Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board delays AF‑10 zoning decision, asks legal review before Ewing‑Young Bridge can proceed
Summary
After public testimony highlighted a conflict created by adding 'transportation facilities' to AF‑10, the commissioners directed staff to draft ordinance language and ordered legal review; deliberations were continued to June 4 to allow counsel review and potential cost-sharing with CPRD.
The Yamhill County Board of Commissioners continued deliberations on changes to the AF‑10 zoning category and the related Ewing‑Young Bridge project to its June 4 meeting, directing staff to prepare ordinance language and seeking legal counsel review before authorizing construction‑related uses in AF‑10.
Ed Fredenberg of Newberg testified during the public hearing that adding "transportation facilities" to the AF‑10 language creates a conflict with existing language that lists parks and open space as permitted uses in zones tied to AF‑10. "It would make transportation facilities a permitted use," Fredenberg said, calling that a potential conflict with other parts of the code and offering two possible fixes: remove the change for AF‑10 or instead change transportation facilities to a permitted use in AF‑10.
County staff advised the board that ordinance amendments to add or change uses can be drafted and returned in about three weeks, after which a 21‑day appeal period to the Land Use Board of Appeals would apply. A staff representative said definitions exist in state transportation goals and policies and could be lifted into county code if the board desires. "If the board directed us to do that, it would probably come back in about three weeks," the staff member told commissioners.
Commissioners discussed taking a cautious approach: making transportation facilities a conditional use tied to an existing permitted use (such as a park), asking CPRD (the parks and recreation district) to do neighbor outreach and possibly contribute legal assistance, and having the county run proposed language by retained counsel. Commissioner Starett said he supported adding Yamhill County's name to a separate HUD letter but urged careful review of program effectiveness; in the land‑use discussion he urged clarity and fine‑tooth‑comb review of wording when it returns.
The board agreed to continue deliberations for 30 days and scheduled the follow‑up for June 4 at 10 a.m. in Room 32. Commissioners asked staff to attempt to coordinate with CPRD on potential cost‑sharing for legal review and to return proposed ordinance language with clear definitions and findings addressing the AF‑10 conflict.
What happens next: staff will draft ordinance amendment language and definitions for board review, the board will seek counsel review before final action, and the issue will be revisited at the June 4 meeting.
