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 Five <br /> <br />The attachment to the letter contains 113 pages of documents representing tax lot title, <br />dedications and other information related to the above statement. <br />The letter itself cites to no prior issue or evidence to which it would presume to be <br />“responsive.” <br />However, even assuming (without agreeing) that the statement of fact is in response to prior <br />evidence of Oakleigh Lane’s right-of-way, that evidence was submitted into the record prior to <br />the public hearing, as described above. As with the previously discussed letter, the applicant <br />had every opportunity to introduce additional evidence regarding other right-of-way <br />dedications up through October 9. <br />The new evidence regarding Oakleigh Lane right-of-way in this letter is impermissible and must <br />be rejected. <br />Alternatively, record must be reopened <br />In my October 16, 2013 submission, I provided the following written request: <br />“I am requesting the record be left open until October 23, 2013 to allow me and other <br />opponents to submit additional evidence and argument in response to applicant’s new <br />evidence, pursuant to ORS 197.763(6)(c) and/or ORS 197.763(7).” <br />In case there is any question about my use of “left open”, rather than “reopen” (the term used <br />in ORS 197.763(6)(c)), I am hereby requesting that the record be reopened if the Hearings <br />Official allows into the record any of the evidence submitted by the applicant’s representatives <br />on October 16, 2013 and to which I objected in my written submission the same day. <br />Conclusion <br />Allowing the evidence submitted by the applicant’s representatives on October 16, 2013, <br />particularly as discussed above regarding Oakleigh Lane’s current right-of-way, would prejudice <br />opponents’ substantial rights unless opponents are provided an opportunity to submit new <br />evidence and argument responsive to the applicants’ evidence. <br />Accordingly, the Hearings Official must either reject the evidence or reopen the record. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />Paul T. Conte <br />1461 W. 10th Ave. <br />Eugene, OR 97402 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.