City Council

PORT ORFORD PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA GABLE CHAMBERS, PORT ORFORD CITY HALL REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, June 10th, 2024, 5:30 PM Tuesday, June 10th, 2024, 5:30 PM If unable to join in person; please join the meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. https://meet.goto.com/802178533 You can also dial in using your phone. United States (Toll Free): 1 866 899 4679 United States: +1 (571) 317-3166 Access Code: 802-172-533 1. Call to Order 2. Chair Comments 3. Minutes May 7th, 2024 4. Public Comments (On Agenda Items Only) A. Testimony submitted in writing will be entered into the record here 5. Planning Matters A. CUP 16-02 & 16-03 extension 6. Discussion Items A. Planning clearances approved since last meeting B. CUP extension discussion 7. Other Business A. City Planner Comments B. Planning Commission Comments 8. Public Considerations 9. Future Meetings A. July 8th @ 5:30 10. Adjourn 1  City of Port Orford Planning Commission Meeting Minutes In the Gable Chambers / Virtual participants Tuesday, May 7th, 2024 at 3:30 P.M. Commission Member Present City Staff Present Chariman Greg Thelen (GT) Present Joseph Harrison, Planning Tech. Present (JH) Vice Chair Pamela Berndt Present Crystal Shoji, City Planner (CS) Present (PB) Comm Sara Lovendahl (SL) Present Comm Jennifer Head (JH) Present Comm Carol Lawton (CL) Present Others Present: The minutes were prepared using the video available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV9XTmdt0h0 11. (0:00-0:01) Call to Order A. Chair Thelen called to order this Meeting of the Planning Commission on May 7th, 2024, at (3:30) p.m. with a roll call showing all members are present. 12. (0:01) Chair Comments A. None 13. (0:01-0:03) March 5th Minutes A. Commissioner JH moves to approve the minutes for March 5 th with the amendment of changing Abstain to Absent. B. Commissioner PB seconds the motion. C. Vote: discussion on Absent vs Abstain on the vote; 5-0 @ 5:33. Chairman Thelen Yes Commissioner Lovendahl Yes Commissioner Head Yes Commissioner Lawton Yes Commissioner Berndt Yes 14. (0:03) Public Comments (On Agenda Items Only) A. None 15. (0:03-1:55) Planning Matters A. Technical Assistance Grant from DLCD Housing Implementation: Crystal summarizes the housing workshop held by the City on April 9 th, 2024 and gives an update on the progress of the Grant. B. Follow-up discussion from Public Workshop held April 9, 2024; packet for review includes: 2  i. Public Workshop Participation Notes compiled by subject: Commissioners make corrections on the notes and discuss specifics of the meeting. The definition of “Guest House” depends on the definition of “Kitchen”; a Kitchen is an oven or stovetop. Affordable housing vs. Subsidized housing. Insulation issues on other types of housing like yurts. Condominiums are well defined by the state code, we would just need to follow that code, but may not be the best solution for our town. Fire suppression in dwellings less than 400 sq. ft. if it has a loft due to lack of window to escape through. ii. Oregon Planners’ Network (OPN) notes regarding “tiny homes”: Proposal to put multiple tiny homes on a single lot. Building codes for tiny homes goes down to 400 sq. ft. City building codes should address the needs of the citizens. iii. City of Bandon Resolution No 24-05 re: Recreation Vehicles as Temporary Housing: Interesting ideas from the resolution include; no RVs on vacant lots, all items must be kept inside the RV, and cannot be rented. iv. One ADU question that Crystal Shoji will address: Use existing code from other municipalities. v. House Bill 2984 Engrossed, provided by Mayor Mary Schamehorn at the workshop (C): Skipped due to time restraints vi. Chair GT requests that the Commission each state what they want to see with our current grant; clear definitions and classifications, implementation of an ADU code, Zoning and density, composting toilets, and cluster housing. 16. (1:55-1:59) Discussion Items A. Planning clearances approved since the last meeting; Joseph lists off planning clearances that have been approved since the previous meeting. B. Process for review and/or modification of existing Conditional Use Permits: This item has been tabled until the next meeting. C. Dark Sky Brochure Draft: No changes 17. (1:59-2:11) Other Business A. Potential new Date/Time: Councilors discuss and settle on having the meeting through September on the second Monday of each month at 5:30 pm. B. Commissioner JH motion to move the meeting to the second Monday of each month @ 5:30 through September C. Vote: motion carries unanimously with no further discussion. 3 Chairman Thelen Yes Commissioner Lovendahl Yes Commissioner Head Yes Commissioner Lawton Yes Commissioner Berndt Yes D. City Planner Comments – None E. Planning Commission Comments - None 18. Public Considerations 19. Future Meetings A. June 10th @ 5:30. 20. Adjourn A. Seeing no other business Chair GT adjourns the meeting at 5:42 pm 21. Attest: _____________________________ _______________________________ Chair, Greg Thelen Date _______________________________ _______________________________ City Recorder, Joseph Harrison Date 4 Citizen Concerns Date: June 3, 2024 From: Dana S. Gurnee 834 Deady St. Port Orford, OR 97465 541-253-1334 danascott000@gmail.com To: Joseph Harrison Planning Technician for the City of Port Orford Emailed to: jharrison@portorford.org Hand-delivered to Port Orford City Hall on June 3, 2024 Re: Application for extensions of CUP 16-02 and 16-03 from Elk River Property Development Please provide this testimony to the Port Orford Planning Commission (POPC) in its publicfacing packet for its regular public meeting on June 10, 2024. