Canby commission receives design‑review training on quasi‑judicial process, ex parte disclosures and conflicts

City attorney Emily Guymont told the Canby Heritage and Landmark Commission that its design‑review work is quasi‑judicial and must be confined to the facts and criteria in the city code.

"All your decisions, yes or no, must be strictly confined to the criteria in your code," Guymont said, urging commissioners to base findings on the record of staff reports, testimony and exhibits rather than outside information.

The presentation, given during a training session before the commission’s regular business, outlined how applications progress: applicants typically begin with a pre‑application meeting with planning staff, may be advised to consult an architect for major alterations, and face different review tiers. Minor alterations and standard maintenance are frequently handled administratively by planning staff, while major alterations go to the heritage commission for a public hearing and certificate of appropriateness review.

Joy Sears, a restoration specialist with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), explained how SHPO can support requests for building‑code variances on historic properties. "I can write letters of support," Sears said, describing cases where preserving historic material—such as staircases—warrants relief from strict code requirements.

Guymont reviewed procedural safeguards that protect decisions from appeal. If applicants or opponents believe a decision ignored required criteria or considered facts not on the record, they may appeal first to the city commission within 15 days of the decision and, for land‑use matters, to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) afterward. She said a later judicial appeal to the Court of Appeals is limited to narrow grounds.

The attorney also discussed ex parte contacts (outside communications, site visits, social‑media posts) and bias. Ex parte contacts are not automatically unlawful, Guymont said, "but they stop becoming an issue if you disclose on the record what you learned" before the commission reaches a decision. She advised commissioners to announce any contact and its substance to put the information on the public record and give other parties a chance to respond.

Guymont explained two distinct conflict categories under Oregon ethics law: actual conflicts—where a decision would produce a private financial benefit to the commissioner or a close relative—which require public announcement and abstention; and potential conflicts—which must be disclosed on the record though participation rules differ.

Commissioners asked whether pre‑application conversations create ex parte concerns. Guymont said ex parte timing begins when an application is submitted or deemed complete by staff and ends when the commission issues its final decision, but she cautioned that prior contacts may nonetheless create bias perceptions and recommended disclosure when in doubt.

She also noted a state statutory carve‑out: requirements that local housing rules be "clear and objective" do not necessarily apply where historical‑protection codes govern; she offered to consult a more specialized land‑use attorney to clarify that carve‑out’s exact scope.

The training included practical examples of compatibility and compatibility standards (Secretary of the Interior guidance), guidance on sightlines for rooftop additions and solar panels, and resources commissioners can share with owners. The session closed with an offer from SHPO to provide links and training materials for commissioners and staff.

The commission then transitioned to its regular agenda, including routine votes and officer elections.