirement that consultants and staff plan to simplify.

Staff detailed funding and staffing changes intended to support implementation. Gibb said the project received a Department of Land Conservation and Development grant of roughly $110,000, the directors office has provided $100,000 this year, and prior one‑time board funds supported earlier work. She said recent hires and filled vacancies will allow the county to reopen its front counter and speed permit issuance.

Outreach included an online engagement and four public meetings held in partnership with neighborhood associations (including events on Sauvie Island and in Corbett), which staff said produced about 120 attendees and confirmed common concerns: complex code language, burdensome verification and review procedures, and a need for clearer objective standards for housing. Hastie described drafting in plain language, converting the code from a two‑column to a one‑column format, and adding graphics and tables as ways to make the code more accessible.

Commissioners pressed staff on next steps and community feedback. Commissioner Moyer asked whether drafts would return for public review; staff said changes would go to the planning commission and then to the board with additional engagement. Commissioner Singleton emphasized plain language and asked that proposed procedural changes (for example, reclassifying some type‑2 reviews as administrative type‑1 reviews) include community input. Commissioner John Stickson queried how changes would affect ordinary projects such as decks and solar installations; staff said the near‑term work includes expanding the set of projects that do not require the full land‑use review.

Staff also discussed permitting timelines. They noted state timeframes — a roughly 150‑day target for applications outside the urban growth boundary — can stretch longer in practice when multiple sequenced permits are required and said they are exploring concurrent processing and operational tools such as templates and checklists to shorten total elapsed time. Gibb and Kevin Cook, the projects principal planner, said improved templates and clearer standards could move some cases from a 150‑day review to the faster type‑1 processes.

Several commissioners stressed customer service changes in addition to code edits: assigning applications to teams so applicants can interact with a consistent staff contact rather than a generic inbox, and improving front‑counter hours and responsiveness. Gibb said staff will pilot team assignments once new hires start and acknowledged the county is rethinking use of generic email responses.

On a related item, a commissioner asked whether an early change to address fire‑sprinkler systems on houseboat docks was part of the zoning rewrite. Staff said that issue is handled through an intergovernmental agreement with the city and is not a zoning code amendment; they said meetings with the city are ongoing.

Staff said smaller code amendments are already moving forward and that a larger comprehensive rewrite will be synchronized with those near‑term fixes. The board did not take formal action at the briefing; staff said all code changes would return to the planning commission and the board for review and public hearings.

For now, staff said the immediate next steps are to finalize the six‑month package, continue community engagement on any substantive procedure changes and coordinate funding and scheduling for the comprehensive rewrite.