PC-1 November 8 2013 Conte Objection

Mr. Ken Helm November 8, 2013 Page Seven It is the applicant’s obligation to adequately identify the alleged new evidence in testimony submitted when the record was left open and demonstrate that it constitutes new evidence not 13 Applicant has not met that obligation. in the record. Oakleigh Lane’s current right-of-way width has a direct bearing on the road’s capacity to handle the projected vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle use. The possibility that the current right-of-way may be required to be widened because of the projected impacts from the proposed PUD has a direct bearing on the off-site impacts on other residents who live on Oakleigh Lane. Thus, the applicant’s new evidence, if allowed, would potentially affect findings regarding approval criteria at: EC 9.8320(1), EC 9.8320(5)(a) and (b), EC 9.8320(6), EC 9.8320(11)(b), EC 9.8320(12) and EC 9.8320(13). The fact that the Hearings Official has incorrectly interpreted the requirements of ORS197.763(6)(c) and allowed the applicant to submit hundreds of pages of legal documents as impermissible new evidence, which I and others have no ability to review for authenticity or relevance, seriously prejudices opponents’ substantial rights. The Hearings Official must vacate or amend his previous order and strike the applicant’s impermissible evidence from the record. If he does not do so, and relies at all upon this evidence for approval of the PUD application, the decision will be subject to remand on appeal, based on procedural error.ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B) (LUBA may remand for procedural error that prejudices the substantial rights of the petitioner.) Sincerely, Paul T. Conte 1461 W. 10th Ave. Eugene, OR 97402 13 “[I]t is petitioners’ obligation to adequately identify the alleged new evidence in the petition for review, demonstrate that it constitutes new evidence not in the record * * *.” City of Damascus v. Metro, 51 Or LUBA 210, 228 (2006).