My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PC-5 October 25 2013 Conte Re-open Record Request
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
PC-5 October 25 2013 Conte Re-open Record Request
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2017 4:32:43 PM
Creation date
11/26/2013 4:21:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
13
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
OAKLEIGH COHOUSING
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
11/26/2013
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
Mr. Ken Helm <br />October 25, 2013 <br />Page Four <br /> <br />My testimony was: <br />“Oakleigh Lane currently has a 20-foot right-of-way north of the official centerline, <br />dedicated by the adjacent property owners (but the right-of-way has not been adopted <br />by either the City or County). (SR at 12 and PWPR at 10).” <br />“SR” identified the Eugene Planning Staff Report, dated September 2013, and “PWPR” <br />identified the Eugene Public Works Referral Response, dated September 17, 2013. <br />As noted above, the “Applicant’s Written Statement” of June 14, 2013 itself introduced the <br />same basic evidence, stating: “The existing conditions of Oakleigh Lane provide a 20-foot wide <br />Right of Way with no sidewalks along the entire street.” <br />My testimony did not introduce any new evidence with respect to Oakleigh Lane’s right-of-way <br />and relied only upon prior testimony to support an argument as to the appropriate <br />classification of Oakleigh Lane. <br />The applicant was entitled to present a different argument after October 9, 2013, but not new <br />evidence of right-of-way dedications. It’s important to note that the evidence I relied upon was <br />clearly available to the applicant for weeks prior to the October 9 deadline for any new <br />evidence; and thus, the applicant had every opportunity to introduce additional evidence <br />regarding other right-of-way dedications up through October 9. Instead, the applicantchose <br />not to introduce new evidence regarding right-of-way dedicationsuntil the last day on which <br />opponents could submit testimony, thus depriving opponents of any opportunity to evaluate <br />and respond to the new evidence. <br />The new evidence regarding Oakleigh Lane right-of-way in this letter is impermissible and must <br />be rejected. <br />OMC_PDT 13-1_Poage Engineering Letter w Files.pdf <br />This letter contains the following statement of fact: <br />“Properties to the south of Oakleigh Lane, whose northern boundary abuts the south <br />margin of Oakleigh Lane, individually dedicated additional right of way for Oakleigh Lane <br />in varying widths (predominantly 12 feet, with the exception of 1704242406400 which <br />dedicated 25 feet) to result in the current variable width right of way for Oakleigh Lane. <br />These individual dedications were probably done in conjunction with the initial <br />structural improvements on those abutting properties. The result of these cumulative <br />road dedications is to establish a right of way width of 32 feet for Oakleigh Lane <br />beginning at the east margin of River Road and extending easterly approximately 630 <br />feet to a point approximately 250 feet westerly of your western boundary. From this <br />point easterly, and along the entire frontage of your property abutting Oakleigh Lane, <br />the right of way remains 20 feet in width.” <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.