My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUBLIC COMMENT - DAN TERRELL & BILL KLOOS ON BEHALF OF HBA (1-4-17)
>
OnTrack
>
CA
>
2017
>
CA 17-1
>
PUBLIC COMMENT - DAN TERRELL & BILL KLOOS ON BEHALF OF HBA (1-4-17)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2017 1:48:08 PM
Creation date
2/7/2017 10:47:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
CA
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
UGB ADOPTION PACKAGE
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
1/4/2017
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
331
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
I needs cannot reasonably be accommodated on land already <br />2 inside the urban growth boundary." 16 <br />3 The Court of Appeals explained that "Factors 1 and 2 necessarily require[] <br />4 differentiation of land use types according to their land consumption <br />5 attributes." 244 Or App at 256. For example, high density residential land <br />6 uses consume less land per living unit than low density residential land uses. <br />7 After the amount of land needed is determined, Step Two requires a <br />8 determination whether higher priority candidate lands are adequate under ORS <br />9 197.298. Only if higher priority lands are "inadequate," may lower priority <br />10 candidate lands be included in the UGB to meet identified land needs. 17 The <br />11 adequacy inquiry under Step Two has both a straightforward quantitative part <br />12 (whether there are enough acres of the higher priority land to meet the <br />16 Goal 14 was amended in 2005 and 2006, and in McMinnville the Court of <br />Appeals was concerned with the pre-2005 version of Goal 14. 244 Or App at <br />243. The 2005 and 2006 amendments merely rearranged the substantive <br />provisions for clarification, with some minor wording changes. No party <br />argues the minor changes in wording are significant in this case, and for <br />purposes of this opinion we assume that they are not. The Goal 14 Factors 1 <br />and 2 in McMinnville are now Goal 14 Land Need Factors 1 and 2 quoted <br />above. The Goal 14 Factors 3, 4, 5 and 7 discussed in McMinnville are now <br />Goal 14 Boundary Location Factors 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. The Goal 14 <br />Factor 6 identified in McMinnville has been eliminated in the current version of <br />Goal 14. It is similar in substance to ORS 197.298(2). See n 15. All citations <br />to Goal 14 Factors in this opinion are to the current Goal 14 Land Need and <br />Boundary Location Factors. <br />17 ORS 197.298(1)(b), (c) and (d) all require a finding that higher priority <br />lands in the previous subsections of ORS 197.298(1) are "inadequate." See n <br />15. <br />Page 21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.