Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Public Hearing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public hearing on AF‑10 zoning change and Ewing Young Bridge continued to June 4
Summary
After public testimony raising a conflict in language that would add 'transportation facilities' to AF‑10, the board directed staff to draft clearer definitions, consult counsel and CPRD, and continued deliberations to June 4 at 10:00 a.m.
The Yamhill County Board of Commissioners continued a public hearing May 7 on proposed zoning ordinance amendments that would add references to roads, bridges, and other transportation facilities and improvements to several zones, including AF‑10.
Ed Fredenberg of Newberg told the board he submitted two letters and argued the proposed addition of "transportation facilities" creates a conflict in AF‑10 because that zone presently includes parks and open space as permitted uses. Fredenberg urged the board either not to change AF‑10 or to make transportation facilities a permitted use rather than conditional in that zone.
County planning staff responded that any change to permit a bridge or road in AF‑10 would at minimum require adding it as a permitted or conditional use in the AF‑10 language and that definitions for "roads, bridges and transportation facilities" could be pulled from the state's transportation goals and incorporated into county code. Staff noted the board had previously denied the bridge when the ordinance was read in earlier proceedings and cautioned that the existing ordinance language treats unlisted uses as not allowed unless specifically added.
Commissioners discussed a phased approach: amend AF‑10 to allow conditional or permitted uses for transportation facilities in conjunction with already permitted uses (for example, a bridge serving a park), have planning staff draft definitions and ordinance language, and ask county counsel to review. Commissioners also asked whether the Chehalem Park & Recreation District (CPRD) or its counsel could assist with drafting to reduce county counsel costs; staff said they would ask CPRD and report back.
After discussion about outreach that CPRD had completed with neighbors and concerns about potential legal exposure under state land‑use law, the board agreed to continue deliberations for 30 days and reconvene the matter at its June 4, 2026 meeting at 10:00 a.m. in Room 32.
Board directions included drafting ordinance language with clear definitions, consulting legal counsel before final action, and attempting to coordinate cost responsibilities with CPRD for counsel review.
