Oakland staff present Live Local Act procedures as residents urge moratorium on new developments

Town of Oakland staff presented Resolution 2024-06 at the Aug. 13 commission meeting to establish locally published procedures required by the state Live Local Act. The resolution, staff said, creates an administrative review pathway for qualifying affordable housing projects and is intended to ensure local procedures comply with state law.

The resolution was described by staff as implementing state-mandated changes under the Live Local Act and later amendments. “Projects meeting that criteria are eligible for administrative approval,” staff said, adding that the town cannot use the administrative review to address land use, density, floor-area ratio or height but can continue to review building and site design standards, stormwater, utilities, setbacks, parking and other development requirements.

The presentation summarized key provisions staff cited from the statute and recent bills: qualifying projects must be mixed-use (cited at 65% residential and 35% nonresidential), provide at least 40% of rental units as affordable to households at or below 120% of area median income, and maintain affordability for a minimum of 30 years. Staff also said the town’s maximum allowed residential density for such projects would be the highest density permitted locally (cited in the meeting as 25 dwelling units per acre) and that height is limited by the highest height within one mile of the site or three stories, whichever is higher.

During public comment, resident Chris Keller urged the commission to consider "a moratorium for future new family developments in town until a time that we can maybe update our commercial development standards," saying the town’s small size and multiple pending projects merited caution. "I think that we need to be mindful that we have to have things in place so that developers don't keep coming to us with these proposals," Keller said.

Commissioners and staff discussed the legal and timing constraints of a moratorium. A staff member noted the town had a prior multifamily moratorium and cautioned that courts scrutinize repeated renewals; the initial period for a new moratorium, as described in the meeting, would be limited to one year. Staff said they would research when the last moratorium expired and the legal timeline for initiating any new moratorium.

A motion to accept Resolution 2024-06 was made on the record at the meeting. The transcript includes the motion but does not record a roll-call tally or final vote count on that motion.

Why it matters: The Live Local Act changes how qualifying affordable housing projects are reviewed at the local level, restricting municipal review of land-use density and height while preserving review over design, environmental protections and infrastructure. For a small town with limited commercial/industrial land, the state pathway can accelerate projects that meet statutory criteria, reducing the commission’s discretion on certain land-use elements. Residents’ calls for a moratorium reflect concerns about local infrastructure capacity and the commission’s desire to update local rules before additional projects are filed.

What’s next: Staff said they would research moratorium timing and legal constraints and return with recommendations; the resolution motion was placed on the record during the meeting.