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I ask the POPC to deny the “application” before it for extensions of CUPs 16-02 and 16-03. Here are my reasons. 1. On the city’s website today, I do not see the applicant’s claim about the “substantial progress” that is needed, under municipal code, for the POPC to grant extensions of these CUPs. This defect is particularly notable today, on account of it now being clear that the city will be the buyer, the owner, and the operator of a pipeline, not the applicant. Therefore, I contend that new facts must be asserted for a new application, maybe including a final choice on which route the city has chosen for a pipeline that the city will own. At the same time, extensions must be denied for the existing CUPs that have been requested by ERPD, an entity that will not be an owner. There are new unknowns! 2. As I understand them, under the laws of Oregon, there has not been proper notice for this type of land-use hearing. An undated “to whom it may concern” letter from Joseph Harrison, postmarked 5-24- 24, states that there will be no testimony at this “meeting” (his word)! No testimony! On this basis alone, the POPC must deny this “application” and leave it to city staff, and the Port Orford City Council (POCC), to arrange for a proper hearing process. Or, alternatively, leave it to city staff and the POCC to shun propriety and grant the extensions. The POPC should not be the body that shuns the rule of law. That “right to shun,” if you will, belongs to the POCC. At the very, very least, the POPC should delay this matter until proper steps have been taken for a proper meeting. 3. A POPC denial is not a final denial! The applicant can appeal a denial to the POCC, and the council can reverse the denial. If I were on the POPC, I would be displeased by the “application,” at least the pieces of paper that I have seen. And I would be concerned by the advantages that have been obtained from (a) the city not having an attorney; (b) the city not having a city administrator at the time of the “application”; and (c) the city having a planning technician with limited formal experience in that difficult role. What else is slipping through such gaping cracks? 5 4. Some people will say that “the LUBA decision” grants a city the power to interpret its code in highly flexible and highly permissive ways, and that therefore, this city may approve “applications” such as these. While that may be true, I believe that the “power to be permissive” should be reserved for an elected city council, and should not be exercised by a planning commission of people who are appointed to scrupulously apply codes that are abundantly clear. Thank you for considering my comments. They are based on the record that I have found on the city’s website on the morning of 6-3-24. Dana Gurnee Port Orford 6 My name is Kim Foster, and I live on Knapp Road in the Port Orford UGB. The following is my testimony with regards to the Knapp Ranch Pipeline. In being forthcoming about my residence, I am hoping my testimony will not be discarded on the grounds that I am not a Port Orford city taxpayer. Despite living just outside of city limits in the UGB, my husband Clark Kocurek and I both have devoted untold hours of our extremely limited professional time to our volunteer roles in the community. We may not pay city taxes, but we try to contribute in other ways. We do not sit idly aside just because we are not in the city limits. Though we are not yet retired, we do not shy away from rolling up our sleeves and doing hard work outside of our careers. For the record, I have been more than happy to contribute in the following positions as a public servant:  Port Orford Watershed Council: I am extremely proud of the work we have done over the past several years on green infrastructure, such as acquiring land in our watershed on behalf of the city. We have also assisted with providing local educational opportunities and materials to the community around water conservation efforts to compliment the city's ongoing efforts to rebuild our grey infrastructure. "Be water wise, rain or shine" is a campaign I'm happy to have lended my efforts to.  Port Orford Rural Fire Department Board: I have recently joined as Treasurer, and have enjoyed my service thus far learning about the myriad issues that rural fire departments face today. The PORFD volunteers are truly unsung heroes, and it's an honor to have the opportunity to support the department in whatever capacity I can.   