Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

Eugene Planning Commission December 16, 2015 Page 10 Issue 3: The 30' Landscape Buffer under State Law: The Hearings Official erred in applying this standard at all. He interpreted the standard to include an exception as to where the buffer applies when the plain language does not allow any interpretation. His rationale is unexplained. He should have declined to apply the standard in its entirety because, if applied according to its plain terms, it would not allow any development, contrary to the Needed Housing Statute. The 30'Buffer Rule is: EC 9.8325(3): The PUD provides a buffer area between the proposed development and surrounding properties by providing at least a 30 foot wide landscape area along the perimeter of the PUD according to EC 9.6210(7). The Hearings Official was comfortable reading this standard to except out roads from "surrounding properties." He explicitly declined to address our argument that this standard is clear and objective and does not allow interpretation to except out roads. See Decision at page Please see applicant's argument on this issue that the Hearings Official ignored. Final Argument at pages 18-20. That also explains why the 30' buffer is so troublesome for development. To summarize our argument about this standard: 1. The plain language of this standard requires a landscape buffer around the entire perimeter. That would prohibit development. 2. A standard that is a prohibition on development, in the guise of a standard like this one, is contrary to the statute, which requires the City to allow development under clear and objective standards, not prohibit it. LUBA struck down a storm water standard in this code for the same reason in 2002 in the Home Builders decision. See our Final Argument at pages 12-13. 3. The staff rejected applying the 30' Buffer Rule according to its plain terms because they say it would be an "absurd" reading of the Rule. LUBA and the courts will not let the City use an "absurd results" theory to change the meaning of the 30' Buffer Rule. That is a highly disfavored approach; furthermore, the "absurd results" theory is only to be used in the last stage of statutory construction when trying to identify which of multiple interpretations is more plausible after review of the text and context of a provision. See, e.g., Southwood Homeowners v. City Council ofPhilomath, 106 Or App 21, 24, 806 P2d 162 (1991). The correct approach is to do what LUBA did with the storm water standard in Home Builders - recognize that the plain language is a prohibition of development in the guise of a clear and objective standard, and, therefore, decline to apply it, based on the Needed Housing Statute.