Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

I Condition 12. Petitioner argues that because Condition 12 is ambiguous on 2 that point, and requires interpretation to apply it as the city has in the present 3 case, the condition is not "clear and objective" and therefore cannot be applied 4 as a basis to deny the proposed needed housing. 5 The city responds that the city council correctly interpreted Condition 12 6 to impose a setback area between The Regent building and the south property 7 line of what is now Tract B, which effectively limits future use of Tract B to a 8 buffer area, and therefore precludes construction of the proposed apartment 9 building. The city argues that, under the city council's interpretation of 10 Condition 12, approval and construction of the proposed apartment building 11 would necessarily require a modification of Condition 12 and the 1981 DDP, or 12 a nullification of the 1981 DDP as it applies to Tract B. 13 ORS 197.307(4) mandates that local governments apply only clear and 14 objective "conditions" to needed housing on buildable land. The statute does 15 not limit the scope of "conditions" to conditions that are imposed in the 16 decision that approves needed housing. Neither does the statute exempt 17 conditions that are imposed by earlier land use approvals that do not approve 18 needed housing, such as the 1981 DDP. In addition, the city council 19 interpreted the city development code to the effect that Condition 12 20 constitutes not only a condition, but an approval "standard." ORS 197.307(4) 21 therefore governs the city's application of Condition 12, either as a condition 22 or as an approval standard. Consequently, the city may apply Condition 12 to 23 approve or deny the proposed needed housing only if and to the extent that 24 Condition 12 is "clear and objective." 25 We agree with petitioner that Condition 12 is ambiguous and requires 26 interpretation as applied to the proposed development. Condition 12 Page 10