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 prevailed in the initial decision, and the applicants filed the local appeal, where they <br />2 ultimately gained approval of their application. The petitioners at LUBA, therefore, had no <br />3 reason to appeal the initial decision and we determined that Miles was inapplicable in those <br />4 circumstances. <br />5 In contrast, here, West Creels and Southeast Neighbors both filed local appeals of the <br />6 hearings officer's decision, and Southeast Neighbors assigned error to the hearings officer's <br />7 determination that EC 9.8325(13) was met.8 In that circumstance, we think that Miles <br />8 requires West Creek to alert the planning commission, the final decision maker, that one of <br />9 West Creek's positions is that EC 9.8235(13) violates the needed housing statute and that it <br />10 may not be applied at all, in order to give the planning commission the opportunity to <br />11 consider that issue. Alfiles, 190 Or App at 510. Having failed to do so, West Creels is <br />12 precluded under ORS 197.825(1) and Miles from assigning error to the planning <br />13 commission's decision on the basis that a criterion does not apply to the proposal, where the <br />14 response amounts to an allegation that the city made a different error in applying EC <br />15 9.8325(13). That is the case whether the issue is raised in a cross petition for review or in a <br />16 response brief. <br />17 West Creek's seventh cross assignment of error is denied. <br />18 B. Southeast Neighbors' Second Assignment of Error <br />19 In 2003 the city adopted the current version of EC 9.8235(13). Three years later, in <br />20 2006, the city adopted its stormwater standards at EC 9.6790 through 9.6797. EC <br />21 9.8325(7)(j) requires an applicant to show compliance with the city's stormwater standards, <br />22 as relevant, "regarding flow control for headwaters area [EC 9.6793] *."9 <br />s During the proceedings before the hearings officer, West Creek also took the position that EC 9.8325(13) <br />is not a clear and objective standard, but West Creek did not take that position before the planning commission. <br />9 EC 9.6793 Stormwater Flow Control (Headwaters) provides in relevant part: <br />Page 16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.