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 Lane study area appeared at some of these events. The majority of <br />2 people from Stallings Lane who appeared expressed objections to <br />3 being included in the proposed UGB expansion. Coburg must plan <br />4 for properties becoming available on a regular basis over time. <br />5 The process will not work if the current property owners, or <br />6 replacement property owners who have purchased an operating <br />7 farm, do not wish to give up that lifestyle for urban residential <br />8 uses. If there is a significant delay in properties in the area <br />9 becoming available then Coburg will not be able to meet its need <br />10 over the next twenty years. If Coburg were to include only the <br />11 properties along Stallings Lane and these properties did not <br />12 become available for years, Coburg would have failed its <br />13 responsibilities to actually provide for reasonable residential <br />14 growth. Given the evidence in the record, Coburg had no choice <br />15 except to consider that these properties would not be available." <br />16 Record 748 (footnote omitted). <br />17 Petitioners contend that if property owner opposition to urbanization is <br />18 sufficient to render candidate exception lands "inadequate" under ORS <br />19 197.298(1), the ORS 197.298 priority scheme will not work as the legislature <br />20 intended. Presumably that is because at least some of the residents of rural <br />21 exception lands will always prefer to retain the rural residential nature of their <br />22 properties. Moreover, petitioners argue, the record does not support <br />23 respondents' speculation that property owner opposition will mean that land <br />24 will not be redeveloped to meet higher density residential land needs if the land <br />25 is brought into the UGB. Petitioners additionally dispute that the level of <br />26 opposition in Area 5 is as significant as respondents suggest and point out that <br />27 past failures to redevelop lands brought into the UGB are not predictive of the <br />28 future, since the city did not even have a sewer system until a few years ago. <br />29 Finally, the record includes a study that petitioners contend demonstrates that <br />Page 32 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.