My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01 Public Record Pages 1-204
>
OnTrack
>
Z
>
2015
>
Z 15-5
>
01 Public Record Pages 1-204
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/26/2015 4:08:06 PM
Creation date
10/23/2015 1:24:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
Z
File Year
15
File Sequence Number
5
Application Name
LAUREL RIDGE
Document Type
Misc.
Document_Date
10/23/2015
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.
/
204
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).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Fred Wilson <br />September 16, 2015 <br />Page 12 <br />(c) Lastly, the opposition testimony closed with a reference to ORS 93.312, where it <br />states that maps which contain "a description of land that contains coordinates <br />associated with the position of a point on a land boundary..." must "...use the <br />Oregon Coordinate System..." Citing ORS 93.312 in the context of the Metro <br />Plan is in error. The Metro Plan does not contain any descriptions of land using <br />coordinates. Sometimes a generalized diagram is just a generalized diagram. <br />(3) Opponents rely on Applicants Sheet SA-7.0 from the Round I application. But that <br />sheet was not produced by a legally correct methodology. The applicant explained at <br />the hearing that it was prepared as a "planning tool" that involved some "rubber <br />sheeting" that can't be duplicated. See applicant's August 26 Hearing Letter at Part <br />111.1. <br />(4) Opponents' references to the assumed correct size of the POS area, based on Round I <br />discussions or policy reasons, is legally unsound. Determining the line determines <br />the size of the POS; size of the POS does not determine the line. Size is the dependent <br />variable in this exercise; the desired size is not a policy choice that contributes to the <br />answer. <br />(5) Opponents' references to the UGB line on the Diagram have no utility in locating the <br />subject property on the Diagram. <br />As discussed above, the printed UGB line on the Diagram is by definition a <br />generalized line; LUBA said it is useful to determine that some part of the site is LDR <br />and some part is POS. But it has no utility in precisely locating the boundary line. <br />(6) Opponents urge using more referents further away from the subject property, instead <br />of just the surveyed 301h Ave centerline adjacent to the west boundary. <br />(a) There is only one surveyed referent off site that is tied to the survey of the site. <br />That is 301h Ave. immediately adjacent to the west. <br />(b) The further you go away from the site, looking for other referents to use, the more <br />the fitting becomes a contest between competing guesswork. You can't register to <br />everything, due to the generalized nature of the Diagram. See discussion in our <br />August 26 Hearing Letter at Part 111.5. <br />(7) There is no methodologically competent basis for registering "Tax Lot" information <br />from any source to a blow up of the Metro Plan Diagram, because: <br />(a) This is contrary to the text of the Metro Plan, which says in this area the Diagram <br />is not tax-lot specific - it is not tied to tax lots. <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 59 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.