Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

recuse himself from the hearing due to a potential separation of powers problem. That issue is discussed in more detail below. On November 3, 2015, Mr. Kloos submitted an additional letter summarizing the primary reasons why the staff recommendation of denial should be set aside. The Planning Division also provided information concerning the application to other appropriate City and County departments, public agencies, service providers, and the affected neighborhood group. All referral comments received by the Planning Division on this application are included in the application file for reference, and addressed in the context of applicable tentative PUD approval criteria. Consistent with EC 9.7005 Pre-application Conference, the applicant met with staff in April of 2014 (PC 14- 20). The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on January 27, 2015, in compliance with EC 9.7007 Neighborhood/Applicant Meetings. Summary of the Public Hearing On November 4, 2015, the Hearings Official held a public hearing. The Hearings Official stated he had no conflicts of interests and had no ex parte communications to disclose. Mr. Kloos reiterated his position asking the Hearings Official to recuse himself, but did not offer further oral argument on the issue. I declined the request that I recuse myself because I disagree that a separation of powers problem exists in connection with my duties to the City of Eugene as an independent contractor providing hearings officer services. The origin of the applicant's recusal request is that the Hearings Official is currently a member of the Oregon House of Representatives, representing House District 34, which is in Beaverton, Oregon. The applicant's argument is that it might be possible for my legislative functions as a state representative to interfere with my quasi-judicial functions as a Hearings Official. My determination was that no potential conflict exists for two primary reasons: 1) the relative duties exist at different levels of government and do not intersect through the review of the applicant's request, and 2) that even if there were an intersection of duties, none of the legislation that I might have voted on in my first term in 2015 could have yet been adopted or enforced at the municipal level in the city. After those explanations, I continued with the public hearing. Planner Erik Berg-Johansen provided an overview of the staff report and explained the nature of the proposed planned unit development. Staff recommended denial of the applications primarily for failure to comply with EC 9.8325(6)(c). Mr. Kloos spoke on behalf of the applicant. His testimony generally followed the argument set forth in his November 3, 2015, letter. Mr. Kloos argued that because the site is over 5 acres in size, a PUD application is required. He explained that since the proposal qualified as "needed housing," it was entitled to be reviewed under the clear and objective standards set forth in EC 9.8310. As such, he argued that once the determination of needed housing is made, ORS 197.303-307, the "Needed Housing Statute," ensures the right to develop under those clear and objective standards. For this reason, he argued, EC 9.8325(6)(c) -the so called "19 lot rule," cannot be the basis upon which to deny the application. As support, Mr. Kloos offered the Land Use Board of Appeals' recent decision in Group 8, LLC v. City of Corvallis,_Or LUBA_(LUBA No. 2015-019, August 25, 2015). In addition, he argued that LUBA's decision in Home Builders Assoc. of Lane County v. City of Eugene, 41 Or LUBA 370 (2002) forbid denial of a needed housing development when a particular clear and objective standard was near impossible to meet. Hearings Official Decision (PDT 15-1/ ARA 15-13) 3