My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Appeal Materials
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
Appeal Materials
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2017 4:32:43 PM
Creation date
11/25/2013 11:30:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
13
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
OAKLEIGH COHOUSING
Document Type
Appeal Materials
Document_Date
11/22/2013
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
TENTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />The Hearings Official made a decision that was not supported by substantial, <br />probative and reliable evidence in the whole record; and the Decision <br />improperly construed the applicable law. <br />The following identifies specific errors the Hearings Official made that <br />contributed to the two assignments of error, above. <br />SUBASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 10.A <br />The Hearings Official erred by not adequately considering the preponderance <br />of evidence and analysis in the "Constitutional Findings for Exaction" <br />produced by the Eugene Public Works Department (PWD). See Conte 10/9 <br />pages 6 to 10 for a full discussion of the PWD analysis and conclusions. <br />In a similar fashion, the Hearings Official erred by not adequately considering <br />the substantial evidence and analysis provided by PWD regarding the <br />necessary improvements to Oakleigh Lane to "separate pedestrians from <br />vehicles and provide a safe public walking surface for the residents of the <br />proposed development." See Staff Report page 13: <br />"Public Works staff indicates that the applicant's proposal is sufficient to <br />accommodate the turnaround, but not the area necessary to extend the sidewalk <br />along the south side of the turnaround, to separate pedestrians from vehicles and <br />provide a safe public walking surface for the residents of the proposed <br />development. " <br />In both cases, the Hearings Official unreasonably concluded that this <br />evidence and analysis had no applicability to safety, convenience, comfort or <br />capacity considerations for any part of Oakleigh Lane other than the short <br />segment at the very end of this dead-end access lane, immediately adjacent to <br />the development site. <br />The Hearings Official erroneously concluded that, because the PWD evidence <br />and analysis was used only to justify exactions from the applicant, that the <br />evidence and analysis had no relevance beyond the development site. <br />This is obviously an error. If the portion of Oakleigh Lane adjacent to the <br />development must be widened and improved to ensure the safe, convenient <br />and/or comfortable accommodation of vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian <br />traffic on Oakleigh Lane after the development is built, then the long stretch <br />of Oakleigh Lane between River Road and the development site would also <br />have to be widened and improved in a corresponding manner to ensure the <br />safe, convenient and/or comfortable accommodation of vehicular, bicycle and <br />pedestrian traffic on Oakleigh Lane. <br />Appeal Statement PDT 13-1 18 November 22, 2013 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.