Port Orford Main Street Board: I am effectively the Tourism Lead for the city. Main Street sought me out nearly two years ago to donate my digital marketing skills to assist with building up their digital presence on behalf of the city, with a focus on promoting community-based eco- tourism that aligns with our unique small town values. Here in Port Orford, like in many small towns on the coast, balancing tourism with resident's quality of life is a struggle, but not impossible. I do not believe in impossibilities. After some market research and interviews with locals and businesses, I developed and designed the new Discover Port Orford brand, stood up (and manage on a daily basis) our social media pages, and volunteered over 100 additional hours of my time to build a new tourism website from scratch, including donating web design, photography, and copywriting services with a total value of more than $10,000 just for my contributions on the website alone. We have already reached tens of thousands of potential visitors nationwide, all at no cost to the city aside from the advertising media buys, which I also manage at no charge. Our goal with all this is to specifically increase awareness of Port Orford among a younger target audience of respectful eco-tourists, and encourage longer multi-day stays — especially during the shoulder seasons when tourist traffic has slowed down and our water shortages aren't as critical. As you know all too well, our city water infrastructure in Port Orford is in a dire state, and will take years if not over a decade to rip and replace and rebuild even if we were fully funded yesterday. Many residents and tourists alike often have to boil tap water after big leaks.... this is an especially dire problem during the summer when rains disappear and even our wells outside of city limits struggle to keep up, given our shallow water table across the whole area. I believe that any tourism strategy that does not factor in the cold hard reality of our water situation is recklessly irresponsible, and I'm proud to contribute my skills and strategic vision to avoid inadvertently adding to our troubles while proudly promoting our local businesses and this beautiful place we call home. 7 That said: we must all understand that private wells are not a viable long term solution here if we are all drawing from a shallow water source. My neighbor's wells here on Knapp Road are already running dry every summer. Read that again. We are already in trouble on Knapp Road. As a member of the Fire Department board knowing full well the limitations of our emergency services in North County, this is a dangerous reality. The truth is this: we are all in this water shortage trouble together, in the city limits or not. Suffice to say, I am aware that we have a unique challenge of balancing these potentially catastrophic water shortages with the very real need for economic stimulus. I give all this context not to brag about my volunteer efforts, but to express a level of closeness and familiarity to the topics at hand. This is not to say that my opinion on the proposed golf course is representative of the entities listed above. It is not. I am sharing my personal views alone. At the same time, I am not simply rattling my pitchfork as a neighbor to the proposed golf course. This is not NIMBY politics as usual. I am speaking from deep experience and an undying love for a community that I intend to call home for the rest of my life. So when I tell you in the strongest possible language that a sprawling, thirsty, ecologically-disruptive private for-profit golf course is not in the best interests of this village, I meant it. Aside from my personal position, the time extension for the permit should NOT be considered any longer, nearly two months after the 2023 extension expired. Rules exist for a reason. We are all beholden, even in Curry County. The Municipal Code is abundantly clear that "Authorization of a conditional use shall be void after one year," though "the Planning Commission may extend authorization for an additional period not to exceed one year, upon written application." That did not happen in time. This entire project should be dead in the water on legal grounds. That legal reality aside, I want us to take several steps back and objectively consider if this project is right for Port Orford, period. It's 2024. We need 21st century solutions to our 21st century problems that aren't simply copying our northern neighbor's homework as if we do not have original ideas of our own for our town. As if we cannot be bothered to do anything but bend the knee to those entities with more money and power. This cowardly tendency towards indifference at best and blind subservience at worst will damn our village for generations to come. I find the argument about these markedly increased risks to our shared water supplies being worth the promised "job growth" to be particularly uninformed, and an insult to our intelligence. Even if our water infrastructure was already repaired and was not on the brink of collapse, a golf course is bad medicine for the ills of Port Orford. If these "new jobs" don't pay enough for average folks to earn a living wage, to have healthcare, to have sick time, much less afford a house, it's not a career, it's indentured servitude. For example: the average yearly salary across all positions down the road at world-class Bandon Dunes is just $35,000, despite their profit-per-employee sitting at just over $70,000. This is public information. This is math. It does not take a mathematician to figure out where all that unpaid profit is 8 going, but it's obviously not to the employees who make the entire business possible. If we are being generous, the best case is tax deductions and PR efforts disguised as charity as a way to curry favor and local influence. As a professional in marketing, I am not so easily duped