Newberg planning commission denies appeal of 1929 East Orchard Drive partition, upholds director's approval

Newberg — The Newberg Planning Commission on Feb. 12 voted unanimously to deny an appeal of a three-lot partition and three middle-housing land divisions at 1929 East Orchard Drive, sustaining the Community Development Director's Jan. 7, 2026 decision approving the application with conditions.

Associate Planner Jeremiah Cromie told the commission that the proposal divides the property into three partition lots, each of which would host a triplex, and that the zoning (R-1) and applicable city and state criteria were documented in the staff report. Cromie summarized the issues raised on appeal and staff's responses, identifying the primary topics as fire access and flow, frontage and operational impacts for a private street, traffic generation, utility capacity and stormwater, and conceptual lot-coverage and building-height concerns. Staff recommended adoption of Planning Commission Order 2026-01 to deny the appeal and sustain the director's decision.

On fire safety, Cromie said the Fountain Valley fire permit required sprinklers in lieu of a full turnaround; the applicant performed a fire-flow test and staff recorded a letter showing the water system met a 1,000-gallons-per-minute standard on the permit for a 4-inch feed. Cromie said those elements were included as conditions of approval and would be verified during the public-improvement and building-permit processes.

Opponents at the hearing focused on the private, dead-end character of Orchard Drive. Neighbor Ryan Adobnik of 1910 Orchard Drive argued the street is narrow and hazardous and that adding nine units effectively doubles households on the lane. "It's a dead end street ... it's like you're in Yamhill or Carlton," Adobnik said, describing limited sightlines and parking constraints. Judy Durkee, who lives nearby, told the commission she could not find a current fire service plan online for the application and warned that a turnaround and staging area would be cramped near a hydrant.

Applicant Dean Hereford said the property has been in his family for about 40 years and that the team provided the technical memos requested by staff. "A common phrase is affordable housing. And in order to get affordable housing, you have to have density," Hereford said, noting he and his engineer, Devin Jackson, believe the application demonstrates feasibility and that required conditions will ensure compliance.

Commissioners asked whether the commission could deny an application that meets objective code criteria. Several members stressed their quasi-judicial role is to determine whether staff's findings and conditions satisfy the code. Commissioners also debated whether a traffic and safety study should be required for construction and long-term use of the existing private easement; one motion to sustain subject to an added traffic and safety study was made and tabled.

After deliberation, a motion to adopt Planning Commission Order 2026-01 — denying the appeal and sustaining the director's January 7, 2026 decision on file PLNG-25-42 — passed on a unanimous roll-call vote. The meeting record shows the vote as "yes" for all commissioners present. The commission's decision can be appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals; the ORS 197.763 raise-or-waive rule requires parties to make all appealable issues at the local hearing.

The director's approval includes conditions that require verification of fire access and sprinkler systems, pavement and no-parking signage where required, final stormwater design during public-improvement review, and that building-permit review will confirm lot-coverage, setbacks and height limits. Staff told the commission that lot sizes meet the 5,000-square-foot minimum for triplexes and that state middle-housing law (House Bill 2001) constrains discretionary standards the city may apply in single-family zones.

The commission also asked staff to place a separate item on the code-maintenance docket to consider whether applicant notice envelopes should be more standardized; staff noted the city currently requires applicants to mail notices and does not control envelope design.

The denial of the appeal preserves the director's conditions; further technical items (final street, drainage and building details) will be resolved through public-improvement and building-permit review.