Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

I suggest any conditions below that would allow approval of the proposed modification under 2 EC 9.8110(2). 3 While brief; the hearings officer's findings adequately explain the basis for denial. The 4 hearings officer apparently believed that the. proposed modification--to allow unspecified future 5 development in Zone 6 to use roads and utilities within the remaining CUP site-could impact 6 surrounding uses or the use of the site, and faulted petitioners for failing to present any evaluation or 7 evidence regarding potential impacts. Petitioners took the position below that the proposed 8 modification itself causes no impacts, and any impacts related to use of roads and utilities by future 9 development in Zone 6 are too speculative to evaluate. The hearings officer clearly disagreed with 10 that position, and viewed EC 9.8110(2) as requiring at least some evidence and evaluation 11 regarding the potential impacts of allowing future development in Zone 6 to use roads and utilities in 12 the CUP area. Petitioners have not demonstrated that the hearings officer erred in so viewing 13 EC 9.8110(2) or in rejecting the proposed modification for failure to provide the required evidence 14 and evaluation. 15 With respect to ORS 197.522, even assuming that statute is applicable in the present 16 instance, as we explained in Oien v. City of Beaverton, _ Or LUBA - (LUBA Nos. 2002- 17 075/076, December 30, 2003, slip op 16-17), the applicant, and not the local govemment, has the 18 obligation under that statute to identify and propose "reasonable conditions" that might allow 19 approval. Here, petitioners did not identify or propose any conditions that would allow the city to 20 find that the proposed modification complies with EC 9.8110(2). The hearings officer was under no 21 obligation to attempt to craft such conditions on her own. 22 The second and third assignments of error are denied. 23 The city's decision is affirmed. Page 16