by these public relations efforts to distract from the deep harm of underpaying workers who work full time. Frankly, I do not see any reason to think that a brand new golf course in sleepy Port Orford - with an infinitesimal fraction of the decades of brand awareness compared to Bandon Dunes - will fare any better on wages. At any rate, the fact of the matter is this: If you have a $35,000-a-year job, the maximum rent you can afford is $875 per month. I challenge anyone to find housing at that price in our region. It does not exist, and we all know we do not have the infrastructure (or water table!) to support the necessary units of "affordable" housing to accommodate such a workforce influx. Never mind that these meager hourly jobs evaporate once the weather turns. Every year. We all know golf is a fair weather sport. These promised "jobs" are never going to raise the tax base enough to make a meaningful difference in terms of generating real revenue for the city and fixing our myriad systemic infrastructure problems. The math does not work over the long term. These are facts, not personal feelings. We are being conned. I am proposing that instead of doubling down on encouraging more and more hollow service jobs that will never - ever - lift anyone born here out of poverty, that we instead invest in our local schools and real workforce training in trades that actually pay a living wage. It also must be said that in the past handful of years we have seen the installation of now widely-available gig internet throughout the county, bringing high-paying internet jobs to anyone who wishes to learn. I know how revolutionary this is firsthand, because I lifted myself out of minimum wage jobs as a high school dropout, worked my way through community college, then university, and taught myself how to work in tech instead. Now I have an internet-based career that actually allowed us to afford a mortgage, and the skills to donate to my community. This is the dream I have for our kids here, if only we had the focus and drive to prioritize their long term success instead of catering to the whims of the super wealthy who never lift a finger to actually help around here. I propose that instead of distracting ourselves with more of what doesn't work, we broaden and modernize our economic vision of what is possible for the children of Port Orford. Yes, young people can and should get those first years of work experience doing hourly service industry gigs during high school, because this town will always have tourism as a sector. And rightly so, it's an objectively beautiful place that I am proud to promote. We have so much to offer! Our local mom and pop businesses are wonderful! But should seasonal tourism be the only sector to put our faith in? I say this as a professional. Let's be honest. It goes without saying that the Port is obviously the incredible beating heart of the town, we all know that, and I think any solutions to our local economy will always have our commercial fishing industry at its center. That said, we STILL need more diversification and we need it fast. A golf course is not it. 9 I believe that in 2024 we have many more options as a town than we think. That is, if we want to infuse real cash into our local economy that isn't twiddling our thumbs, waiting for a soulless corporate developer with out-of-state investors to bulldoze the place and turn it into another resort town with a limited water supply, strained emergency services, offering only poverty wage seasonal jobs that push more kids to leave instead of stay. There are enough ruined mountain towns and beach towns in the west, so let's not fall into this trap as if this endeavor is going to go any better for us simply because we believe that we're going to be the exception to the rule. Again, let's be honest. In fact, given the extreme fragility of our water and sewer infrastructure, the shallow water table that makes mass well drilling extremely unwise, and an overall dearth of emergency services as it is, our outcome should we go down this "resort town" path might be much, much worse. It could be catastrophic. I certainly don't want to be the one to say, "I told you so" when the town is a disaster 10 years from now. I do not want to be left holding the mop and bucket for a mess I warned against. I want us to do better now - today - and be a little bit smarter about what our future looks like. Are we really fresh out of better ideas? Golf? A declining sport with a rapidly-aging demographic? Is that the best we can do? I find it extremely difficult to believe that the existential risks we face are worth the end result of placating the dreams of the rich at the expense of future generations here. I believe that Port Orford deserves so much better, and that with a unified vision we can improve our local economy without sacrificing quality of life. In closing, the city should make no commitments, sign no agreements or extensions, and hand out no money to private for-profit interests. Period. We have more important things to focus on that will benefit all instead of just a few. We need to prioritize real economic growth and get to work on real solutions to the problems ahead. To that end, I look forward to continuing to lend a hand in whatever way makes sense. If you got this far, I thank you for your time and your service to Port Orford. In gratitude, Kim