My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Applicant's Final Argument
>
OnTrack
>
Z
>
2015
>
Z 15-5
>
Applicant's Final Argument
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/14/2016 4:00:35 PM
Creation date
10/13/2016 1:03:29 PM
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
10/12/2016
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
Eugene Hearings Official <br />October 12, 2016 <br />Page 2 <br />In Round 2 the City staff supported the metes and bounds line proposed by the applicant. This <br />support continued through the hearing in Round 3. Then, after the close of the hearing, the staff <br />shifted gears a bit, based on its belief that LUBA requires the City to use multiple referents. <br />Staff does not have any special insight into what LUBA required. Neither does the staff have <br />any insight or is due any deference to how the Metro Plan should be read, because the three <br />governing bodies adopted the Diagram and the rules for interpreting the Metro Plan Diagram <br />(most notably that the Diagram is not parcel specific at this location). <br />2. The Scope of LUBA's remand. <br />The Hearings Official was required to show that he "considered" LHVC Sheet 9/2/15-04. <br />"Consider" means to consider, not to be bound by. <br />Decision at 22: <br />In sum, we agree with LHVC that remand is necessary for the planning <br />commission or hearings official to consider Sheet 9/2/15-04 free of the mistaken <br />assumption that it is based on the digital Metro Plan diagram, and adopt any <br />necessary findings based on that consideration. We do not mean to suggest that <br />the city may not choose to consider or to rely on Sheet 9/2/15-04 for other reasons <br />that are explained in its findings on remand. However, the city erred in declining <br />to consider Sheet 9/2/15-04 for the reason cited. <br />As explained below, consideration of Sheet 9/2/15-04 on remand will likely be <br />shaped by our resolution of the third sub-assignment of error, which concerns <br />whether the city must consider additional referents, and which ones, in <br />determining whether the proposed zoning is consistent with the 2004 Metro Plan <br />diagram. <br />The Hearings Official should consider using multiple referents, but he is not required to use <br />multiple referents if it will not result in a more accurate determination of the boundary line. <br />Decision at 28: <br />While Environ-Metal is correct that there is no legal requirement to use multiple <br />referents to answer the question posed by EC 9.8865(1), we generally agree with <br />LHVC that, unless there is some reason to question the accuracy of referents, a <br />multi-referent approach is likely to produce a more accurate and reliable result, <br />compared to the single-referent approach advocated by Environ Metal and <br />accepted by the hearings official. <br />Decision at 30: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.