My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7-28-15 Trautman Public Comment (07)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
7-28-15 Trautman Public Comment (07)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2017 4:32:34 PM
Creation date
7/28/2015 2:50:52 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
7/28/2015
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
199
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).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
7 <br />Hearings Official, Planning Commission or Planning staff that he lived in <br />Idaho. <br />Mr. Trautman did not notify the City of Eugene where he lived until he <br />moved to intervene in the LUBA proceedings and finally identified his address <br />for service as "1060 Silverstar Drive, Hailey, Idaho, 83333." Rec. 823. LUBA <br />denied his Motion to Intervene in its final decision on August 21, 2014. <br />RESPONSE TO FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />LUBA Correctly Denied Intervenor-Petitioner Trautman's Motion <br />to Intervene Which Was Filed After the 21 Day Deadline for Filing. <br />Intervenors-Petitioners' First Assignment of Error fails as a matter of law <br />because it faults LUBA for a decision that was mandated by ORS <br />197.830(7)(c). Intervenor-Petitioner Trautman filed his Motion to Intervene 68 <br />days after the Notice of Intent to Appeal was filed, and more than a month after <br />the 21-day deadline to intervene under ORS 197.763(7)(a). Under ORS <br />197.763(7)(c), "[flailure to comply with the deadline... shall result in denial of <br />the motion to intervene." Accordingly, LUBA did not err in dismissing the <br />Motion to Intervene. <br />PRESERVATION OF ERROR <br />Intervenor-Respondent denies that Intervenors-Petitioners preserved the <br />error alleged under its First Assignment of Error as required by ORAP 5.45(4). <br />While preservation of error is a more flexible concept in the review of land use <br />proceedings, where a petitioner fails to frame its challenge before LUBA in <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.