Foster 10 CUP 16-02 & 16-03 Extension Request 11 12 13 14 (Email exchange between Planning Commission chair Greg Thelen and DEQ Water Quaality Program Manager Ranei Nomura) December 22, 2023 Hello Ranei, As Steve mentioned, I would like information you may have regarding any DEQ permit application to transfer and use waste water from the City of Port Orford to a site on Knapp Road north of town by Elk River Development. I anticipate that ERPD will be asking for another extension to a conditional use permit granted by the Planning Commission several years ago to transfer the wastewater, as they have done each year for the past few years. My goal here is to provide the Commission members with the status of the work that may be going on between ERPD and you so they can make an informed decision on a renewal. ERPD has not offeered many specifics to the Commission about their progress in past renewal applications . I believe it would be helpful if we could know about the status of their application to the DEQ. > With regard to Steve's point 1---"Project status within DEQ. I said we have received an application for the permit (WPCF permit 9/25/15) . We asked the applicant for a recycled water use plan (we need a suitable recycled water use plan to proceed with draftiing the permit)."---Has the applicant responded to your request for a water use plan, and if so, when? Was it a one time reply in 2015 or have there been regular interactions with your plans engineers over the years? Has DEQ asked for any other information from the applicant, and how have they responded? > My question 2 about billing was only to get a sense of whether the applicant was engaged with your plans engineers. I was involved in public hearings and decision making a few years ago when the DEQ adopted air quality standards and I remember being informed that DEQ billed applicants for permit engineering. Has ERPD been billed for DEQ permit work at any time over the years? > What are the DEQ criteria that would keep an uncompleted wastewater permit application open or valid for 8 years, and has the applicant met those criteria? > Please feel free to offeer any other information that could help us with our thinking on this matteer. Ranei, I appreciate your taking a look at this application and hope for information before our January 9th meeting. And I also want to thank you for doing the good work helping to maintain and improve our environment here in Oregon. Sincerely, Greg Thelen Chair, Port Orford Planning Commission 15 December 26, 2023 Greg, DEQ did receive a recycled water use plan from Troy Russell a while back before the Covid pandemic. Steve did not review the original submittal; that review was done by Paul Kennedy who is now retired. Steve did speak with Mr. Russell about the need for plan revisions again in December 2022, but we have yet to receive a revised plan. DEQ’s water quality program does require engineering review for wastewater collection and treatment systems and charges fees for this review. I spoke with Mr. Russell earlier this year about the funding the City of Port Orford received from the legislature to build the distribution system and we discussed the need for DEQ review of engineering plans before any construction could be started. We have not yet received any engineering plans to review. It is not typical for DEQ to keep an application active for this many years. However, Mr. Russell communicates with me on a regular basis, so I have not changed the status. FYI, a recycled water plan or engineering plans are not required for an application to be considered complete. DEQ could proceed with permit development and request these items as permit conditions, but it is better to wait if we can (e.g., the applicant is not in a rush) to get more detailed information so we do need a second effort at modifying the permit should the project change in the interim. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Ranei Ranei Nomura Water Quaality Program Manager DEQ Western Region 16 CUP Extension Discussion Planning Commission Chair Thelen: At the November Port Orford Planning Commission meeting, a brief mention was made of adding criteria in the Municipal Code for CUP extensions. This action is seriously needed and long overdue! I hope that the commission will take up the task soon. Following is my suggestion for revising the language, as a possible starting point for your discussion. From the current PO Municipal Code: "17.32.060 Time limit on a permit for conditional use. Authorization of a conditional use shall be void after one year or such lesser time as the authorization may specify unless substantial construction has taken place. However, the Planning Commission may extend authorization for an additional period not to exceed one year, upon written application to the Planning Commission." Suggested revision, with language to be removed underlined, new language in bold type: Authorization of a conditional use shall be void after one year or such lesser time as the authorization may specify unless substantial construction has taken place. However, the Planning Commission may extend authorization for an additional period not to exceed one year a maximum of one additional year, upon written application to the Planning Commission and review of the conditions of approval at a quasi-judicial public hearing. To suggest this