I Southeast Neighbors' fifth assignment of error is denied. <br />2 'VVEST CREED'S FOURTH CROSS ASSICNM ENT OF ERROR <br />3 During the proceedings before the planning commission, West Creels argued that the <br />4 planning commission should reject Southeast Neighbors' appeal because Southeast <br />5 Neighbors' board of directors did not authorize the appeal prior to its being filed. Record <br />6 271-72. In its fourth cross assignment of error, we understand West Creek to argue that the <br />7 planning commission misconstrued applicable law when it concluded that it lacked authority <br />8 to consider whether Southeast Neighbors' appeal was authorized by the association's board <br />9 of directors when it was filed. West Creels argues that the planning commission has <br />10 "inherent authority" to consider whether an appeal is validly filed. West Creels Cross Petition <br />11 for Review 38. West Creels also argues that "LUBA should find, based on uncontroverted <br />12 evidence, that there was not a valid appeal filed by [Southeast Neighbors] within the deadline <br />13 set by the code. To the extent issues raised by [Southeast Neighbors] in their appeal depend <br />14 on :k * * having been raised * * ' in a local appeal, those issues were not raised Miles v. City <br />15 of Florence, 190 Or App 500, 510, 79 Pad 382 (2003)." West Creek Cross Petition for <br />16 Review 39.12 <br />17 In response, Southeast Neighbors moves to take evidence not in the record under <br />18 OAR 661-010-0045, in order to demonstrate that the appeal of the hearings officer's decision <br />19 was authorized by its board of directors. 13 West Creels responds, and we agree, that <br />1' We understand West Creek to argue that if the planning commission had rejected Southeast Neighbors' <br />appeal, then Southeast Neighbors would be barred from raising its assignments of error in the appeal to LUBA <br />under Miles, and LUBA would be required to deny those assignments of error. <br />OAR 661-010-0045(1) provides in relevant part: <br />"Grounds for Motion to Take Evidence Not in the Record: The Board may, upon written <br />motion, take evidence not in the record in the case of disputed factual allegations in the <br />parties' briefs concerning unconstitutionality of the decision, standing ex parte contacts, <br />actions for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of ORS 21.427 or 227.178, or other <br />procedural irregularities not shown in the record and which, if proved, would warrant reversal <br />or remand of the decision. The Board may also upon motion or at its discretion take evidence <br />Page 24 <br />