Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

official or historic review board according to the appeal review authority specified in Table 9.7055 Applications and Review Authorities by the following (f) A person adversely affected or aggrieved by the initial decision, can file an appeal (2) The appeal shall be submitted on a form approved by the city manager and accompanied by a fee established pursuant to EC Chapter 2. The appeal of a Type II decision shall be a de novo review at which new evidence may be presented. (3) The appeal shall include a statement of issues on appeal and be limited to the issues raised in the appeal. The appeal statement shall explain specifically how the planning director's decision is inconsistent with applicable criteria. (Section 9.7605, see chart at front of Chapter 9 for legislative history from 2/26/01 through 6/l/02.) Statement of Issues This appeal relates to the Phases 2, 3,4, 7, & 8 Modified PUD Phasing Plan [Excerpted] East Ridge PUD Modification Eugene Tax Lot 3100 Oregon Lane County Tax Map 18-03-03-33. Appellant has a pending appeal against the City of Eugene and the siting council members individually before the United State Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, in Case 16-35827 Mary Benafel v. United States at al. pending before court. Pursuant to EC 9.7605 (1)(f) Any person who is adversely affected or aggrieved by this decision, or who is mailed this written notice, may appeal the decision. Additionally, Appellant's pending appeal against the City of Eugene constituted notice in this project's original application. Issues to be resolved: 1. Does the City of Eugene and other third parties authorized by the City of Eugene have any rights to prescriptive easements over property where such State sovereign rights have been extinguished by the Land Patents? Does the City of Eugene and other third parties authorized by the City of Eugene owe Appellant [compensation] patent royalties and indemnification from personal liability for the taking of her property through such prescriptive easements? [See attachment A] 2. Does the City of Eugene have any jurisdictional authority over Appellant's property since the affected property portion of two land patents perfected under an act of Congress in 1850 proceeded before when Eugene incorporated as a City in 1862? The controversy in this case surrounds Appellant's title to a percentage of patent grant by United States to the Appellant as one of those designated on the patent as one of the "assigns forever" under the a title by United States patent under the Oregon Donation Land Law, so called, being the act of Congress, September 27, 1850 that extinguished any prescriptive easements by the City of Eugene or other third parties on Appellant's property located at 2696 Moon Mountain Drive in the City of Eugene Oregon forever. [See Attachment B] 3. The controversy in this case infringement on a title traceable to a United States patent under the Oregon Donation Land Law, being the act of Congress, September 27, 1850, before the City of Eugene incorporated. Does the City of Eugene subdivision maps comport with the requirements of the September 27, 1850 act of Congress? Are the property lines clearly defined as required by that act so that the City of Eugene can certify that Appellant's property are not being infringed on by the City or other incidental third parties? 4. Appellant is in the understanding and belief that only the laws of the United States apply to her land due to the United States land patent to which title can be traced. Does the City of Eugene have to comport with the laws of the United States; including the Endanger Species Act to protect the habitat of rare threatened and endangered species e.g. the Oregon Spotted frog as listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Services? [See Attachment C]. Appellant respectfully request the City of Eugene grant a fee waiver for this appeal based on Appellant's long term membership in a community group known as Californians for Renewable Energy, Inc. (CARE). Under CARE's Articles of Incorporation as a 501 (c)(3) non-profit corporation it is established for the purposes of appearing before administrative bodies in behalf of its members and community groups specifically. A copy of CARE's Bylaws is included. [See attachment D] On Issue I the photos in Attachment A shows [in order of the pictures] the purported property line marker for Appellant's property as taken from the City's prescriptive easement on Appellant's property know as Moon Mountain Court. The second photo shows the City's prescriptive easement on Appellant's property in concert with Williams NW for a pig launcher and natural gas pipeline without indemnification nor compensation or royalties paid by either party to the Appellant. The third photo shows Appellant's residence. The fourth photo