revision, I have consulted the Model Development Code for Small Cities from DLCD, which is available at this link: https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/TGM/Pages/Model- Code.aspx Most helpful were Article 4.4.040 (B) (14) on PDF page 44 regarding CUP renewals, and Article 4.1.040 regarding quasi-judicial hearings (beginning on PDF page 11). Of course, your discussion should include reviewing applicable ORS provisions as well as advice of the city planner, Ms. Shoji, and the city attorney. What seems to me essential is a full review of the terms of the original CUP, whether the applicant for renewal is in compliance, and whether the conditions should be revised under the extension. Thank you for your consideration, Penny Suess 834 Deady Street Port Orford Originally submitted on November 10, 2023 via e-mail 17  B. PORT ORFORD C. 17.32.060 Time limit on a permit for conditional use. Authorization of a conditional use shall be void after one year or such lesser time as the authorization may specify unless substantial construction has taken place. However, the Planning Commission may extend authorization for an additional period not to exceed one year, upon written application to the Planning Commission. (Ord. 278 § 6.050, 1977) GOLD BEACH Section 6.060. Time Limit on Permit for Conditional Use. 1. Authorization of a conditional use shall be void after one year or such lesser time as the authorization may specify unless substantial construction has taken place. Substantial construction, in this case, means obtaining all necessary permits required by governmental agencies to commence construction of any structures or to commence the principal activity permitted by the conditional use permit. 2. Once the construction of the structure or facility specified in the conditional use permit is completed the conditional use permit is considered to be issued on a permanent basis. 3. The Planning Director may at their discretion issue conditional use permits which must be periodically reviewed to ascertain that the conditions of the permit are being complied with on a continuing basis. 4. The Planning Director may grant an extension if: a) An applicant makes a written request for an extension of the development approval period; b) The request is submitted to the Planning Director prior to the expiration of the approval period; c) The applicant states reasons that prevented the applicant from beginning development within the approval period; and d) The Planning Director determines that the applicant was unable to begin development during the approval period for reasons for which the applicant was not responsible. Upon written application by the applicant, the Planning Director may extend authorization for an additional period not to exceed one year 18 CURRY COUTY Section 7.050. Time Limit on a Permit for Conditional Uses. 1. Authorization of a conditional use and permitted use, inside an urban growth boundary shall become null and void under the subsections (a) and (b) below unless substantial construction has taken place or an extension has been granted under Section 7.050 (5).Substantial construction in this case means obtaining all necessary permits required by governmental agencies to commence construction of any structures or to commence the principal activity permitted by the Conditional Use Permit. a) Authorization for uses in Sections 3.040 and 3.060 shall be void after four years. b) Authorization for all other uses shall become null and void after one year. 2. Once the construction of the structure or facility specified in the Conditional Use Permit or Permitted Use is completed the Conditional Use Permit and Permitted use is considered to be authorized on a permanent basis. 3. Authorization of a Conditional Use Permit for transportation-related uses shall be null and void after a period specified by the decision specified by the decision maker as being reasonable and necessary based on seasonal weather conditions, right-of-way acquisition, and other pertinent factors. This period shall not exceed three years. 4. Notwithstanding the requirements of 7.050(a) and (b), a discretionary decision approving development on agricultural or forest outside an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) is void two years from the date of the final decision if the development is not initiated in that period. 5. The County may grant one extension period of up to 24 months if: a) An applicant makes a written request for an extension of the development approval period; b) The request is submitted to the County prior to the expiration of the approval period; c) The applicant states reasons that prevented the applicant from beginning development within the approval period; and d) The County determines that the applicant was unable to begin development during the approval period for reasons for which the applicant was not responsible. 6. The two year limit and standards for granting extensions of the Conditional Use Permits and Permitted Use authorization in subsection 5 above do not apply to those Conditional and Permitted Use Permits that do not involve structural development. 7. Additional extensions may be authorized under this section providing the applicable criteria for the decision have not changed. 8. Approval of an extension granted under this section is subject to appeal as a land use decision. 19