Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

Eugene Planning Commission December 16, 2015 Page 8 For purposes of applying this statute, the question is whether the 19 Lot Rule is susceptible to alternative interpretations, including one that would approve the use and one that would deny the use. The issue under the statute is not about the right interpretation. As discussed in the first assignment, we have that situation here. One interpretation is the "get out" interpretation, and the other is the "go around" interpretation. We think the "get out" meaning is right, but both are plausible. Both being plausible, however, is fatal to applying the standard at all, because it is not clear and objective. The Group B decision from Corvallis is the most recent example of how this works. It is discussed more fully in the Final Argument, at pages 8-9, 11, 13. The essentials, however, are that a relevant standard there was ambiguous and could be interpreted to either allow or disallow the project. LUBA held, therefore, that it could not be applied at all. LUBA said: However, because the proposal is needed housing located on inventoried buildable lands, ORS 197.307(4) prohibits the city from applying any unclear or subjective standards or conditions to approve or deny the proposed needed housing. [Group B at 15] A condition that requires such interpretation, to determine whether proposed needed housing is allowed at all, is not a "clear and objective" standard or condition within the meaning of ORS 197.307(4)." [Group B at 11 line 10] The city council found that Condition 12 is an approval standard for the proposed development, and that the applicant must either satisfy Condition 12 or demonstrate that a modification of Condition 12 is warranted under the compatibility standards at LDC 2.5.40.04. [Group B at 9 line 9] Petitioner argues that Condition 12 is not a "clear and objective" standard or condition within the meaning of ORS 197.307(4). [Group B at 9 line 19] We agree with petitioner that Condition 12 is ambiguous and requires interpretation as applied to the proposed development. Condition 12 unambiguously prohibits the location of The Regent building within 135 feet of the south property line of what is now Tract B. However, Condition 12 is ambiguous regarding whether other development is similarly precluded within the area that is now Tract B. [Group B at 10-11]