Appeal Staff Report - Laserfiche WebLink

property based on the record of information he had before him. Staff's findings in the initial staff report, which he agreed with, stated the following: "The proposal does not include any new streets within the PUD, and the unimproved segment of West Amazon Drive to the north precludes its use for dispersal of motor vehicle traffic onto more than one public local street..... Their application materials do not address the fact that motor vehicles cannot actually use this unimproved right-of-way as a means of secondary access, and the reality that there is only one way in or out, where West Amazon Drive connects to Fox Hollow Road" (Chamotee Trails PUD Staff Report, page 9). An illustration of the above discussion is presented in Attachment D, which shows the right-of-way and approximate location of the dead end to the east of the subject property. The appellant also argues that the unimproved section of West Amazon Drive, whether or not paved and accessible, meets the definition of a "street" and should therefore be considered as an additional connection serving the proposed PUD. The Hearings Official agreed with staff (and disagreed with the appellant) in that "streets", in the context of the 19-Lot Rule, must be passable and have the ability to accommodate vehicle traffic. Finally, the following statement from the appellant should be noted before moving on to Assignment of Error #2: "If the Commission agrees with the applicant's reading of the 19 Lot Rule then it need not address Issue 2 below." 2. Second Assignment of Error: The 19 Lot Rule under State Law: The Hearings Official erred in finding, at pages 14-15, that the 19 Lot Rule is a clear and objective standard because "disperse" has a plain meaning. The standard is ambiguous because "disperse" is not defined. There are at least two possible interpretations - one that the application would comply with, and one that it would not. The Needed Housing Statute prohibits applying standards that are not clear and objective. Therefore, the 19 Lot Rule may not be applied. Summary: As discussed above, the appellant believes that the word "disperse," in the context of the land use code, can be interpreted in multiple ways and therefore means the 19-Lot Rule is not clear and objective and cannot be applied. HO Decision: The HO stated "It is also my conclusion that the necessity to determine the plain meaning of words such as 'disperse' or 'motor vehicle traffic' does not transform the clear and objective standard into a discretionary exercise" (HO Decision, pages 14-15). The HO further states: "Although Mr. Kloos offers the '1a' part of the Webster's definition in his argument, there is a second part to the primary definition that has been left out. That part is '1b' which states: 'to cause to become spread widely.' Taking this part of the definition of 'disperse' into account contradicts the argument that it is enough that traffic can move in both directions along West Page 4 PC Agenda - Page 4