Clackamas County Planning Commission recommends adoption of broad ZDO 293 ordinance amendments, flags reduced public notice and appeal rights

Clackamas County’s Planning Commission voted to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt ZDO 293, a comprehensive package of minor and time‑sensitive amendments to the county Zoning and Development Ordinance and related comprehensive‑plan edits.

Staff described ZDO 293 as a mix of mandatory changes to align county code with recent Oregon statutes and administrative rules, and optional clarifications and housekeeping edits. Principal Planner Martha Fritzy told the commission the package “proposes to make changes to one chapter of the comprehensive plan, 40 sections of our zoning and development ordinance … and proposes to add two new sections to the ZDO.” Fritzy said the amendments respond to recent legislative and rule changes, clarify definitions and processes, and correct citations that no longer matched state law.

The amendments include new application subtypes to reflect state procedure (including a “clear‑and‑objective” housing pathway and expedited land division procedures), changes that align exclusive farm use and forest zones with state rules, updates to greenway standards, clarified rules for measuring lot lines and setbacks, and a set of administrative housekeeping edits. Staff concluded the proposed package meets applicable statewide planning goals and administrative rules and recommended the commission forward a recommendation of adoption to the county commissioners.

Several commissioners praised the breadth of staff work but expressed strong concerns about procedural provisions in the package mandated by the Legislature. Commissioners objected to a shorter 14‑day notice period in some housing pathways and to provisions that limit who may appeal certain decisions to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Fritzy explained that under the new state procedures “it requires that any issue … must be raised during that 14‑day comment period” and noted in some cases “only the applicant may appeal to LUBA.” Commissioners said those changes reduce the public’s ability to review and challenge land‑use decisions.

Public commenters urged caution in how the county implements some changes. Marty Bound, representing the Hoodland Community Planning Organization, asked the commission to retain the current four‑year approval period with the two‑year extension for certain river and stream conservation areas because “these rivers change often and swiftly.” Pat Erdenberger, Hoodland CPO chair, also asked for special treatment for Riverside properties given rapid channel migration.

After discussion, the Planning Commission voted to recommend ZDO 293 to the Board of County Commissioners. The motion to recommend adoption carried on a roll‑call vote; commissioners also asked staff to forward the commission’s objections about limited notice and appeal rights to the board for its June 16, 2026 hearing. A minority of commissioners sought an amendment to retain the current time‑extension review for flood/river conservation areas but that amendment failed for lack of a second.

The board hearing on ZDO 293 is scheduled for June 16, 2026 at 11:00 a.m.; the Planning Commission encouraged staff and commissioners to appear and reiterate their concerns at that hearing. The county will post the recorded hearing and staff materials on the county website.