Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

Eugene Planning Commission December 16, 2015 Page 11 Precautionary Issue 4. Although the Hearings Official did not address this issue, it would be error for the City to direct the applicant to the Needed Housing Partition process as an alternative approach to developing this project. That approach, although it would not invoke the 19 Lot Rule, would unreasonably delay and increase the cost of needed housing, contrary to ORS 197.307(4). It was the staffs theory, raised in its Staff Hearing Memo, and elaborated upon in its Staff Post- Hearing Memo, that it is OK to deny under the 19 Lot Rule because this applicant could get to the same development approval through five discrete partition applications and approvals under the Needed Housing Partition process. The Hearings Official declined to address this issue. "The fact that the applicant can potentially develop through partitions or the discretionary PUD track are not relevant to the findings set out below." Decision at 5. Neither should the Commission address this issue. This theory is not an escape hatch for the Commission to apply the 19 Lot Rule when that rule is contrary to state law. The applicant explained that forcing the applicant into five discrete applications for minor partitions would greatly increase the cost of delivering housing and also greatly delay its delivery. The added costs and delay would not be reasonable. This is prohibited by the Needed Housing Statute. See the discussion in our Final Argument at pages 14-18 discussing this issue in detail. Sincerely, Va 5140" Bill Kloos Incl: Applicant's Final Argument to Hearings Official (Nov. 23, 2015) Group B LLC v. City of Corvallis - Or LUBA - (Aug. 25, 2015)