Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

I The city council rejected that argument, concluding that ORS 92.040(2) 2 did not preclude the city from applying post-2006 approval standards to the 3 proposed construction on Tract B.5 4 On appeal, petitioner argues, and we agree, that the city erred in applying 5 LDC 3.6.30 and 4.10.60.01.b to deny the proposed development of Tract B. As 6 the Court of Appeals has explained, ORS 92.040(2) is intended "to ensure that 7 the local government laws on which subdivision applications were predicated 8 would be applied to subsequent development on subdivision lots unless 9 developers elected otherwise." Athletic Club of Bend, Inc. v. City of Bend, 239 subsequent construction on the property unless the applicant elects otherwise. "(3) A local government may establish a time period during which decisions on land use applications under subsection (2) of this section apply. However, in no event shall the time period exceed 10 years, whether or not a time period is established by the local government." 5 The city council findings state, in relevant part: * * [T]he City Council finds that ORS 92.040 does not apply in this case because the applicant in [the 2006 subdivision] did not propose development on the subject site within the general design of the proposed development, the tentative plat decision did not create a `lot' on the subject site and the approval of the subdivision did not therefore include consideration of development-related criteria on the site, traffic impacts associated with development, or any other applicable criteria. The Council finds the labeling of the subject site as a `tract' to be consistent with the owner's express intent not to develop the site as part of the subdivision, but at a later time, as may be approved consistent with the standards and conditions of the Planned Development overlay or as a modification to the Planned Development * * Record 12. Page 20