Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

I under the clear and objective 1981 DDP was thus an available option for 2 purposes of ORS 197.307(6). We reject the argument. As discussed, 3 Condition 12, the most salient aspect of the 1981 DDP, is ambiguous regarding 4 whether the area of Tract B is developable at all, and is thus not a clear and 5 objective standard or condition. Moreover, even if Condition 12 or the 1981 6 DDP explicitly and unambiguously prohibited any building in the area now 7 comprising Tract B, we do not see that the 1981 DDP would constitute a "clear 8 and objective" alternative "approval process" for needed housing within the 9 meaning of ORS 197.307(6). Because the city has identified no clear and 10 objective approval process for needed housing on Tract B that an applicant 11 could choose, the city cannot rely on ORS 197.307(6) to authorize imposition 12 of the subjective standards for modifying the DDP at LDC 2.5.40.04. 13 The city also suggests that petitioner is bound by the choices of its 14 predecessor-in-interest in 1981, who chose to seek rezoning to PD (RS-12) and 15 development of the eastern third of the parent parcel under the planned 16 development process, in order to develop The Regent facility. Because the 17 predecessor-in-interest chose to take advantage of the flexibility offered by the 18 planned development process rather than pursue other options to develop The 19 Regent facility, the city argues that it is consistent with ORS 197.307(4) and 20 (6) to require petitioner to modify the 1981 DDP pursuant to the subjective 21 criteria at LDC 2.5.40.04. 22 We disagree with the city. We might agree with the city if the 1981 DDP 23 proposal had involved needed housing, and the applicant chose the Planned 24 Development process to gain approval of that needed housing, in lieu of a clear 25 and objective path to develop needed housing. Even though ORS 197.307(6) 26 had not yet been adopted in 1981, we see no reason why the two-track Page 13