Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears staff, applicant on annexation and partition proposal; final vote deferred
Summary
Staff presented findings and recommended conditions for Ordinance 9-24, which would annex two tax lots (total ~2.05 acres), apply city R1 zoning on annexation, and approve a minor partition. The council took public testimony, heard the applicant, and moved the matter to a future meeting for final action.
The City Council conducted a quasi‑judicial land‑use hearing on Ordinance 9‑24 — an application to annex two Columbia County tax lots into Scappoose, change zoning, and approve a minor partition.
Staff planner NJ Johnson summarized the staff report, noting the subject site consists of two tax lots (Tax Lot 3000 at 0.75 acres and Tax Lot 3100 at 1.3 acres, totaling about 2.05 acres). Staff said both lots are within the urban growth boundary and eligible for annexation; under city rules they would receive R1 zoning on annexation. The applicant requested a minor partition of Tax Lot 3000 into approximately 24,503 square feet and 6,500 square feet to separate an existing single‑family residence and a manufactured home. Staff detailed required public improvements along the Elm Street frontage, including sidewalks to city standards (6‑foot width with curb and gutter), driveway access permits (county requirement where applicable), potential right‑of‑way dedication or public‑sidewalk easement, and utility connections (water laterals, sewer connections and required SDCs/connection fees). Staff said the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the packet.
Applicant representative Chase Berg of Lower Columbia Engineering said the application was prompted by a failing septic system on the southern lot and that connecting to city sewer would be a primary benefit of annexation; he confirmed one lot currently uses a well and that service connections would follow standard permitting and payment for SDCs and connection fees.
Council deliberation and action: After public testimony (no written comments had been submitted as of the staff deadline), a councilor moved to adopt Ordinance 9‑24 and accept the Planning Commission’s findings and conditions. The mayor noted this is a public hearing that will return for a final vote at a subsequent meeting; the council did not make final adoption at the Jan. 5 meeting. The record indicates staff and applicant will return with the formal ordinance for final action at the council’s next hearing on the matter.
