Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procedures Notice Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New streamlined housing procedures, shorter notice and limited LUBA appeals draw pushback from commissioners and public
Summary
Staff explained statewide-driven creation of new application types (clear‑and‑objective and expedited land divisions) that shorten notice windows and limit who may appeal to LUBA; several commissioners and community groups opposed the procedural narrowing.
County staff outlined several new, state‑driven application pathways included in ZDO 293 that change how housing and certain land divisions are processed.
Martha Fritzy summarized the major procedural edits: a type 1H “clear‑and‑objective” housing application for proposals using only objective standards; a type 2E for expedited (including middle housing) land divisions; and type 2S for certain special uses. She warned these procedural subtypes are complex and “we're struggling through it as planners to try to wrap all of these pieces together.”
More consequentially for the public, staff described statutory changes that shorten some notice/comment periods and narrow appeal rights. On the 14‑day notice pathway Martha said “it requires that any issue … must be raised during that 14‑day comment period” to preserve the right to appeal. She also stated in certain expedited or clear‑and‑objective pathways, “only the applicant may appeal to LUBA.” Nick Hart added that consolidation of middle‑housing land division procedures removed public notice requirements for some of those land divisions.
Commissioners repeatedly pressed staff on the policy consequences. Commissioner Stevens said the reduced notice and appeal windows “flies in the face of land use rule number one,” arguing the public has less opportunity to participate and seek remedies. Commissioner Lee and others said the commission should make its concerns known to the state. Several commissioners volunteered to work on a draft letter to convey the commission’s objections to state officials and to appear at the BOCC hearing to reiterate those points.
Staff said they had limited local discretion: many of the procedure changes are required by state law and administrative rulemaking; staff proposed including optional notice in exactly one housing type where notice is not otherwise mandatory. Commissioners and community planning organizations said they would press for changes at the state level and sought to have the Planning Commission record formal objections in the recommendation packet.
Next step: the commission recommended ZDO 293 to the BOCC and asked staff to include the commission’s recorded objections at the board hearing on June 16, 2026.
