The meeting focused on the county's 2045 comprehensive plan update, specifically debating proposed Urban Growth Area (UGA) expansions for cities like Camas and the potential loss of prime agricultural land to new development. Participants discussed implementing a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program to balance job and housing capacity with land preservation, alongside urgent pleas to enact zoning overlays that protect affordable manufactured home parks from being redeveloped into high-density apartments. Additionally, citizens raised significant concerns about infrastructure concurrency, warning that current roads, stormwater systems, and capital facilities lack the funding and capacity to support the proposed residential density.
Building_development
Clark County Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026 · 2:23:51–2:24:22 · Watch on CVTV ↗
Keywords: capital facilities UGA density PUD annexation rezoning plat infrastructure traffic impact comprehensive plan subdivision zoning affordable housing concurrency
What was said
2:22:47 And the reason I'm here tonight is to give you some input about the property my wife and I own that's west of Northwest 61st Avenue at 169th Street. It's 23 acres. And it was in the comp plan, when they changed it, they made our property only, ten acre minimum, with all the other property in every direction around us, five acre minimums. Which was hard to understand. The only speculation that I could make was maybe it was because it was the remainder of a cluster lot development that was done 33 years ago. And however, if you look at the cluster lot plat, and if you look at the cluster lot regulations, nowhere on there does it say it
2:23:45 should be zoned a lower density because it was previously part of a cluster lot development. It simply says that it cannot be further developed until the zoning changes, period. So there's no reason to have made our property only ten acres when everybody else is around us is five. And in fact, south of us and adjoining us there's six one acre home sites. North and adjoining us there's seven one and a quarter acre zone sites. And to the northeast of us is somewhere around a dozen one to two acre lots. So, but really all I'm asking for is to correct this mistake and show in the comp plan, five acre parcels is fine. That's what was given to everybody else.
2:24:46 Okay, good I have more time. So anyway, I'm asking you to please consider looking at that and realizing that it was a mistake. I'm going to have to go through a zone chain request, which costs a great deal of money because of this mistake. And so I'm hoping that you can at least correct the comp plan to where our property is the same as everybody around us, the five acre parcels. And you can look on your comprehensive plan map and there's our little property
Evidence (1 match)
direct keyword 2:23:51–2:24:22 capital facilities, UGA, density, PUD, annexation, rezoning, plat, infrastructure, traffic impact, comprehensive plan, subdivision, zoning, affordable housing, concurrency
uster lot plat, and if you look at the cluster lot regulations, nowhere on there does it say it should be zoned a lower density because it was previously part of a cluster lot development. It simply says that it cannot be further developed until the zoning changes, period. So there's no reason to have made our property only ten acres when everybody else is around us is five. And in fact, south of us and adjoining us there's six one acre home sites. North and adjoining us there's seven one and a