Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Building-code change-of-use rules are required, city official explains; small-business owners raise cost and timing concerns
Summary
Susie Dahl explained that change-of-use and change-of-occupancy permits are required by Oregon building code and outlined the permit's scope; small business owners said the permit process and related retrofit costs—ventilation, ADA work—can be a barrier and that enforcement has been inconsistent across jurisdictions.
Susie Dahl presented a detailed overview of change-of-use and change-of-occupancy permits and answered a lengthy series of questions from local business owners, landlords and planning staff.
Dahl cited building-code language and told the committee, "It is required by building code," explaining that a change in occupancy classification, a change in the purpose or a change in the level of activity within a building triggers the permit requirement. She said the code's aim is to ensure appropriate safety, accessibility, structural strength, fire protection, means of egress, ventilation and sanitation.
Multiple business owners described how the permit process has affected leasing decisions. One owner said a potential tenant withdrew after seeing permit-related costs and uncertainty; another cited a beauty-salon example where an HVAC fresh-air requirement could have cost about $16,000 without mitigation, making the project uneconomic. Dahl and county building staff said many simple tenant changes can be resolved with a field review and hand-drawn sketches and that the building department typically processes straightforward applications quickly once planning confirms the use is allowed.
Discussion touched on inconsistent enforcement and local discretion; staff said differing interpretations or past leniency can create perceptions of unpredictability. Dahl noted code updates in 2022 have changed technical requirements and that some past 'grandfathering' expectations have shifted. Committee members asked whether the county could ease barriers for small businesses; staff reiterated their willingness to provide examples, pre-application assistance and guidance and noted that formal pre-application meetings (which carry fees) are separate from front-counter guidance that is not generally charged.
No changes to county enforcement policy were adopted during the meeting. Staff and CET representatives said they would pursue clearer communication and resources to help small-business owners navigate the permitting process.
