Hearings Officer use for contentious applications

The City of Warrenton’s Planning Commission, at our May meeting, passed a recommendation to amend the development code to include the ability to use a Hearings Officer in place of the Planning Commission with the decision of the Officer appealed directly to LUBA when highly controversial applications are scheduled to be heard.

It disturbs me that the City Commission has chosen not to accept the change as presented including any appeal of a decision by a hearings officer would be directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). For whatever reason, the City Commission wants any appeal of a Hearings Officer to be heard by them instead of directly to LUBA.

The purpose of the recommended change to the development code was not be to thwart local control but to be able to address, without bias towards either side or fear of reprisal for decisions, highly contentious applications. A Hearings Officer would seldom be used. A Hearings Officer would be the most fair and impartial adjudication of any highly contentious application. Since a Hearings Officer would only be used in this particular circumstance one could easily assume that any decision would be appealed to LUBA by the losing side. So, not only would this be realistic alternative for the City, but if used, it would save staff time and money expended to prepare for the LUBA hearings.

The City Commission is now in the process of “reading” the ordinance. I recommend that the City Commission re-think their stance and refer it back to the Planning Commission, or, make a motion to change the ordinance back to what the Planning Commission recommended.