My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9-28-15 Planning Commission Record
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
9-28-15 Planning Commission Record
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2017 4:32:34 PM
Creation date
9/21/2015 12:38:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
13
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
OAKLEIGH COHOUSING
Document Type
Planning Commission Meeting
Document_Date
9/21/2015
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
346
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
JANISCH Amy C <br />From: Sandy Thorns <sandythoms@msn.com> <br />Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 11:18 PM <br />To: Eugene Planning Commission; DAVIES Anne C; FLOCK Gabriel <br />Subject: Burden of Proof <br />I would like to ask why the burden of proof has been put on the appellant to show that the paved surface of Oakleigh <br />Lane lies partly on private property and not entirely in the right of way? <br />There is enough evidence currently in the record, outside of the one aerial photograph in question, to show that at <br />least part of the paved surface is on private property, whether it be 6 feet or slightly less. <br />Oakleigh Meadow's North property line lies clearly about 6 feet into the paved road (as stated by the Hearings official <br />and clearly shown on the OMC site plan, undisputed.) I live there and can walk out and measure the engineering pin <br />to be about 5.25 feet actually, but in the record, the HO says 6, so I must say 6 feet. It is also clear that the North <br />property line of the 3 tax lots to the west are a continuous straight line extending west from OMC's property line- <br />there are no jogs as clearly show in the city plat maps. It is simple to see then, that those 3 tax lots also extend 6 feet <br />into the pavement. <br />Shouldn't the burden now be on the public works department to clarify how much of the paved surface is on private <br />property and how much is in the ROW? Doesn't the City have the means to show exactly where those property lines <br />lie? Why is that burden being put on the appellant? We pointed out an error and the City's job should be to clarify it, <br />truthfully. <br />I also find it unfair that the record is now open but not to the actual appellants. If the City or the applicant submits <br />new evidence, then the appellants should be able to submit new evidence too. I believe there is an ORS that states <br />that, as you should know. <br />Thank you for your time in explaining why the burden is not on the City now to try and prove that all 19 feet are IN <br />the public ROW. <br />Extremely concerned about the safety and functionality of my street, <br />Sandy Thoms <br />541-543-1495 <br />135 ®akleigh Lane <br />19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.