Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Morrow County delays co‑adoption of Boardman Transportation System Plan after property‑owner objections
Summary
After testimony from nearby property owners raising record‑completeness and funding‑disclosure concerns, the Morrow County Board of Commissioners voted to keep the public record open under the seven‑seven‑seven process and continued the co‑adoption hearing of the City of Boardman Transportation System Plan to March 18 for further review.
The Morrow County Board of Commissioners kept the record open and continued the hearing on co‑adopting the City of Boardman Transportation System Plan (TSP ATSP‑62‑26) to March 18 after property owners urged more time to supplement the administrative record.
The TSP co‑adoption would make Boardman’s transportation standards applicable to lands inside the Boardman urban growth boundary that remain outside city limits, aligning county permit reviews with the city’s adopted project lists, city officials said. The city adopted its TSP on Dec. 18 and the planning work was funded through a Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) grant, the city’s representatives told the board.
"The TSP in its current form has been available since November," said Carla Mlan, Boardman’s planning official. "There are no contracts that are a part of this TSP." She and City Manager Brandon Hammond told the board co‑adoption is largely a legislative, transparency‑focused step under the joint management agreement so the county and city apply consistent development standards inside the urban growth area.
Property owners and business representatives urged caution. "Please hold the record open and the 777 process. Seven days to review, seven days to respond," said Cheryl Tolman, owner of the Farmer’s Cup, asking the board to allow time for late submissions to be vetted. Jonathan Tolman, a property owner who submitted several e‑mail exhibits, told the board he believed the administrative record was fragmented and requested the seven‑seven‑seven retention so he could certify and supplement records for any potential Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) review.
Tolman also alleged that some planning materials and funding ties had not been fully disclosed. "They have on the record admitted that Amazon is funding this," he said, asking the county to place nondisclosure agreements and funding documentation into the administrative record. County staff and the applicant disputed parts of those assertions during rebuttal: the applicant reiterated the TSP contains no construction contracts and that co‑adoption itself does not authorize eminent domain.
After deliberation — and noting county legal counsel was not present — the board voted to keep the record open under the 777 process and to continue the hearing to March 18 at 1:30 p.m. at the Oregon Government Center for additional written submissions and staff analysis. Commissioners recorded the motion as carried with at least one dissent.
The county’s planning director, Tamara Mabbat, told the board the county’s co‑adoption applies only within the Boardman urban growth boundary and that staff will prepare the administrative record and any recommended findings for the board to consider when the hearing resumes.
