My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
HO Remand – Open Record Period ending 9-28-16
>
OnTrack
>
Z
>
2015
>
Z 15-5
>
HO Remand – Open Record Period ending 9-28-16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/30/2016 4:01:33 PM
Creation date
9/29/2016 11:09:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
Z
File Year
15
File Sequence Number
5
Application Name
LAUREL RIDGE
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
9/29/2016
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Sean T. Malone <br />Attorney at Law <br />259 E. Fifth Ave., <br />Suite 200-G <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Tel. (303) 859-0403 <br />Fax (650) 471-7366 <br />seanmalone8@hotmail.com <br />September 28, 2016 <br />Via Hand Delivery <br />Eugene Hearings Official <br />Harris Hall - Lane County Public Service Building <br />125 East 8th Avenue <br />Eugene OR 97401 <br />Re: Testimony re remand in LUBA No. 2015-092 and -091 <br />On behalf of Laurel Hill Valley Citizens (LHVC), please accept this post-hearing <br />testimony regarding the sole issue on remand, which is to identify the most accurate <br />location of the line separating the plan designations. The goal is accuracy, not perfection. <br />The testimony submitted by Schirmer Satre, the applicant's consultant (the <br />applicant), attempts to re-litigate settled issues, fails to understand LUBA's remand, and <br />contains inaccurate maps that do not respond to LUBA's remand. The most accurate <br />maps that have been submitted to the Hearings Official are maps 9/2/15-01 through -05, <br />as well as those maps submitted by Mr. Gunnar Schlieder on this day. <br />The applicant is incorrect to continue to allege that LHVC map 9/2/15-04 is based on the <br />electronic version <br />First, the applicant argues that LHVC map 9/2/15-04 is an "enlargement of a <br />digital Metro Plan diagram." This is simply incorrect and LUBA acknowledged as much <br />in its opinion. Indeed, this was the basis for LHVC's first sub-assignment of error, which <br />was sustained. Furthermore, staff testified at the hearing that LHVC received a high <br />resolution scan of the paper copy of the Metro Plan Diagram. Regardless of the <br />applicant's misrepresentation or mistake, LUBA noted in their opinion that no one could <br />identify any actual difference between the electronic version of the Metro Plan Diagram <br />and the paper version of the Metro Plan Diagram: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.