Court of Appeals Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

178 Oakleigh-McClure Neighbors v. City of Eugene ARMSTRONG, P. J. Petitioners Paul Conte and Simon Trautman seek judicial review of a final order of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), affirming, in part, a decision by the City of Eugene (the city) to grant approval to Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing, LLC (applicant) for a tentative planned unit development. In their first assignment of error on review, petitioners contend that LUBA erred in denying a motion by petitioner Trautman to intervene; they also raise two assignments of error as to the merits of LUBA's final order.' Because we agree with petitioners that LUBA erred in deny- ing Trautman's motion to intervene, we reverse and remand LUBA's order on that basis. That disposition, in turn, obvi- ates the need for us to address petitioners' other assign- ments of error. We limit our discussion of the facts to those perti- nent to our consideration of LUBA's denial of Trautman's motion to intervene. Those facts are undisputed. Applicant applied to the city for tentative planned unit development (PUD) approval for a multi-unit residential development on 2.3 acres of land zoned low-density residential. The city's hearings official held a hearing on the application. Trautman did not appear at the hearing but submitted writ- ten testimony in a letter opposing the development. The let- ter included an address on Oakleigh Lane, which is approx- imately 275 yards from the proposed development and is owned by Trautman's mother-in-law.2 On November 12, 2013, the hearings official approved the application, subject ' Specifically, in their second assignment of error, petitioners contend that "LUBA Misconstrued the Requirements of [Eugene Code] 9.8320(5) and (6) and Failed to Enforce the Requirement for `Safe and Adequate Transportation Systems' and to prevent a 'Significant Risk to Public Health and Safety."' In their third assignment of error, petitioners contend that "LUBA Erred in Concluding that the City Had Imposed a Dedication for the Right-of-Way for the Portion of the Property Adjacent to the Proposed PUD that Satisfied the Requirements of [Eugene Code] 9.8320(5)(a)." 2 In its brief on judicial review, applicant argues that Trautman did not identify his physical address in his letter testimony. However, the letter states, "We bought the residence at 109 Oakleigh Lane * * Indeed, the city eventually mailed notice of the city's decision to Trautman at that address. Applicant also asserts that Trautman was not living at the Oakleigh Lane address at the time, but was in Idaho. We fail to see-nor does applicant explain-the relevance of that fact to our analysis of petitioners' assignment of error.