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
Objection to Submission of New Evidence & <br />Request to Re-Open the Record. <br />PDT 13-1 Oakleigh Meadows PUD Appeal <br />August 16, 2015 <br />Eugene Planning Commission <br />c/o Arme Davies, City Attorney <br />City of Eugene <br />99 West 10th Avenue; <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Re: City File No. PDT 13-1; Oakleigh PUD <br />Dear Commissioners: <br />This letter serves as my formal objection to the submission of new evidence by Anne Davies, the <br />Eugene City Attorney.. I hereby request that the Planning Commission re-open the record to allow me to submit <br />additional evidence and argument in rebuttal to the new evidence submitted by Davies. <br />In her August 12, 2015 memo to you regarding the remand of your initial decision approving <br />the Oakleiglh Meadows Co-housing PUD; Davies showed axe astow-idixzg level of tmetbicai <br />behavior in her attempt to manipulate the decision on remand by flouting the legal rules <br />governing this appeal and providing you demonstrably untrue information. <br />Despite the fact that Davies herself had previously provided you a;slanted and incomplete <br />interpretation of the law in an attempt to exclude purported "new evidence"' in the testimony <br />by Simon Trautman, Davies herself proceeded to egregiously violate the local code and statutes <br />by stating, as if it were fact:: <br />"Second, any of the paved portion of Oakleigh Lane that lies outside the right of way <br />that has existed for 1.0 years or more will be considered to have been acquired by the <br />City as a prescriptive easement," (Emphasis added.) <br />First off, it is absolutely not true that, as a matter of laze, any of the paved portion of Oakleigh <br />Lane that lies outside the right of way that has existed for 10 years or more is certain to be <br />considered to have been acquired by the. City as a prescriptive easement. Check with any <br />independent and competent attorney, such as Emily rerome, to ascertain that Davies grossly <br />nusrepresented the law in this regard. While it is possible that the City might successfully <br />acquire a prescriptive easement, itis by no means an established fact that commissioners should <br />be misled to rely upon, either formally in your decision or informally in forming your personal <br />opinions. <br />Page 1 of 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.