Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planner: appeal of oceanfront-setback variance will be a de novo hearing; commissioners warned to disclose site contacts
Summary
Clatsop County planner Jason Paul briefed the board on an appeal of a denied oceanfront setback variance and explained the appeal will be heard de novo; commissioners discussed ex parte contacts and site visits and staff explained evidence procedures and appeal paths.
Jason Paul, the county planner, told the board the upcoming June 24 hearing will be a de novo appeal of a variance request to allow a 3‑foot encroachment into the oceanfront setback.
"The variance request was denied by the Clatsop County hearings officer on April 22, and a decision was issued by our office on the 23rd," Jason Paul said, explaining the appeal treats the matter as if a hearing had not been held even though the original record remains available.
Paul said new written materials may be added at the appeal hearing and that the applicant must file a notice of appeal explaining why they qualify. Commissioners pressed on the limits of ex parte contacts. One commissioner said a constituent had requested a meeting and noted any individual contacts should be disclosed so all members have the same information; the commissioner favored staff or county counsel reaching out and then sharing that information with the full board rather than private visits. A commissioner asked whether a site visit after an appeal filing would require disclosure and possibly lead to challenges; staff and counsel explained any site visit must be disclosed and the commissioner should state what they saw, so the record is equalized and to avoid grounds for later appeal to bodies such as the Land Use Board of Appeals.
Paul described the evidence typically submitted for an oceanfront setback variance — surveys and architectural documentation rather than photographs — because an encroachment is defined by measured survey information. He reminded commissioners that communications with staff for clarification are not considered ex parte under the rules and that county council can advise on any uncertainties.
Ending: Staff directed that any constituent contacts be funneled through county counsel or staff to ensure equal access to information prior to the de novo hearing. The hearing was scheduled for June 24; board members were advised to disclose any visits or communications to preserve a complete and fair record.
