My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comment (8)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2015
>
PDT 15-1
>
Public Comment (8)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/7/2015 4:07:00 PM
Creation date
12/4/2015 1:52:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
15
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CHAMOTEE
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
11/3/2015
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
142
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
I an arbitrary number chosen at staff's discretion, and using any other number yields very <br />2 different results, as the different slope maps in the record reflect. According to West Creels, <br />3 it is impossible to determine slope under EC 9.8325(5) without exercising judgment about <br />4 what "portion[] of the development site" is evaluated using what contour intervals. For that <br />5 reason, West Creels argues, EC 9.8325(5) requires the kind of "subjective, value-laden <br />6 analyses" that are the hallmark of a non-clear and objective standard we set out in Rogue <br />7 Valley Realtors v. City of Ashland, 35 Or LU13A 139, 155 (1998), aff d 158 Or App 1, 970 <br />8 P2d 685 (1999). <br />9 In Homebuilders Assn of Lane County v. City of Eugene, 41 Or LUBA 370, 410-11 <br />10 (2002), the petitioners argued that EC 9.8325(5) was not "clear and objective" on its face <br />11 because it did not specify how slope is measured. LUBA rejected the petitioners' facial <br />12 challenge to EC 9.8325(5), concluding that the city bad demonstrated that EC 9.8325(5) is <br />13 "capable of being imposed only in a clear and objective manner." Id. at 381. We concluded <br />14 that "the slope of a property is an objectively determinable fact, and the absence of <br />15 instructions on how to determine slope does not offend ORS 197.307(6)[(2001)]." Id. at 411. <br />16 West Creek argues that our decision in Hoinebuilders is not controlling in the present <br />17 appeal because the present appeal is a challenge to EC 9.8325(5) as the city has applied it to <br />18 West Creels. However, we see no difference in the challenge to EC 9.8325(5) that we <br />19 rejected in Hoinebuilders and West Creek's challenge in the present appeal. We concluded in <br />20 Hoinebuilders that "the absence of instructions on how to determine slope does not offend <br />21 ORS 197.307(4)." The city subsequently interpreted EC 9.8325(5) to require that slopes on <br />22 "portions of [a] development site" that have slopes that are greater than ten percent be <br />23 measured using 5-foot contour intervals. The city provides instructions on the application <br />24 form on how it will measure slope, and West Creels has not demonstrated that the city's <br />25 interpretation of EC 9.8325(5) or its chosen method of measuring slope introduces <br />26 subjectivity into the determination of the slope of a property. In instructing applicants on <br />Page 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.