Applicant Final Argument - Laserfiche WebLink

Eugene Hearing Official November 23, 2015 Page 18 Here, in this as applied context, the Hearing Official can make the finding of unreasonable cost and delay where LUBA says it is most appropriate. There is no utility in forcing an applicant to go through a slower, more expensive review process in order to be able to develop the property under clear and objective standards. The sole effect of the 19 Lot Rule is to impose on the owner a slower and more expensive approval process. This violates the statute. 7. The 30-foot landscape may not be develop because the standard, applied according to its plain language, would prohibit development of the site for lack of access. In addition, if the City believes the standard must be interpreted in order to not be absurd, then the standard is not clear and objective. The landscaping setback standard is: EC 9.8325(3): The PUD provides a buffer area between the proposed development and surrounding properties by providing at least a 30 foot wide landscape area along the perimeter of the PUD according to EC 9.6210(7). This standard was the subject of our hearing letter dated November 3. It was responded to by Staff in a two page memorandum distributed at the hearing. It was not addressed in the staff s post-hearing memorandum of November 12. This standard is troublesome for any residential developer, based of how it was interpreted in the recent Deerbrook litigation. There is a 2004 Director Interpretation saying that fences are not allowed in the 30-foot landscape area. See Applicant Exhibit C. (Director Interpretation and Hearing Official decision on appeal). In the Deerbrook PUD matter, the Hearing Official interpreted the standard as allowing a fence to be placed on the perimeter of the property with the 30-foot buffer area to be inside the fence. Hearing Official decision, Exhibit A at 10-11. The Planning Commission reversed that, saying the fence had to be on the inside of the 30-foot buffer. Commission Decision, Exhibit A at 30-31. LUBA affirmed on that issue. Here we challenge the legality of applying the standard at all, for two reasons. But first a few words on real world impacts. As mentioned at the hearing, the inability to fence affects the marketability and value of lots. As explained at the hearing, the market wants fences. Having to fence inside the 30-foot buffer makes the buffer area an amenity for the neighbor rather than the lot owner, which further impacts value. The plain language of this standard does not invite the crack that the Director read into it in 2004, or any crack at all for that matter. The language is pretty simple. It requires the buffer on