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 Southeast Neighbors has not demonstrated a basis under OAR 661-010-0045 for LUBA to <br />2 grant its motion to tape evidence not in the record. While OAR 661-010-0045(1) allows a <br />3 motion to take evidence in order to resolve "disputed factual allegations * * * concerning * 'k <br />4 * standing," the reference in the rule to disputes over "standing" refers to standing to appeal a <br />5 decision to LUBA, not to standing disputes that arise during the proceedings before the local <br />6 government. Accordingly, Southeast Neighbors' motion to take evidence is denied. <br />7 However, we agree with Southeast Neighbors that West Creek's assignment of error <br />8 provides no basis for reversal or remand. West Creels does not argue that Southeast <br />9 Neighbors failed to satisfy the requirements of EC 9.7655(1) - (3) governing appeals of <br />10 hearings officer decisions to the planning commission, and it appears that it did. West Creek <br />11 does not point to any requirement in the EC or anywhere else that an organization must <br />12 provide documentation that an appeal was authorized by the organization's officers or <br />13 directors prior to the appeal being filed or that requires the local governing body to <br />14 independently verify the validity of an appeal. Absent such a code requirement, LUBA will <br />15 not require the local government to independently verify that an entity that files an appeal of a <br />16 local decision is authorized to do so by its governing body. <br />17 West Creek's fourth cross assignment of error is denied. <br />18 WEST CREED'S FIFTH CROSS ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />19 EC 9.8325(3) requires the proposed PUD to provide a "buffer area between the <br />20 proposed development and surrounding properties by providing at least a 30 foot wide <br />21 landscape area along the perimeter of the PUD * * West Creels proposed to place a fence <br />22 along the perimeter of the PUD so that the landscape buffer will be enclosed within the fence. <br />to resolve disputes regarding the content of the record, requests for stays, attorney fees, or <br />actual damages under ORS 197.845." <br />Page 25 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.