Monmouth council pauses hearing on proposed UGB land swap after residents raise legal and farmland concerns

The Monmouth City Council on Feb. 17 paused its public hearing on Legislative Amendment 25-02, a proposed urban growth boundary (UGB) land exchange under House Bill 2647, after a lengthy staff presentation, council questions and more than a dozen members of the public offered testimony for and against the swap.

City staff described the proposal as a targeted exchange intended to increase the city’s supply of developable residential land while complying with state law. “This is not the final step. There will be a lot more information once we know a detailed development proposal,” Community and Economic Development Director Suzanne Duffner said during her staff report.

Duffner told the council the swap would remove 90 acres from the Monmouth UGB and add 75 net acres on two parcels the staff identified as being the least constrained by environmental resources and most readily serviceable by city utilities. Under the proposed plan-map designations staff described, one larger parcel on Mistletoe Road would be designated medium-density residential and a smaller parcel on Talmage Road would be low-density residential. Staff estimated a range of roughly 368 to 840 potential housing units on the incoming acreage depending on final densities and infrastructure set-asides; staff emphasized those are early, illustrative figures tied to future subdivision approvals.

Duffner said the city pursued the expedited swap pathway after the Legislature adopted HB 2647 to address Monmouth’s constrained residential land supply; she also cited Senate Bill 1537 as related background. She explained the procedural steps that would follow a map amendment — annexation, zoning, subdivision review and building permits — and stressed that developer-funded traffic, utility and mitigation work would be required at later stages.

Council members pressed staff on site-selection criteria, contiguity and infrastructure. Councilor Lopez asked how the three parcels were chosen; Duffner said staff ran a technical screen of parcels around the UGB for environmental constraints, utility access and owner willingness, then contacted owners of promising sites. City Attorney Justin Thorp and staff described the city’s interpretation of the statutory “contiguous” requirement under the annexation definition, but attendees and at least one outside lawyer said that reading could be litigated if the council moves forward.

Attorney Nick Roen, representing local resident David Pastor, told the council he believes the HB 2647 contiguity requirement is not met by the proposed Area One and that the statutory test requires the added land to physically touch city limits or UGB parcels that are not used to manufacture contiguity. “The legal requirement that the site be contiguous with the city boundaries and the urban growth boundary is clearly not satisfied,” Roen said, urging caution and warning of potential court challenges.

Residents who live near the parcels urged the council to reject or slow the swap, raising farmland loss, spray and dust from surrounding agriculture, traffic safety and wetland concerns. “It takes 70 acres out of the good farming land,” said Eileen Smith of Mistletoe Road, asking for buffers between new housing and ongoing farm operations. Don McCarthy and other speakers challenged staff maps and contiguity findings and asked for expanded notification to more remote neighbors.

Property owners whose land is proposed to come into the UGB also spoke in favor. Dan Wade, who identified himself as the Mistletoe Road property owner for multiple generations, said his family has hired environmental consultants and is committed to complying with traffic and wetland regulations and to cooperating with annexation processes.

After testimony, Mayor Coons left the hearing record open through Tuesday, Feb. 24 at 5:00 p.m. for additional written submissions and announced the council will resume consideration at its March 17 meeting; staff will review the new material and prepare additional findings. The hearing was not decided that night.

What happens next: the council will accept written comments to staff through Feb. 24, staff will analyze new testimony and return findings to the council for the continued hearing on March 17. If the council moves to adopt the map amendment later, subsequent development proposals would follow annexation, zoning and subdivision reviews that include traffic-impact analysis, site-specific wetland reviews and developer-funded improvements.

Key documents and references mentioned: House Bill 2647 (UGB land-exchange pathway), Senate Bill 1537 (background on expedited swaps), and the staff report and maps distributed with the council packet. The council announced the hearing will be continued rather than decided at the Feb. 17 meeting.