91视频

Residents in an unincorporated Tualatin Valley area may trigger a major battle over land use.

鈥淎rea 93,鈥� 160 acres of land north of Thompson Road and east of Saltzman Road, was brought inside the urban growth boundary in 2002. However, properties there still lack proper water and road systems.

Representatives of , an advocacy group for Area 93 residents, say it’s an example of how some areas within the UGB are being left out in the cold. The group is drafting a bill for the next legislative session that would require Metro to direct service providers to provide urban services to all UGB areas that don’t have them.

鈥淲hen Metro brings a property into the UGB, you can’t expect the property owners to wait for decades while Metro tries to figure out how to get their act together,鈥� OIA President Dave Hunnicutt said. 鈥淲e should have a bill requiring Metro to figure out how to serve the areas that are already in the UGB or just stop counting them as developable.鈥�

The planned bill would set a certain amount of time for Metro to create 鈥渦rban service agreements.鈥� If Metro were unable to reach those agreements with providers within the time allotted, those areas would have to be released from the UGB.

Area 93 is in Multnomah County, but the county is unable to provide it with services 鈥� including water, sewage and basic development amenities 鈥� because it’s so remote. So, the planned bill would open the door for Washington County to provide services, Hunnicutt said.

鈥淥ur thought is while these property owners are stuck, if there are ways (Metro) can figure out how to provide services from a special district, then they ought to do that,鈥� he said. 鈥淚f you bring land into the UGB, the assumption under Oregon land-use law is that it’s going to be developed at urban-level densities.鈥�

A similar bill was proposed by the group during the past legislative session. If the bill had passed, it would have let property owners in unincorporated areas in the UGB demand services immediately.

The bill passed through the Oregon House of Representatives, but failed in the Senate. It would have created a big problem, said Randy Tucker, legislative affairs manager for Metro.

鈥淭he legislation in February was not well thought through and would have unintended consequences well beyond (Area 93),鈥� he said. 鈥淚t would have allowed any landowner in the first moment to simply demand services for their property.鈥�

Metro has recognized the problems plaguing places like Area 93 and tweaked the UGB annexation process, Tucker said; now, before an area is annexed, a concept plan must exist.

鈥淧roblems like the (Area 93) situation are highly unlikely to occur under the current approach in place,鈥� he said.

Tucker said his job now is to work with OIA and Area 93 residents to make sure broad legislation isn’t proposed again. Just because land is brought into the UGB, property owners should not expect it to develop immediately, he said.

Instead, the OIA should concentrate on drafting a bill that would let Area 93 be annexed into Washington County, he said, and keep other UGB properties out.

The OIA is working on such a bill 鈥� in addition to the broader one 鈥� to provide Area 93 residents some closure, Hunnicutt said. A meeting held late last month involved representatives of Metro, Washington County, Multnomah County and Area 93; the consensus was that Washington County was willing to entertain the idea of annexing the land.

鈥淭hat would be a one-and-done bill,鈥� Hunnicutt said. 鈥淲hy take an area and a group of property owners that have been waiting over a decade and drag it into a more complicated fight about service delivery throughout the region?鈥�

However, many other UGB areas, such as Damascus, are facing similar problems; a solution requires broader legislation, Hunnicutt said.

鈥淚t’s just a mess,鈥� he said.